Astronomy and astrology have identical scientific value in the lab: None!

[Michael Mozina]

It's really quite sad, but the harsh reality is that in terms of useful empirical value in laboratory experimentation, the big bang cosmology model and astrology have *exactly* the same predictive value, specifically none at all.

The vast majority of the LCDM model is based upon a "made up" and complete metaphysical concept called "dark energy". No astronomer can explain where dark energy comes from. They have no clue how dark energy could possibly retain a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, in direct violation of the conservation laws of energy. They can't explain any empirical method of controlling it in an actual laboratory experiment. Nothing, and no consumer product runs on 'dark energy', in spite of it supposedly being the *single most common* type of energy in the LCDM universe. It's a completely and totally *useless* concept *other than* to save one otherwise falsified concept of photon redshift from falsification, and to prop up an otherwise useless expansion based cosmology model.

Even worse, the whole concept of "space expansion" is a completely contrived and "made up" concept which *by definition* cannot and does not occur anywhere on Earth, anywhere inside of our solar system, anywhere inside our galaxy, or anywhere that humans are ever likely to travel. It has *zero* predictive usefulness in the lab, just like "dark energy". So essentially the two cornerstones of the big bang model, space expansion and dark energy have *no* predictive value whatsoever in any lab experiment, past present or future, none!

But the worst part of all, is that *even with* over 95 percent metaphysics, the whole big bang model is *incapable* of correctly "predicting" anything observed at high redshifts. Distant galaxies are far more "mature" than expansion models "predicted". Distant quasars completely defy the concept of galaxy evolution over time. No predicted "first generation" stars can be observed at high redshift. Nothing found in the distant universe jives with the concept of stellar or galaxy evolution. Nothing!

And to add insult to scientific injury, the big bang model remains *self conflicted* to this very day with respect to it's own "Hubble constant" figure. SN1A interpretations of expansion simply do not and will not produce the same Hubble constant figure as data sets related to Planck. There's a *five sigma* self conflict within the model itself, which would typically be a *death blow* to any other scientific model or theory.

But all that is just the start of the various major scientific and mathematical problems with the big bang model. Inflation is yet another completely contrived and made up concept that comes directly from the overactive imagination of a single man, specifically Alan Guth. His original model of inflation was *falsified*. Worse yet, the "evidence" which it's proponents use to support inflation are utterly absurd and irrational. Guth claimed that inflation explained why the universe is"flat", but Roger Penrose has since demonstrated mathematically that it's actually 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat" universe will form *with* inflation rather than without it, 10 the 100th power! Think about that for a moment. That's far worse odds than the odds of winning the lottery, and yet that is the *cornerstone* of the whole inflation concept in terms of the "evidence" that is used to support it! The other so called primary "evidence" used to support inflation is the fact that monopoles have not been found. That's like claiming that the the lack of unicorns found to exist in nature is "evidence" of creationism! There's simply no logical scientific reason to 'explain" the *lack* of something existing in nature, no scientific reason whatsoever. Those are the *two most important* pieces of "evidence" which are cited to supposedly support inflation, and neither one of them holds up to mathematical or logical scrutiny.

Then of course there's the concept of exotic forms of "dark matter" and non standard particle physics models. For *decades* now, dark matter models have failed 'test' after "test", after countless "test", at LHC, Xenon-1T, PandaX, etc. Here's a quick list of various experiments which have all failed miserably to provide any tangible physical evidence to support exotic particle physics models:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... ter_search

We've now spent *tens of billions* (with a B) of dollars supposedly "testing" both the standard particle physics model and exotic non-standard models of dark matter, and in each and every instance, the *standard* model has passed every possible conceivable 'test' to date, whereas exotic matter models have failed each and every single one of those supposed "tests".

There's no way to falsify the LCDM model or even the dark matter subset of the LCDM model because no "test' is ever used to falsify it, and there's no possible way to remove every possible "gap" which someone might dream up.

