Empirical physics: The bane of astronomers.

[Michael Mozina]

Admittedly I'm still a little perplexed at the mainstream's aversion as it relates to empirical (lab tested) physics.

For instance, there are *multiple* inelastic scattering processes in plasma that have a known, and demonstrated tangible effect on photons, including photon redshift. Hubble himself preferred this type of solution to the photon redshift phenomenon. Moving objects also have a tangible effect on photons, and Doppler shift is a known empirical cause of photon redshift and blueshift.

The mainstream however throws out every "empirically demonstrated" form of photon redshift, and instead they devoutly (as in religious devotion to supernatural dogma) proclaim that "space expansion did it", even without any empirical justification of that claim.

Likewise, the concept of "missing mass" doesn't automatically lead us to the conclusion that all that missing mass must necessarily be composed of an exotic stable form of matter. We should more willingly admit that our mass estimation techniques are still pretty primitive, and it's likely we simply blew the ordinary baryonic mass estimates if there is any discrepancy between our "guess" and what we observe. Instead of noting all the various errors that they made in their pitifully flawed 2006 lensing study, they've consistently buried their collective heads in the sand with respect to all the mistakes contained in the baryonic mass estimates used in 2006, and in spite of every NULL result from the lab with respect to exotic matter claims.

Rather than embracing Birkeland's *empirical* method of spacetime exploration, and test of concept, they've consistently and repeatedly chosen to rely *exclusively* on mathematical models without even bothering to test them in labs.

They consistently and methodically choose to turn their heads with respect to the E oriented/circuit oriented ways to describe the behaviors of plasmas too, in spite of the fact that Alfven called their B oriented "reconnection' claims pure "pseudoscience".

It seems to me that the mainstream will write about, and entertain just about any bizarre metaphysical concept, from string theory to inflation genies in the sky, but they desperately avoid empirical physics at all costs.

Is that because they simply fear EU/PC theories will eventually make them look foolish, or is empirical physics just too "limiting' in terms of allowing their imaginations to run wild (with math)? It seems to me that they have a strong psychological and emotional need for complete freedom of thought, and very little interest in actually trying to explain what they observe using ordinary physics, and common physically demonstrated processes. Is ordinary empirical physics just too "boring" for them or what?

[BeAChooser]

Is that because they simply fear EU/PC theories will eventually make them look foolish, or is empirical physics just too "limiting' in terms of allowing their imaginations to run wild (with math)?

I think it's the former. They're now too heavily invested in gnomes to do anything else but tread down the same path. They have staked their careers, fortunes, credibility ... literally everything on these gnomes. The number of Dark Matter experiments now going on around the world is astounding, with a cost that runs into the tens of billions of dollars. It's not science anymore ... it's a business, that buys these *scientists* nice homes, nice cars, college educations for their kids ... and prestige. They won't want to do anything that will threaten the golden goose.

[comingfrom]

Because they fear the ridicule they will receive from their peers, if they are seen to be exploring alternative possibilities. Which is the fear of no longer being accepted.

Exactly like a religion.
If you say after them, and do as they do, then you won't be excommunicated.
But if you don't abide by their word, then you have lost faith, and the faithful quickly classify you as an outsider.

I cannot think why else they hang so tight to constructions that are designed to fill gaps, even in the face of contrary experimental evidence. It seems plain to me, that gaps means there are holes, in either the math, or in understandings, which causes misapplication of math. And so they got a wrong answer. Gaps mean that the theory, and the equations, need to be revisited and revised.

But it seems science goes to the QM or GR mega-shop and buys some gap filler instead.

"I have a problem. My galaxies are falling apart."
"No problem, sir, I suggest you buy a six pack of black holes and put them in the centers, and sprinkle one of these big bags of dark matter around the outsides. That should do the trick for you. That will only set you back about $450 million. If that it still doesn't work, come back and get a 44 gallon drum of dark energy. Never been known to fail yet. See? all our galaxies hang together nicely. But that will come at a cost. It's about $4 billion for one of those drums."
"Yeah that's great, but your galaxies are not the galaxies we see in the sky above, and I want my galaxies to be those galaxies."
"Oh, so you really do have a problem sir. Because nobody knows what is holding those galaxies together."

