Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Banned From Universe Today

Censored and banned by Ian O'Neill for quoting Velikovsky. Here is the quote:

" was accepted that the solar system has no history at all. So it was created if not 6000 years ago, then 6 billion years ago. But then for 6 billion years there was no change. Whether it was created or came into being by tidal action of a passing star which would be catastrophic as the tidal theory wishes or it is growing out of a nebula, the nebular theory which goes back to Kant and Laplace, but since creation there was no change. But if what I am telling you is truth, then there were changes, and very many, and very recently too." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

Despite losing readers due to censorship enforcement, they are more concerned with information suppression than they are with inclusive discussion and diversity.

And for Nereid, here is George Gamow's failed prediction of 50 degrees kelvin made in 1961, just three years before it's actual discovery. He was only off by 4 orders of magnitude (10 x 10 x 10 x 10).


Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

I'm not sure what Universe Today's standard is.

It may be as simple as "we don't like your comments."

The response to your pointing out Gamow's prediction of CMB shows two things: One, "modern" astronomy doesn't know it's own history; two, they aren't interested in that history because the study of "modern" astronomy's history reveals how and why it got so far off-track.

Solrey has a new comment at Universe Today that solidly contradicts so-called "black hole" theory which apparently made it through censorship. Will solrey suddenly find he can't access UniverseToday?

Who knows? Only the shadows at UinverseToday who control the censorship button.

But I do know one thing: The so-called "black hole" hypothesis like the "big bang" is now the foundation of "modern" astronomy.

Many papers are submitted to peer-reviewed journals about "black holes". So-called "black holes" are the "growth industry" of today's astronomy.


Because "black holes" are poorly constrained mathematically even by "modern" astronomy's own lights. They are not quantified, contrary to the popular perception promoted by the "modern" astronomy "community".

This "free" term or factor allows any number of "black hole" theories to be put forth without being subject to reasonable scrutiny.

If you want to be published in astrophysical journals and the journals under "modern" astronomy's control, then come up with some new twist on "black hole" theory and you're sure to get published.

The "black hole" hypothesis has gone beyond question in the "modern" astronomy "community" exactly because it is non-falsifiable.

"We can't have the emperors new clothes questioned -- we simply can't have that!"

But the emperor has no clothes and to point out his nakedness is cause for banishment -- always a sign in Science that intellectual rigor has collaspsed.

Universe Today isn't interested in comments that question the foundation of "modern" astronomy.

This will bite "modern" astronomy in the end because the proliferation of "black hole" theories will end up making the whole idea incoherent and unintelligible to people outside "modern" astronomy.

It really has become a Baskins Robbins with 31 flavors of "black hole".

On another note, a commenter by the name of Nereid appeared on the Universe Today website. Apparently, she is well known in other forums, especially Baut.

Nereid is known as a strong defender of the "faith".

But Nereid dodges tough questions:

Question: Can "infinity" be quantified?

Answer: I don't understand the question.

Please (the obvious answer is "no it can't").

Question: If "infinite" density is not required [for a "black hole"] then what is the requirement?

(Prior to the above question being asked, Nereid acknowledged that "infinite density singularity" ["black hole"] can't be tested, i.e., falsified, but went on to say "infinite density singularity" isn't how a "black hole" is defined, nowadays.)

Answer: I don't understand the question, can you clarify please.

Also, Nereid was asked if she subscribed to "black holes" roaming around the the galaxy?

(The post profiled a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal that hypothesized "black holes" roaming around the Milky Way Galaxy.)

No answer.

The point is that legitimate questions that throw into doubt the foundations of "modern" astronomy are not answered.

A classic strategy in debate is to feign not understanding the question.

But as I stated above, this failure to answer legitimate questions coupled with the proliferation of "black hole" theories will cause "modern" astronomy to "circle the wagons" (it already has), and turn inward. This "turning inward" will be the downfall of "modern" astronomy because as it turns inward for mutual support within its own "community" for its fanciful theories that aren't born out by observation & measurement, others outside the "community" will turn away.

So, as "modern" astronomy turns inward, outsiders will turn away.

The self-enforced insularity will smother "modern" astronomy's credibility.

The crisis of "modern" astronomy deepens.