Most of the remaining 'math" related to mainstream plasma physics models are based on the concept of "magnetic reconnection", a concept that was described as "pseudoscience" by the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory, and a concept that is *physically incapable* of producing something as simple and basic as a simulation of a *sustained* planetary aurora, or a sustained full sphere corona in a real lab experiment, in spite of the fact that circuit theory has been used to simulate these phenomenon in a lab for more than a full century!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Not a single part of mainstream astronomy has any useful value in the lab, not one.

So essentially the laboratory usefulness of mainstream astronomy and astrology are *absolutely identical*. Neither of them produces any tangible physical positive lab results. Neither of them has any useful value in the lab *at all* in fact. Neither of them has predictive usefulness as it relates to high redshift events in space. In fact, the *failure* of expansion models to predict new observations is exactly how we ended up with "dark energy" in the first place, specifically because the expansion interpretation of redshift originally "predicted" an expansion process which *slowed down* over time due to gravitation attraction. Even *with* the addition of dark energy, the expansion model is *still* internally self conflicted and fails to produce the same results in Planck data sets, or correctly predict the results of Planck data sets, so adding "dark energy" didn't improve the "predictive usefulness" of the expansion model one single bit!

It's rather a sad commentary that astronomy and astrology have exactly the same predictive value in the lab, specifically *none whatsoever*.

On the other had, as the link above demonstrates, *empirical* explanations of our physical universe (circuit based theories) *do* produce tangible useful physical laboratory results and they are able to reliably reproduce all of the important particle physical movement patterns that we see inside of our solar system and in space as a whole.

Empirical physics *always* eventually triumphs over metaphysical nonsense, so it's only a matter of time before astronomers give up their modern day equivalent of Ptolemy and embrace empirical alternatives like electric universe models.

[Michael Mozina]

Not only is the big bang model *scientifically useless* when it comes to successfully predicting the outcome of controlled laboratory experimentation, it's equally useless at predicting high redshift objects and new observations. The key predictions of the expansion model are the concept of galaxy and stellar evolution over time. Unfortunately just about every new observation at higher redshifts blows huge holes in the mainstream model and/or it defies the model entirely. Here are just a few such examples:

https://technocodex.com/biggest-younges ... tronomers/

It’s a mystery how a black hole this big can exist this early on, presenting both a crisis and a unique opportunity for astronomers and astrophysicists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -in-young/

The discovery in the distant past of massive galaxies containing more than 10 billion stars has astrophysicists scratching their heads over how such large objects could have formed so early.

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-eviden ... cal-models

That cloud looks rather similar to younger gas clouds filled with elements that were forged in stars and spewed out into space in a series of explosions as those stars died. This indicates there would have been stars around that had already lived and died by 13 billion years ago.

Not just one generation, either. Based on the chemical abundances in this ancient gas cloud, at least two generations of stars had to form, live, and die to produce the chemical signature we're seeing.

It's a real dilly of a pickle for our models of star formation, and it was discovered entirely by accident.

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-re ... ws-2020-34

New results from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope suggest the formation of the first stars and galaxies in the early universe took place sooner than previously thought. A European team of astronomers have found no evidence of the first generation of stars, known as Population III stars, as far back as when the universe was just 500 million years old.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/10/scie ... verse.html

To their bewilderment the universe seems to be organized in even more vast chains of galaxies, structures so large and complex that they defy understanding in terms of current theory of cosmology.

There's nothing 'scientifically useful' about the expansion model when it comes to make real "predictions" about the distant universe. And then of course there is the five plus sigma self conflict with respect to estimating the Hubble constant of the LCDM model:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drdonlinco ... gets-worse

We don’t know how this cosmic discrepancy will be resolved, but it appears to be a real cause for concern. On the mundane side, it could be that there is a conceptual error in one or more of the current analyses. On the exciting side, it could be that there is more to learn about the evolution history of the cosmos. We’ll just have to wait for the answer.

If the LCDM model was a horse, it's so lame and wounded that it would have to be shot.