Science should not be so afraid to admit what it doesn't know.
~Paul

[Michael Mozina]

I guess you two are correct, and it's primarily a prestige/finance thing that holds the current dogma together at it's most fundamental level, but it's just amazing to me how many bizarre alternatives they'll write about, and how much they avoid empirical physics at all costs.

The obvious "first choice" to explain any high energy plasma event in space is (drum roll.....) electricity flowing through any ordinary plasma! Instead of selecting the obvious first choice however, they throw empirical physics out the window, and they go out of their way to attribute certain specific x-rays, and different gamma rays to various "dark matter" models. It's like the moment that we leave the visible spectrum behind, and enter into a higher energy wavelength range, that somehow in their minds gives them the license to cheat, speculate wildly exaggerate, and do anything they want with respect to physics. Suddenly the good old tried and true method of explaining specific photon wavelengths based on various atomic lattice configurations, or synchrotron radiation is just way too restraining for them, so they start handwaving away and claiming that "exotic matter did it"! Give me a break.

I'm sick and tired of their whole pattern of pointing at the sky with invisible friends, and affirming the consequent fallacy in hand, and pretending that empirical physics no longer applies the moment that we leave the solar system behind! OMG! This is definitely the dark ages of astronomy.

[BeAChooser]

It seems that astrophysicists have substituted artist license for empirical data. Just look at all the images depicting black holes and jets. It's almost as if they spend more time creating and processing these dramatic pictures than studying actual observations to glean what they say.

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

I guess you two are correct, and it's primarily a prestige/finance thing that holds the current dogma together at it's most fundamental level, but it's just amazing to me how many bizarre alternatives they'll write about, and how much they avoid empirical physics at all costs . . . This is definitely the dark ages of astronomy.

I think momentum (excuse the obvious pun) is also at fault. It was assumed by most influential astrophysicists of the early 20th century that space was "empty", and so gravitation was allowed to reign as the primary force at work in minds of scientists. Once you build a house of cards on a faulty idea you cannot back track easily. Plus, before you back track you have to overcome anchoring. This is also a big issue in medicine, where a patient may enter hospital and be diagnosed with the wrong thing, then all subsequent treatment is based on the wrong diagnosis and it is difficult to work out why things are not going according to plan.

When presented with alternative arguments, then ego, career, and money tend to form the wall of resistance to change. But before that, I think it is simply momentum and lack of critical examination of fundamental ideas.

[Michael Mozina]

I guess you two are correct, and it's primarily a prestige/finance thing that holds the current dogma together at it's most fundamental level, but it's just amazing to me how many bizarre alternatives they'll write about, and how much they avoid empirical physics at all costs . . . This is definitely the dark ages of astronomy.

I think momentum (excuse the obvious pun) is also at fault. It was assumed by most influential astrophysicists of the early 20th century that space was "empty", and so gravitation was allowed to reign as the primary force at work in minds of scientists. Once you build a house of cards on a faulty idea you cannot back track easily. Plus, before you back track you have to overcome anchoring. This is also a big issue in medicine, where a patient may enter hospital and be diagnosed with the wrong thing, then all subsequent treatment is based on the wrong diagnosis and it is difficult to work out why things are not going according to plan.

When presented with alternative arguments, then ego, career, and money tend to form the wall of resistance to change. But before that, I think it is simply momentum and lack of critical examination of fundamental ideas.

