The ridiculousness waste of resources continues …

[fosborn]

Beware. Particle Physicists are thinking about wasting a whole lot more of your money. Look what one of them wants to build ...

https://gizmodo.com/collider-in-the-sea ... 2000508442

Is one of the elephants in the room, the repeatability of giant collider experiments?
. Maybe it's cheaper to retract all the published material that can't be independently tested?

AI Overview...
The reproducibility crisis, also known as the replication crisis, is a problem in which many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. This undermines the credibility of scientific findings and the scientific method itself.
Some reasons for the reproducibility crisis include:
Inappropriate practices
These include HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known), p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results.
Lack of raw data
Researchers may not provide raw data, which makes it difficult to confirm that the results are based on actual data.
Publication bias
Systematic reviews can reveal that only positive studies are getting published, while negative findings are being left out.
Lack of regulations
There may not be enough regulations and checks to ensure that studies are reproducible.
The reproducibility crisis affects many fields, including social sciences and biomedical research. For example, in a 2016 survey, 70% of researchers reported that they had tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.
To address the reproducibility crisis, some suggest that researchers should be more careful when drawing strong conclusions. Others suggest that there should be independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper's central hypothesis before publication.
Replication crisis - Wikipedia
Replication crisis/Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Replication_crisis
The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce.
.

I edited the bold type and underlined sentences.

[BeAChooser]

https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/on-t ... -explained

Europe's physics lab CERN is planning to build a particle-smasher even bigger than its Large Hadron Collider to continue searching for answers to some of the universe's tiniest yet most profound mysteries.

The Future Circular Collider (FCC) has not yet received a political green light or funding. Even if approved, the vast project would not start operations until the 2040s — or be completed until the end of the century.

CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which famously discovered the "God particle" Higgs boson and is currently the world's powerful particle accelerator, is expected to have run its course by the 2040s.

… snip …

The future collider would be more than three times this size, stretching around 91 kilometers, also under the two countries.

… snip …

A feasibility study is under way for the FCC, which CERN estimated earlier this year will cost around $17 billion (P973 billion).

OK ... here's question: What has the LHC accomplished? How has it benefited all those who paid for it? Can they name, for example, any device, procedure or invention benefiting us that was created using the physics the LHC discovered? What about the number one discovery that the LHC always boast about … the Higgs Boson? Forbes Magazine asked the question in 2012 “How much does it cost to find a Higgs Boson?”? Their answer was over $13 billion dollars ($20 billion today). Now you’d think that if there were any tangible benefits to taxpayers derived from CERNs activities, they'd be able to point to something from their primary boast, the LHC. Especially if they’re now trying to sell a bigger, better … much more expensive … accelerator. But here’s what CERN's website says about that …

https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson/why

How does the Higgs boson impact everyday life?

On the surface, it may seem that the Higgs boson does not affect everyday life. Not directly, anyway: it is a short-lived particle that does not make up the matter we are made of and interact with, and can only be observed in the extreme conditions created in particle accelerators.

Hmmmm. That doesn’t sound encouraging and indeed the article next blathers about how “curiosity has fueled the advancement of science” and how that has revolutionized everyday life. Well that's true, but how has the LHC and in particular, the Higgs Boson, revolutionized our lives? And here's what CERN says next ...

because of the nature of science, we do not know to what extent discoveries made now will impact our future. In other words, it may only be a matter of time before the Higgs boson directly influences society.

In other words, they're admitting that the Higgs Boson hasn't benefited us so far. But obviously they want to keep us shelling out money, so CERN lists the World Wide Web (which they claim to have invented) and the advancement of touchscreen technology when they created a simple interface to one of their accelerators as accomplishments affecting everyday life as benefits we've gotten from supporting their work. But those accomplishments had nothing to do with any physics discovered by their accelerators and any big project might have led to them. Plus, they all occurred long before the LHC came along. So as far as Higgs Boson is concerned ... it's strike two.

But not giving up, CERN next boasts about their role in the development of PET scans, radiation monitoring, and protecting cultural heritage with particle physics detectors. But again, PET scans were invented in the 70’s, long before the LHC, and the other two relatively minor accomplishments were derived without the aid of the LHC too. Obviously they know that so the article concludes by saying there are plenty more benefits … that

new technologies are continuously being developed from particle accelerators such as the LHC, despite their primary goal of searching for particles like the Higgs boson. These all have benefits to many different areas of society and will only continue expanding as research advances.