What value is there in a cosmology model that fails so miserably not only in the lab, but also fails so completely when it comes to predicting anything new? The LCDM model is a *complete disaster* in every possible way. Not only can't astronomers simulate something as simple as a sustained planetary aurora in a lab based on their various mathematical models, they can't "predict" anything new that we observe in the distant universe. The LCDM cosmology model is the absolute *worst* of both world. It's a complete disaster in the lab and it fails every observational "test" that I can think of. It's the modern day equivalent of Ptolemy on steroids.

[paladin17]

It's really quite sad, but the harsh reality is that in terms of useful empirical value in laboratory experimentation, the big bang cosmology model and astrology have *exactly* the same predictive value, specifically none at all.

I would actually argue in defense of astrology: there is accumulating evidence of various cycles coming exactly from labs (in particular: neutrino and neutron detectors, G constant measurement, random processes in general). There is plenty to talk about here, but most of it was already covered in this presentation (if the time stamp doesn't properly work, please go to 01:36:04 manually).

[nick c]

Actually, Astrology is very testable, at least in terms of statistical probabilities (correlations).
For example:

Let us assume that Astrology dictates that at the moment of birth a person with Mars in the Midheaven (Mars at its highest point in the sky as seen from Earth) is suited or inclined to have a profession related to the military or athletics.

Allowing for three degrees on either side of the Midheaven we have a 6 in 360 chance of it being random. That would be 1 in 60. So random chance would dictate that 1.6% of all horoscopes should have Mars in the Midheaven.

Therefore an experiment could be conducted where a large number (several thousand) of horoscopes of professional athletes and career military people are checked for their Martian position. If the number of horoscopes with Mars in the Midheaven deviates substantially from 1.6% than that would be evidence of a correlation. The larger the sample of horoscopes the closer the number should be to 1.6% if it is random. If not, the probabilities of a correlation can be calculated.

So Astrology is testable. The problem is getting accurate horoscopes, especially with regard to time of birth. Research on this has been done and it is called the "The Mars Effect." Of course it is highly controversial. But my point is that Astrology has the potential for scientific testing and should therefore be a valid area of research.
Bias should be discarded and let the results speak one way or another.

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, Astrology is very testable, at least in terms of statistical probabilities (correlations).

I agree. Likewise the mainstream has "tested" numerous dark matter mathematical models. The problem is that neither astrologers nor astronomers have been able to *successfully* predict the outcome of an actual physical experiment. All the dark matter models *failed*, and I'm unaware of any successful prediction of a laboratory outcome based on either the LCDM model of cosmology or astrology. It's not that the various ideas cannot be 'tested", it's just that no laboratory "test" has been successful in demonstrating a *positive* outcome.

[beekeeper]

Greetings Michael and Nick and all EU Pilgrims. I am not a scientist if not for science fiction, but I am in total agreement with Michael original post. From electric eels to thunder storms and beyond, through my fingers writing this, the electricity in in us with us around us that it's influence cannot be integrated into a mathematical equation when we think of our univers is mind buggling. As for Astrology, I am an Arie and none of my readings ever showed up in my life so I am a little skeptical. Regards Beekeeper

[D_Archer]

Astrology is actually real and has a physical basis in reality, as all things are connected by the charge field (real physical photons) as discovered by Miles Mathis. This makes the cosmic connection of people to the stars very real.

So i object this idea that astrology has no scientifice value in the lab. Also there was one proof, it was discovered that decay rates have seasonal variations.

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael Mozina]

Astrology is actually real and has a physical basis in reality, as all things are connected by the charge field (real physical photons) as discovered by Miles Mathis. This makes the cosmic connection of people to the stars very real.

So i object this idea that astrology has no scientifice value in the lab. Also there was one proof, it was discovered that decay rates have seasonal variations.

Regards,
Daniel

Now all you have to do is show that such cyclical changes have a tangible and reliably predictable effect on humans and allow one to predict 'horoscopes" with any accuracy.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_ ... e_999.html

The presence of such a massive black hole so early in the universe's history challenges theories of black hole formation.

