reply to post by Donoso
You appear to be quite presumptuous about me, about what I have studied, and about the topic that was being hinted at. Not only that but you
personally attack me in a slightly indirect manner, which necessitates this response. So allow me to make some assumptions about yourself, based on
what you wrote and the tone you used. Your reply indicates you yourself have not studied the implications and historical background, right down to
the 'basic science', behind the subject I avoided referring to (plasma physics.) Hence your response to me is itself clearly driven by nothing more
than ego and a bias for the mainstream paradigm, and as usual it even garnered a bunch of stars from people who think just like you.
For instance, you claim that I was debunking gravity. Negative, Plasma cosmology does not throw out a force that has obvious implications. It
incorporates gravity. However the gravitationally based paradigm that is ignorant (in the literal sense of the word, electromagnetism is ignored) is
what has been debunked. Have you forgotten to check out the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science journals, especially the special issues on Plasma
Cosmology? Perhaps you have read the several books on the subject? Unfortunately your comments toward me indicate that you have clearly not. Hence,
is not your own bias towards the gravitational paradigm based itself on, as you stated, "belief or lack of understanding."?
Also, by your logic the cosmology propounded by a Nobel laureate who played a major role in initiating a paradigm shift, is pseudoscience and not
You appear to live in the delusion that science rewards those who topple old paradigms, as if there is no entrenched interest that would fight against
the revolutionary. Never mind the fact that there are thousands of salaries at stake, that there are entire institutions built around the old
paradigm which would be forced to admit they are wrong, adapt or go under. Never mind the fact that the entire system is built around keeping the
status quo as long as possible while vilifying any who come along to overturn it. Never mind that you appear to have based your opinion on the
standard whitewash definition of scientific revolution, rather than any actual first hand experience trying to overturn a very entrenched paradigm
from within the academic and scientific institutions.
I concede that in some scientific enterprises, where there is little entrenched status quo, yes scientists are rewarded for bringing to light a new
paradigm. But this is Cosmology I am talking about, one of the most deeply entrenched topics in science. When deeply imbedded interests are at
stake, the whitewash version of scientific revolution is not applicable. Rather, one must apply theory as laid out by Thomas Kuhn, for instance,
along with other applicable anthropological ideas concerning cultural context and how it relates to changing a process of learning. It is no easy
task to topple an old paradigm.
For NASA to come forward and announce/admit they found evidence of a ‘double layer on a massive scale’ or ‘clear proof of filamentary current
between stars’ or ‘a pinch/instability mechanism driving the observations that have been previously attributed to black holes’ or ‘the
mechanism behind the apparent background radiation being caused instead by localized ongoing process rather than some elusive remnant of an event
billions of years ago’, then I for one would celebrate and feel that science indeed is progressing the way it should. Until then, the agency and
its alleged ‘scientists’ are, in my opinion, little more than mainstream shills.