Mud slinging in the Cosmology debate ?

[Metryq]

Maybe it will be determined that the Sun DOES run as a nuclear furnace ?

And maybe it will be some third, fourth or sixth alternative. Don't be so either/or in your thinking. One telling difference is that EU acknowledges fusion on the Sun, while the mainstream denies electrical activity (by treating plasmas as a fluid of "hot gas" etc.).

Sometimes what looks like "mudslinging" might be an overflow of frustration. Take all the cometary observations, with Rosetta being the most recent, showing that comets are obviously not dirty snowballs, yet seeing "ice" stubbornly pushed in every press release. Or distant X-ray and gamma ray emissions attributed to mathematical fantasies when everyday technology—and even Earthly weather—demonstrates a much more "mundane" explanation. Most frustrating of all is a cosmology that recognizes the weakest of the known forces of nature as the prime mover of the universe.

Ad hominem has no place in science, but frustration with willful blindness is understandable.

[Phorce]

Think of the billions of dollars spent supporting mainstream science's gravity theory. If you are a mainstream scientist and all your funding comes from gravity theory, you just aren't interested in killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. How embarrassed would you be after spending billions of dollars trying to capture a particle that will show the big bang is 'possible' based on your particle, division by zero and imaginary space fairy dust? If someone shows you are wrong, you also lose your livelihood. You fight desperately.

Funding stream zealotry is the biggest obstacle the EU theory has to overcome in order to be accepted, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps the best tactic would be to attack the big bang theory mercilessly, but support the scientists who find no scientific support for the big bang theory by showing them what wonderful research they have done to show that EU theory makes more sense. This might allow some to change and to see that their lifetime's work was not in vain but was in fact key to finding a new theory.

Except Plait, dump on him for all your worth.

"3. Limits of Cosmology

And we would pretend to understand everything about cosmol- ogy, which concerns the whole Universe? We are not even ready to start to do that. All that we can do is to enter in the field of specula- tions. So far as I am concerned, I would not comment myself on any cosmological theory, on the so-called ‘standard theory’ less on many others. Actually, I would like to leave the door wide open. (Pecker 1997)

I agree Jean-Claude Pecker (1923– ), another classical heterodox dissident cosmologist. Before wondering which is the true model of cosmology, we must wonder whether we are in a condition to create a theory on the genesis (or non-genesis) and evolution of the whole Universe, whether the psychological/so- ciological conditions of the cosmologists are or are not a weightier factor than the observations of Nature.There are limits to Cosmology because we are finite human beings limited by our experiences and circumstances, not mini-gods able to read the mind of a God who played maths with the Universe, as some Pythagoreans may think. There is a lack of humility in Pythagorism, or in expressions like “precision Cosmology”. One of the most reputed physicists of the former Soviet Union, Lev Lavidovich Landau (1908–68), said: “Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt”. Great old masters, even the creators of the standard model, were cautious in their assertions. Edwin P. Hubble (1889–1953) throughout his life doubted the reality of the expansion of the Universe. Willem de Sitter (1872- 1934) claimed: “It should not be forgotten that all this talk about the universe involves a tremendous extrapolation, which is a very dangerous operation” (de Sitter 1931). This scepticism is sane since “all cautions are too few” (Spanish proverb). It is not a question of substituting one model for another, since it would be the “same dog with different collar” (another Spanish proverb) but of realizing the limits of Cosmology as a science. Before understanding the Universe, we must understand the galaxies"

Sociology of Modern Cosmology, M. Lopez-Corredoira, Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4369/1/soc_cosmo.pdf

Found at ... https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... -was-wrong

It's all very well aggressivly promoting another model (EU, or any other theory), but that to me just ends up in the mud slinging because that approach is in denial of "the psychological/so- ciological conditions of the cosmologists [are a] weightier factor than [the science]". The first blocking problem has not been solved before moving on to the next one.

[viscount aero]

Good points are raised.

What is emblematic of the myopia of settled science is the semi-recent Voyager data that entirely contradicted the "settled science" of the solar system model. One tiny craft that outlived its primary mission, with a tiny bit of data, categorically falsified all of the "known facts". And that is only one thing. Yet the same establishment that sent that probe believes unequivocally in its overly-confident big bang/inflation model and all things that derive from it--yet still remains in the dark about understanding the solar system. The list goes on of course.

I'm not so much mud slinging as I am pointing out a grandiose oversight in modern science--and baffled myself that I can see through some things [with the help of participating in sites like this] that their professional qualifications cannot. That is truly baffling to me.

Look at how strong and cemented the establishment remains in light of Rosetta data that entirely falsifies Whipple's 1950 dirty snowball comet theory. That is truly a dead theory. Yet it somehow remains intact? How? That it remains intact as a viable theory despite contradictory data tells me that we are not dealing with science inasmuch as we are dealing with a cult.

In other words, they would rather cling to pre-space age assumptions about comets--elevated to the level of comedy, saying inane things such as "it does look like rock and dirt but we're most entirely certain that isn't"--than sober up to contemporary data gathered by a probe. Do they not remember the Stardust data? That was conclusive. It revealed comets to be borne in the fires of hell, composed of silicates. Does the establishment just lack the ability to cross reference its own findings? The establishment is not "self-correcting" as it alleges its science to be.

[Phorce]

Does the establishment just lack the ability to cross reference its own findings? The establishment is not "self-correcting" as it alleges its science to be.

Maybe they do lack that ability because they don't know certain facts. Rupert Sheldrake covers this well in his book "Science set Free". Certain "immutable" laws like the speed of light have been known to change. Even a small change is significant. But it looks like many scientists simply don't know this kind of information of fail to see the significance of it. This is where I noticed some of the brandishing these facts in the faces of some scientists. Of course they don't necessarily get the significance of what is being shown to them. Behind that may be forms of dishonesty, vested interests and outright lying, just as in other walks of life. But there is a tendency to give into some of the (IMO) unnecessary conspiracy theories promoted by the likes of Prison Planet, Infowars and Above Top Secret. This leads to an assumption that some scientists are "lying" and are involved in some kind of outright, overt cover up. That may be true in some circumstances, but overall it seems to have been proved, if its in the "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn or sociological analysis that I quote above, that this behaviour is in the large, human misunderstandings, group behaviour and so forth. Maybe "assaulting" those institutions is sometimes necessary, even throwing a bit of mud ! Human behaviour is never so simple. But behind the "inexplicable" behaviour of some scientists is understandable human psychology based on being taught things like "laws of nature are unchangeable". Maybe there should be more of "walk a mile in another man's moccasins" kind of approach. That way, with the right approach, more scientists may feel more open to what is being presented to them.

[viscount aero]

Does the establishment just lack the ability to cross reference its own findings? The establishment is not "self-correcting" as it alleges its science to be.

Maybe they do lack that ability because they don't know certain facts. Rupert Sheldrake covers this well in his book "Science set Free". Certain "immutable" laws like the speed of light have been known to change. Even a small change is significant. But it looks like many scientists simply don't know this kind of information of fail to see the significance of it. This is where I noticed some of the brandishing these facts in the faces of some scientists. Of course they don't necessarily get the significance of what is being shown to them...

I just find it hard to accept given that the data is their own. They are acting as if prior missions' data is not admissible as evidence. In other words they're more interested in looking for proof indefinitely than seeing it may already have been there for decades.