But if the LHC had actually discovered any of them, don’t you think they would just have said so in this article instead of waving hands? In short, the LHC has made a lot of scientists and equipment manufacturers wealthy, and given supportive mainstream and science/technology media something to write about and make money with, but it hasn't accomplished anything tangible for those who paid the enormous prices for it and it’s studies. And if the best CERN can come up with is to claim it’s “only a matter time” before a use can be found for the Higgs Boson, then that’s CERN’s way of admitting they can’t say when that will be and their webpage is just hopium filled propaganda to keep the money flowing to them … to keep them employed. And I think that's the SOLE purpose of the FCC as well ... to keep them and their business associates lucratively employed for many more decades to come ... ON OUR DIME.

When are taxpayers going to turn off the spiget giving away their hard earned income to grifters in this and so many other areas?

Just saying …

[BeAChooser]

https://cacm.acm.org/news/exascale-supe ... rk-energy/

U.S. National Laboratories (Argonne, Lawrence Livermore, and Oak Ridge) possess three of the world’s fastest exascale supercomputers (as of the November 2024 Top500 ranking), which are capable of performing one quintillion (a billion billion) operations per second. One of the highest priorities (among many) for these supercomputers is mapping and characterizing the 95% of the universe that is unseen but inferred to be there—namely, dark matter (~27%) and dark energy (~68%).

So one of the highest priorities for exascale supercomputer use is looking for gnomes that can only be inferred and whose value (to the people paying for all these machines and research efforts) they’ve been unable to define in ANY tangible way (see my many posts on that)? Seriously?

Can you imagine the cost of all this nonsense to taxpayers? The cost of just building LLNL’s Exascale super computer was $600 million. Oak Ridge’s Frontier exascale supercomputer also cost $600 million. Argonnes’ exascale supercomputer cost $500 million. And the cost of operating these computer is upwards of a $100 million a year EACH. Never mind all the other costs involved in the gnome industry.

If you ask me, the ONLY people benefiting from this government largess are those building the computers, running the computers, managing the gnome studies, employed by the gnome studies, writing speculative gnome study papers, and then publishing countless articles about the gnomes to keep the public shelling out money year after year after year after year ... into eternity. This is such a huge scam that DOGE should investigate, if you ask me.

{Moderator note; POLITICAL COMMENT REMOVED]

[BeAChooser]

Darn. More bad news for mainstream astrophysics …

https://phys.org/news/2025-05-results-h ... -dark.html

Results of the HAYSTAC Phase II search for dark matter axions

… snip …

In a recent paper published in Physical Review Letters, the HAYSTAC collaboration has reported the results of the broadest search for axions performed to date, utilizing a technique known as quantum squeezing, which is designed to reduce quantum noise (i.e., random fluctuations that adversely affect their haloscope's measurements).

… skipping down to the bottom of the article …

While they did not detect any signals that could be linked to axions, the team was able to search a larger parameter space.

If Grok is right, that’s another $2.4 million dollars (at least) down the drain. Does that mean they’re giving up? Don’t be ridiculous …

In the future, they plan to continue improving the HAYSTAC equipment and continue their search for axion dark matter, while also working on other dark matter searches using haloscopes and equipment at Yale.

"We have several ideas on pushing the experiment to search for axions with higher masses, and we are working on several quantum technology-inspired ideas to improve the detection techniques," said Danielle Speller, co-author of the paper.

K'ching K'ching

And when one experiment fails … there are always others …

https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ark-matter

Scientists have tried numerous ways to catch this mysterious form of matter, but it has managed to allude researchers almost every time. However, the latest results from MADMAX (MAgnetized Disc and Mirror Axion eXperiment) suggest we’re closer than ever to detecting dark matter.

Gosh that sounds encouraging!

And what results suggest we’re closer than ever to detecting DM?

Well, later in the article it states …

Although the researchers did not find a signal, they were able to rule out the presence of dark photons in this mass range at an unprecedented level of sensitivity, many many times better than previous efforts at similar frequencies.

So once again, failure is success! 

[BeAChooser]

Mainstream gnomes just get more and more ridiculous ...

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-big-wasnt-black-hole.html

In a new paper, published in Physical Review D, my colleagues and I propose a striking alternative. Our calculations suggest the Big Bang was not the start of everything, but rather the outcome of a gravitational crunch or collapse that formed a very massive black hole—followed by a bounce inside it.

… and more and more USELESS.