I think you're right on the money with respect to the influence of early "empty space" cosmology ideas from the 20th century. Up until Hubble, astronomers basically assumed that our own galaxy was all that existed and it was surrounded by "empty space". Only once we realized that some objects were redshifted dramatically more than other objects did we even figure out that we didn't live in an island universe. Even then they "assumed" that the space between galaxies was basically empty. They utterly refuse to account for *any* type of inelastic scattering processes to take place in spacetime, which could only happen in "empty" space.

There's also an extreme bias with respect to gravity theory. Everything that they observe in space they try to explain with 'gravity' alone. They've kludged GR theory to the point that it went from being a purely empirical theory as Einstein taught it to his own students, to becoming a Trojan horse for supernatural claims galore.

[comingfrom]

Michael wrote

and they go out of their way to attribute certain specific x-rays, and different gamma rays to various "dark matter" models. It's like the moment that we leave the visible spectrum behind, and enter into a higher energy wavelength range, that somehow in their minds gives them the license to cheat, speculate wildly exaggerate, and do anything they want with respect to physics.

More often than not, they (NASA and science digest sites) put "an artist's impression" image to set the scene for us.

I dug to see what was actually being observed.
First thing I noticed, visible light pictures of black holes always show a large bright object, much bigger than stars.
Secondly, they always say it is a black hole, due to x-rays having been observed.

If the centers of galaxies are regions of dense high energy plasma, as the visible light images seem to show, why couldn't such energetic plasma emit x-rays?

My dentist doesn't need a black hole to make x-rays.
Surely galaxies have more energy at their disposal than my dentist,
and without the need for us to conjure up fantastical objects such as black holes.
~Paul

[Michael Mozina]

Michael wrote

and they go out of their way to attribute certain specific x-rays, and different gamma rays to various "dark matter" models. It's like the moment that we leave the visible spectrum behind, and enter into a higher energy wavelength range, that somehow in their minds gives them the license to cheat, speculate wildly exaggerate, and do anything they want with respect to physics.

More often than not, they (NASA and science digest sites) put "an artist's impression" image to set the scene for us.

I dug to see what was actually being observed.
First thing I noticed, visible light pictures of black holes always show a large bright object, much bigger than stars.
Secondly, they always say it is a black hole, due to x-rays having been observed.

If the centers of galaxies are regions of dense high energy plasma, as the visible light images seem to show, why couldn't such energetic plasma emit x-rays?

My dentist doesn't need a black hole to make x-rays.
Surely galaxies have more energy at their disposal than my dentist,
and without the need for us to conjure up fantastical objects such as black holes.
~Paul

Exactly. They often claim to judge their mass estimates however on the "assumption" that they can rule out electricity as the culprit. They never consider the *most common* way of emitting anything. Our own sun emits x-rays and gamma rays galore, yet the mainstream keeps claiming they can see "dark matter annihilation" in every x-ray and gamma ray in the sky! Black holes are not the only way to generate x-rays and gamma rays.

[BeAChooser]

More often than not, they (NASA and science digest sites) put "an artist's impression" image to set the scene for us.

I dug to see what was actually being observed.
First thing I noticed, visible light pictures of black holes always show a large bright object, much bigger than stars.

I've noticed that, too. "Artist's impression"s substitute for actual observations because none of the observations actually show the gnomes they want to depict. And isn't it wonderful that black holes are so easily seen? Originally their "artist's impression"s all showed something from which no light at all escaped. Just saying ...

[webolife]

I find it particularly amusing in some of the early "conceptions" when black holes are depicted as hyperboloids in a Reimannian curved space, leading to the fantastical conception of wormholes!

[Julian Braggins]

Upton Sinclair

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

President Eisehower warned against the military industrial complex, and also science relying on only government funding IIRC, for if the puzzles of the Universe are solved where will those scientists get employment?
Sorry to be so cynical, but I have also been following another 'science' that seems to have a similar problem, but mentioning that would be off topic
I haven't posted for years but come back to follow the interesting conversations going on every few months, loss of spouse, cancer battle that seems resolved and now in a great space for someone in their ninth decade