Quantum_Flux said...

That is sad. I like your diversity of enquiry there OIM. I do believe that astronomy is ironically stuck in a rut of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, this censorship isn't scientific at all it's a deathwish for modern astronomy. Somebody should teach people about the limitations of modeling things from a remote distance in time and space or in remote orders of scale, and explain that there is intrinsically things we don't know about, there are therefore large uncertainties involved

i.e. I seriously doubt that anybody has examined Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, and Neutron Stars up close, on the quantum scale, and over extended periods of time and hence these are gaurentees that we don't understand even the most basic things about them. Knowledge about these things is simply limited to short term, long distance, and large scale observations and are mathematical extrapolations from how much we know of our own indigeonous conditions on Earth.

Anaconda said...


NASA has a interstellar probe on the drawing board that could prove a major tenent of Plasma Cosmology.

(And put a major dent in "modern" astronomy.)

One of Plasma Cosmology's major tenents is that plasma is self-organizing and forms double layers at discontinuities in plasma. Double layers form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact.

(See, expanded definition and explanation of double layer.)

Double layers are the engine of charged particle acceleration and seperation. Double layers are the building block of plasma self-organization.

Plasma Cosmology has identified numerous double layers in near-space, principly the magnetopause surrounding the Earth. These various double layers are major objects and processes that suggest the ubiquitous nature of plasma's self-organizing ability and presence in space.

Only grudgingly has "modern" astronomy acknowledged these near-space double layers ("modern" astronomy knows where this all leads).

"Modern" astronomy denies that the heliopause is a electromagnetic double layer. Although, when one checks the Wikipedia entry for heliopause, at the bottom of the entry it is stated: "An alternative definition is that the heliopause is the magnetopause between the solar system's magnetosphere and the galaxy's plasma currents."

Believe me, this last entry is not the preferred "take" of "modern" astronomy.


Because this is the prediction of Plasma Cosmology.

NASA wants (or wanted) to send a probe directly to the heliopause: "Interstellar Probe, Exploring the Interstellar Medium and the Boundaries of the Heliosphere," is the title of the website describing this probe's mission and equipment.

This NASA probe could confirm or disprove this Plasma Cosmology tenent and prediction. And should it confirm the heliopause is a solar encircling double layer, NASA would seriously have to consider other tenents of plasma Cosmology.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

I couldn't have put it better myself.


Anaconda said...


See the picture and read an electromagnetic interpretation.

Double layers as stated in a prior comment are the building blocks of electromagnetism.

See, a further explanation of the centrality of double layers to Plasma Cosmology.

(Hint: The reason "modern" astronomy has trouble with double layers in space is that they can only be detected by an in situ probe that passes through the double layer -- they can't be detected at a distance by current remote sensors or detection equipment, as explained in the, above, link.)

Anaconda said...


Read the story of Stephan J. Crothers for yourself; and see what happens when the "black hole" foundation of "modern" astronomy is challenged at a mathematical level.

Outright intellectual suppression is the result.

OilIsMastery said...

Great comments guys.


Would you mind telling Nereid here that I was banned for quoting Velikovsky?

OilIsMastery said...

But say Total Science not OIM so he knows who you're talking about :P

Quantum_Flux said...

Interesting stuff there Anaconda, while I'm not a ForTran program, I think what Stephen is saying is that the Theoretical Physics in General Relativity takes liberties with the math equations and draws conclusions that ought to be rejected under a higher standard of mathematical rigor.

Louis Hissink said...

Heh heh, welcome to the Velikovsky saga - it does make the mainstream froth at the mouth when his name is mentioned.

If the mainstream thinks Velikovsky was radical, then take a bit of the Saturn Theory and throw it into the cage. Should be fun watching the frothing increase in magnitude.


Anaconda said...

It might be fun to watch the media "froth" at the mouth, But let's be perfectly clear:

The "Saturn theory" is absolute bullshit.

OilIsMastery said...


How come Kronos was worshipped before Zeus? Why was the original Sabbath, the most sacred day of the week, named after Saturn? Could it be that Saturn dominated the ancient sky?

OilIsMastery said...

"But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. They call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the name of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give him no small property beside, namely all seeds." -- Augustine, theologian, City of God