"Black holes created by the very first massive stars could not have grown this large in only a few hundred million years," says Feige Wang, NASA Hubble fellow at the University of Arizona and lead author of the research paper.

About the only "unique" type of predictions related to expansion oriented cosmology models, is the concept of galaxy and object evolution over time. Unfortunately for expansion proponents, there simply *isn't* any evidence of galaxy or object evolution over time. They're finding massive objects in the distant universe which simply defy all of their original 'predictions', including massive and mature galaxies and massive quasars which simply should not exist at these distances. Expansion proponents don't observe any first generation stars in the distant universe either as they predicted, demonstrating that expansion models are *utterly and completely useless* at making real "predictions" related to stellar or other object evolution in the distant universe.

Think about this for a moment. Not only is the LCDM model *useless* when it comes to successfully predicting the outcome of controlled laboratory experiments, it's equally useless in terms of make accurate observational predictions. It has *zero* predictive value, both in the lab, and and in space. Everything about the expansion model has been postdicted after the fact. None of it can produce so much a simple simulation of a sustained planetary aurora in a real lab experiment.

Dark energy is a great example of this long string of predictive failures of the expansion interpretation of redshift. Original expansion models predicted that the universe was 'slowing down' due to the effects of gravity. Instead of observing such a pattern in the local redshift data, they observed exactly the opposite. No known type of energy could have 'saved' the expansion model and explain the SN1A data sets, so astronomers simply *invented* (out of whole cloth) an entirely new and unknown form of energy just to salvage their expansion interpretation of redshift patterns in space. Worse still, so *much* of this new form of energy would be required to explain the SN1A data sets, that 'dark energy' instantly became the *single most* significant mass/energy component of the LCMD model, composing nearly 70 percent of the entire model! What kind of nonsense is that? It even violates the conservation of energy laws of physics! Astronomers have no idea where "dark energy" might come from. They have no idea how it could retain a constant density throughout the expansion process. They have no idea how to control it in a lab, or demonstrate that it has any tangible effect on a single atom in a real lab experiment, let alone demonstrate that his any effect on an entire physical universe. The whole concept has one and only one useful purpose, specifically to save one otherwise falsified interpretation of redshift from falsification.

What makes it even worse is the fact that *plasma redshift is a known and documented phenomenon* in laboratory experimentation. It happens in plasma in the lab, so it's certain to happen in plasma in space as well. Chen even found a correlation between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of plasma redshift he observed. The LCMD model doesn't allow for *any* plasma redshift to happen in space.

To add scientific insult to injury, even *with* all that metaphysical hanky-panky, the expansion model is *still internally self conflicted*. Planck and SN1A data sets end up producing *different* Hubble constant numbers and there is now a five plus sigma difference between them. The whole dark energy concept is a scientific and logical disaster of an "add-on" to expansion models. It's not even capable of producing reliable results, so it's actually not even a valid "fix" of their expansion model. The model *still fails* to correctly predict Planck data sets. What a total piece of metaphysical junk!

I might have some sympathy for mainstream assumptions about the cause of photon redshift *if* they had any useful "predictive" value, but they simply have *zero* predictive value, both in the lab, and in high redshift observations from space. It's a metaphysical kludge that results in internal self conflict, and the whole concept of stellar and object evolution over time has been falsified more times than I can remember. Astronomers have had 20 years to "study" dark energy, and they still can't tell us a single important thing about it, starting with where it comes from and how to control it in a real lab experiment.

The LCDM model is actually *far worse* that Ptolemy. At least the concept of Ptolemy wasn't internally self conflicted, which is why it survived for so long. The expansion model of cosmology however doesn't even produce *reliable figures* from one measurement to the next, and it's been a *dismal failure* for *decades* when it comes to "predicting" anything new!

Astronomy today is simply full of charlatans and con artists.

[JHL]

The LCDM model "fails" another observational test....what a pathetic model

No need for all the quotes, MM. It has indeed failed.