Which begs the question ... why are we funding this garbage?

[nick c]

Which begs the question ... why are we funding this garbage?

It is not complicated.

Because politicians, who know absolutely nothing about astronomy or when dealing with any subject, make decisions according to the consensus of the "experts".

If they are funding for advancement of cosmology they would go to the observatories and universities and give money to researchers who inevitably represent the prevailing paradigm. Consequently, your tax dollars go to research on how dark matter affects galactic rotation or whatever else they can do to avoid admitting that electric currents in plasma negate most gravitational effects.

[BeAChooser]

Because politicians, who know absolutely nothing about astronomy or when dealing with any subject, make decisions according to the consensus of the "experts".

Aren't you in essence admitting that the only way to fix the problem is for us to convince the public to stop the politicians from funding these worthless programs? In other words, deal with it politically? Because trying to take the high road and change the consensus from inside the scientific community sure hasn't worked, has it? Just saying ...

[nick c]

Aren't you in essence admitting that the only way to fix the problem is for us to convince the public to stop the politicians from funding these worthless programs? In other words, deal with it politically?

No, just the opposite. It would be irresponsible of any politician to go against the recognized experts on any science based topic. It is a rule of thumb that you always C-Y-A! That is because this is not about what is correct but rather what is the expert consensus. The Peer Review system is the weapon of choice for consensus science. And any politician who goes against that would not survive, or at best they would be thought of as an off beat maverick and largely ignored.

Anyway, why would the majority of the public go against the consensus of experts on science topics? Have you tried to convince the man in the street that the EU is correct? Most do not care or just think it is beyond their pay grade. Look at Sci Fi and all the stories about black holes, warped space-time, dark matter, etc.

The only way to facilitate change is to have mainstream scientists start to question the validity of the gravity only assumption in astronomy/cosmology.
The process of change is very slow and that is mostly because of the Planck Principle: "In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views."

Anyway, it is a sobering thought that the Ptolemaic geocentric solar system model prevailed for almost 900 years, and Copernicus' work was not published until after his death, probably because he feared punishment, as later happened to his follower Giordano Bruno.

That is despite the fact that the heliocentric theory was well known, having been first proposed by Aristarchus of Samos, who wrote a book in 3rd C BC that supported the heliocentric model, and also supported the theory that the Sun was just another star that happened to be close to the Earth. That book is no longer extent but Aristotle and others referred to it and rejected the heliocentric theory. The observational support for heliocentrism was obvious, yet the consensus of the experts was that the Earth was the center. In retrospect, the support for that was not based on science but rather upon philosophical and/or religious beliefs. It all sounds too familiar.

I cannot remember who said it, but I paraphrase: " the enemy is blind, but has the power of his blind grasp."

[BeAChooser]

It would be irresponsible of any politician to go against the recognized experts on any science based topic.

You clearly don’t understand who the Founders put in charge of this country. Not scientists. Not politicians. BUT THE PEOPLE. They didn't want use to elect politicians to be yes-men for mainstream scientists or any group. At least we weren't supposed to do that. Politicians were supposed to do what the people … that’s us … elect them to do. The system was structured to so they'd lose their job if they didn't. If we tell them we don’t want any more money spent on this nonsense, then it's being demonstrated right now in America on many other issues that it's political suicide to ignore the will of the people ... to continue to believe in gnomes. Hence, again, I say the only way to fix the problem with Big Science, and that includes astrophysics, is to convince the public that the mainstream is wasting tax payer dollars. Not the politician's dollars. OUR MONEY.

Now since, obviously (and I noticed you ignored this point entirely), the Electric Universe *experts* haven’t budged the mainstream from their beliefs even after 40 years of criticism and alternative evidence, maybe it’s time to change tactics and go directly to the people who pay the bills. If the EU community doesn’t want to be part of that, maybe it’s time to examine whether they have some vested interest in the status quo, whatever that might be. Maybe we need new people running our side of the show. Just saying …

Have you tried to convince the man in the street that the EU is correct?

Actually I have and I've succeeded when I did, not only with respect to astrophysics, but AGWalarmism, Covid19, particle physics and fusion. A lot of my friends are now questioning what they've been told by the mainstream. When you show the man on the street how much of THEIR money is being wasted, it’s starts to matter to them. Like I’ve said we need a DOGE approach to dealing with Big Science. Otherwise the mainstream will just keep getting deeper into the weeds of mainstream gnomes while the public remains blightly unaware and the EU community foolishly keeps trying to change the mainstream consensus, rather than just defund it and FORCE a reexamination of it's many bogus assumptions. Defunding the mainstream is what's now working to fix climatology. And that finally happened because those challenging the mainstream focused on attacking it POLITICALLY. Up till then, they were getting nowhere.

