I guess you didn't get the sarcasm.
I was making half a joke. I was sarcastically implying that "if they read your work, they surely agree with it" and since the mainstream doesn't seem to impressed by "the electric universe", or whatever it is, that would lead to the conclusion that they must not have read it either.
How many astronomers do you think have actually read even one of my papers to date? I've asked them about Alfven during debates. I think of the dozens of times I've asked, a total of 3 had actually even read some of Alfven's work and he had a Nobel under his belt.
pfffffffffff come on dude.....
This is like saying "if doctors are 'authorities' or 'experts' then why can't they cure AIDS?"
Nope. You're still comparing empirical physics to witch doctors that can't actually explain anything.
Again, I'm not a physicist nore a cosmologist. And while I find it a very interesting subject, I don't understand most of it.
And I see no reason to believe a random guy on the internet when he tells me that "all mainstream cosmologists are wrong and I'm right".
The amusing part from my perspective is that the mainstream has had to admit being wrong about dark matter repeatedly over the past decade, and that bombshell about "standard candles" not being "standard" after all is a riot! Over the past decade in particular they've been telling you themselves that their own theories don't work right, and you're basically ignoring that fact.
It's not me you need to convince.... it's those mainstream cosmologists.
That would be a reason for me to accept your ideas.
So for 1500 years, poor Aristarchus wasn't credible because the mainstream ignored him, and then 15 centuries later you have to admit that he was right afterall, but Galileo gets all the credit.
Sheesh.
I'm not qualified to evaluate your ideas, nore am I particularly interested.
Then why debate me on these ideas at all?
If you wish to reach me, you'll have to do it like every other scientist has to do it: facing the community and convincing THEM.
Convincing them can take decades, and sometimes *centuries*. You'll always be having faith in ideas that will eventually be replaced, but maybe only long after your death.
There's nothing hypothetical about a guy going against the mainstream.
And there's certainly nothing hypothetical about "alternative medicine".
The irony from my perspective is that Birkeland's ideas actually worked in the lab and they're based upon empirical physics. Lambda-CDM is more like "dark voodoo", and your little community believes in dark voodoo, so you're going to reject the empirical physical alternative because it's not 'popular in your tribe yet.
It's funny how you first incorrectly say that I'm using hypotheticals and then you ask me something like this........
Perhaps it's you who should stick to examples of reality.
Well, poke me when your "growing community" is simply "the community".
So basically you'd be waiting around for 1500 years to believe Aristarchus of Samos about the virtues of heliocentricity while extolling the virtues of the mainstream epicycles.
Errrrrrrrr..... no.
I explicitly stated that it would be irrational to accept the views of the minority or the one guy UNLESS these views could actually be demonstrated
But that's the funny part because Birkeland *did* empirically demonstrate his ideas in the lab. The mainstream took Chapmans ideas anyway and lived in ignorance for 6 decades with respect to aurora. They're still living in ignorance with respect to solar physics. Birkekand *predicted* that discharges in the solar atmosphere were hotter than the surface of the sun, and he was correct. The mainstreams explanation however is *still* based upon a claim that Alfven himself called 'pseudoscience' till the day he died, yet the mainstream still uses Alfven's maths to make their claims, while ignorantly ignoring his double layer paper that falsified their claims.
- at which point the minority or the one guy would no longer stand alone, as now it has been demonstrated that they were correct.
So that might take 1500 years, or 60 years, or you might get lucking and may just a decade in the case of GR.
Nobody took Einstein's, Darwin's or Newton's word for it on faith.
Nobody had to. Nobody has to take EU/PC theory on "faith" either since all it's core tenets work in the lab. On the other hand you need four unique forms of faith to believe in Lambda-magic theory.
They demanded evidence. And Einstein, Darwin and Newton provided that evidence. And that evidence was then accepted, along with their ideas. And not a second sooner.
Not as fast as you seem to think however.
Awesome. As always the future (and the evidence) will tell.
I wish you good luck. But again, before it happens........
Surely you can understand that?
I'd understand it if you embraced your same popularity fallacy with respect to the topic of God, just like you do with dark voodoo theory. Since your faith in metaphysics seems to change on a whim based on the topic, no, I don't really understand it.
I'm not "embracing" anything. Nothing in my life is dependend on whatever the latest hypothesis or theory is on a certain subject of crazy physics.
The only crazy physics is Lambda-CDM. EU/PC theory works in the lab. Your life might be changed by EU/PC theory, but it's never going to be changed by dark invisible stuff that is impotent on Earth.
I'm content letting scientists do their jobs while I enjoy the technological fruits of their labor.
You enjoy the technological fruits of *empirical physics*, not theoretical physics. EU/PC theory is a form of empirical physics. Lambda-CDM is not.
No. My trust (not "commitment" - trust) is in the scientific process.
Why? It didn't work for Aristarchus of Samos, or for Birkeland. They never lived to see any of their ideas 'accepted' by the mainstream, even though they were correct. The process failed them miserably, and every human for 1500 years in the case of Aristarchus.
Yes, it's called "learning".
Yep, and the mainstream eventually "learned" something that Aristarchus figured out and tried to explain to them 15 centuries sooner! They learn real "slow" sometimes.
Yes, yes... the "mainstream" is "stupid"
Strawman. I never said that.
and only you guys know how everything works. I get it.
What you don't seem to "get" is that your "process" of mainstream acceptance can take over a 1000 years, and therefore you have faith in a flawed process. You ultimately trust empirical physics not hypothetical physics, but in this particular case you choose to reject empirical physics in favor of four forms of metaphysics.