The only way to facilitate change is to have mainstream scientists start to question the validity of the gravity only assumption in astronomy/cosmology.

NONSENSE. The Climate Change example proves you are wrong. And the truth is that EU’s *experts* have had 50 years to do that … and utterly failed. They have far less influence now than they did back then. NOBODY IS LISTENING ANY MORE ... for all the reasons I’ve pointed out time and time again on this forum. Is the EU community incapable of learning from that experience? If so, then they're as hidebound as the mainstream.

[nick c]

Whether you like it or not people in charge of government consult experts when dealing with science issues, including AGW. That is because the "PEOPLE" trust the experts in fields in which they have no expertise. Their only source is something they saw on NOVA or the Discovery Channel, which by the way was made by consulting the very same "EXPERTS".

Rant all you want, that is not going to change.

Have you tried to convince the man in the street that the EU is correct?

Actually I have and I've succeeded when I did, not only with respect to astrophysics, but AGWalarmism, Covid19, particle physics and fusion. A lot of my friends are now questioning what they've been told by the mainstream. When you show the man on the street how much of THEIR money is being wasted, it’s starts to matter to them.

I have been doing this Catastrophism/EU thing for almost 50 years! I am constantly debating with and conversing with interested people on various EU topics, and have piqued the interest of many people along the way. in fact, my doctor just started reading Earth In Upheaval and found it "amazing".
Everyone in the TB does the same. Between all of us how many have we actually convinced? A hundred? a thousand? ten thousand? a hundred thousand?.....that is good, now there are only 300 million left to convince!!!!!

The only way to advance the movement to where it should be is to infiltrate academia and the peer review system. I suspect that this process has already started. But the Planck Principle works slowly.

Like documentary productions such as this: Breaking The Science Barrier
Which was done independently of the Thunderbolts Project.

Note: this is not the forum for political discussions. I have in private communications referred you to internet forums that are geared to political discussions, if you so desire - go there. So please don't tell me about what the founding fathers intended...because we are not going down that path on this forum.

[nick c]

Your efforts are totally misplaced. The EU is apolitical. It does not matter who is in power, when it comes to policies on the financing of research of the cosmos, the consensus of experts will rule. Politicians have no expertise in the field and defer their judgement on what is to be researched to the experts in the field.

You yourself admit you’ve been at this FIFTY YEARS! You claim you “suspect” the “process has already started”? Why’d it take 50 years to START the process? And where’s your proof it has?

You cannot perceive the process because it is slow, but there are many examples, here are a couple of big ones:

In Earth In Upheaval (1955): the general theme of the book is that geological ages ended due to cosmic catastrophes...and the succeeding environment was radically different and populated by new forms of flora and fauna. The fossil record is what it appears to be...a record of sudden change. From this it was proposed that evolution is not a slow process of an accumulation of minute changes but during catastrophes species were suddenly mutated into new and different forms. The process was described in the section called "Cataclysmic Evolution". in the 1950's the book was completely ignored, after all the author was a mainstream outcast, who proposed that the cosmos was not ruled by gravity but rather by electromagnetism.

In the ensuing years two remarkable and radical (to consensus science) theories usurped the above ideas.

1. In 1972 Stephen Jay Gould proposed (Punctuated Equilibrium) that evolution proceeds by sudden leaps between periods of slow or no change.

2. In 1980 Walter and Luis Alvarez put forth the astounding proposition that the dinosaurs became extinct due to a cosmic catastrophe. They won a Nobel Prize.

Neither of the above scientists credited Velikovsky. In fact Gould was a harsh critic. Both these theories have mainstream support today.

There are already cracks in the Dark Matter/Big Bang cosmology which have been documented in TPOD's and Holoscience articles. But I don't expect radical change, that is not how it works. Certainly, there are young astronomers who secretly have a well worn copy of "Seeing Red" by Arp, in their personal library. Are they going to risk their careers by openly supporting those ideas? For every one that does, there are a hundred who will remain silent. Careers and reputation are at stake. Look what happened to Arp. He had a nice career as a Palomar astronomer and a colleague of Hubble, and had his reputation mostly destroyed.

Once, I was on a Caribbean island. It was early in the morning and I was watching a giant supertanker several miles out in the open ocean. The tanker was in the process of a 180 degree turn around (I don't know why). As I looked through my binoculars it was amazing how long it took for this ponderous ship to reverse its direction. I wish I had timed it, but it must have been at least a half hour.

Change in academia is slow. Earlier I posted on how Ptolemaic System persisted for hundreds of years despite evidence to the contrary. Hopefully, things have sped up due to the technology of communications, but don't hold your breath.

My advice is to pursue the truth and not worry about what other people think! Go where the evidence takes you.

[BeAChooser]

Wow!

So censorship of my last two posts is your response to my proving your statements false in a completely civil manner, nick?

That's about as low as a forum moderator can get ... censoring a poster because they don't like being proven wrong.

I'll again note that it was YOU who introduced politics into the discussion we're having, not me. Mentioning politics can be the only legitimate, forum rule-based, reason you deleted my last two posts, but in that case, why didn't you also delete your own posts which mention politicians and defended what I proved in my deleted posts to be the false notion that politicians will only do what consensus experts say? Hmmmmm? I see a certain inconsistency on your part here, nick, and inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, to quote Emerson. Just saying ...

[nick c]

I have no problem with your rebuttal to my posts.
I do have a problem with large portions of that response being statements directly referring to today's political situations.
Feel free to repost your criticisms WITHOUT POLITICAL COMMENTARY!

If you wish to participate in political discussions there are many forums online that are for debate of political issues This forum is not in that category!.
For example:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php

Any further political campaigning on your part will be considered as a direct defiance of the forum rules!

YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

[BeAChooser]

I have no problem with your rebuttal to my posts.
I do have a problem with large portions of that response being statements directly referring to today's political situations.

LIAR. I didn't refer to "today's political situation". I made no mention of the insurrection that's now taking place across the country. And it was you who first introduced politics into this exchange. I also didn't get any negative comments from anyone but you to any of my posts. Or messages. Which might be an indication that no-one is actually bothered by what I posted. even paying attention to what's posted on this forum any more.

What I actually did was prove in the posts you deleted that your claim that politicians will only listen to experts is outright FALSE. And you didn't like that. I proved that by showing an example where non-experts, who listen to non-mainstream scientists, elected a politician who is now clearly changing the direction that two Big Science programs are going ... specifically AGWalarmism and Medical Research.

In fact, what I showed in the posts you deleted is that EVERY claim you've made is questionable, including your assertion that the Ptolemaic System example proves it will take a LONG time to change Astrophysics science. I joined the forum thinking that one would be able to freely discuss EU (and EU is more than just talking about Catastrophism) ... and how we can challenge the mainstream consensus more effectively than it has been (which, for all intents is purposes, has been not at all so far). But you and, you claim, the forum owners don't want that topic discussed.

For some reason, you're content to remain a backwater with NO contribution to changing the consensus at all. Your only suggestion now is to be *patient* ... for another 70 or 100 or perhaps 150 years, while science works like it did in the days of Galileo and Copernicus! That's amazing when the examples I gave you prove that change could come in as little as one election, IF we could convince a winning politician to defund the current mainstream investigations into what are clearly astrophysics gnomes because they are doing nothing but wasting LOTS of taxpayer money and promising no benefits in return to taxpayers. I think the examples I gave show that argument would work.

YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

You folks might as well stick your head in the sand for all the good you're doing. Just saying.

[nick c]

Just for the record. BeAChooser called me a liar for accusing him of making a political post.
Here is the offending excerpt from the post in question.

That's not true. Trump's election has already proven that wrong. NASA is no longer in the business of supporting the AGWalarmist meme, for example, despite the so-called *consensus*. Nor is NASA promoting DEI now. Nor is the CDC continuing to push the COVID lies on the public. In fact I heard today that the the entire CDC Vaccine Advisory board was fired. Those are two Big Science disciplines where, as I noted, ordinary people like us look at what the non-mainstream side of the argument was saying, decided the mainstream was wrong, and then elected Trump to defund those efforts.

If that is not political, I do not know what is!

BeAChooser has received numerous warnings over the years for blatant political commentary. I have warned BAC many times, and apparently BAC has no intention of conforming to forum rules.
i have suspended BAC for 1 week, and there will be no return unless after the week, there is a PM sent to me declaring that BAC will from now on follow forum rules, otherwise the ban will be permanent.
Also, this thread is locked.