The latest justification of failure of the James Webb Space Telescope to reconcile observation with predictions of the Standard Model are not good enough. Its being proposed that the telescope cant resolve the individual median starlight only the mean of the net starlight. Pathetic. Why would they launch a defeatest mission if they knew beforehand it would be unresolveable but still announce that it would be the entire point of the mission? Clearly if the results had been what they were hoping for we would never have heard such nonsense.
This is simply the latest in a long line of failed predictions. I propose that the notion those models with a similarly long line of spot on predictions, most notably in this case Plasma Cosmology, are not even entertained.
Plasma Cosmology hasn't had a single principle falsified in 2 decades while ^cdm cosmology (big bang dark matter/ dark energy cosmology of the standard model with it's monopoly on public funding amounting to almost a trillion dollars since the 50's) has has to adjust or "tweak" it's model on every point where new tech has gathered better data, JWST being the latest.
How is it scientific to keep the worst predictive success on life support and with zero justification have the gold standard model maligned as "fringe" based on no evidence put forward whatsoever, justified purely on "Fiat Science" or in other words stating it as such by "experts". Does it not matter that those experts are funded by same grants that the institutions crafted by the model has a monopoly over? Can someone please explain how this is not a conflict of interest?
Where else have we seen this? I will tell you. We see the exact same thing in climate science and with the big pharma R&D grants for vaccines. Who can deny the overwhelming failure of these 3 consensus science establishment institutions funded (thanks to insidious creeping death public policy legislation) by the taxpayer, the same taxpayer these nepotism fueled bureaucracies work against in the most deceitful way imaginable. Is it then really surprising that they have together occupied the bottom 3 places in predictive success or had clinical trials THEY OVERSEE not match up in any way to actual data? No it's not surprising. Who gives the decision-making role in both funding and public understanding of science (including the education syllabus/curriculum) to those who have a stakeholding or some sort of skin in the game? Does it not matter that they have a history of never ever having pulled their own funding to instead fund more promising successful options of competitors?
Is it a long line of total morons all making thousands of repeated mistakes over decades just so happening to always err on the side of the same special interests who benefit? No. That is so improbable as to effectively be impossible. Clearly the answer is FRAUD AND CORRUPTION. This will NEVER change until oversight structures are brought back that would in effect criminalise nepotism in government again.
Climate, Cosmology, Big Pharma and the Military Industrial Complex don't at first glance appear to share the same dynamics, but once you see them they can never be unseen.
Change will be an unprecedented shock to the cottage industry of sycophantic media and NGO's that have sprouted like weeds to support this unscientific or anti-democracy pop culture crime structure which is the precise means by which the corporate and state Frankenstein monstrosity has been enabled.
Take it seriously. We can no longer lament the outcome while turning a blind eye to the cause. I do my best to link cause and effect together in politics and I learned that from science. It beggars belief that the consensus scientific establishment has the gall to malign the principles of the scientific method as "fringe" on the basis of the scientific method which (despite self evident reality contradicting it) they simply claim as to be the sole domain of the current power structure.
All challengers are by their papal decree "Pseudoscience". This is a 180° reversal of actual reality.
One person can be given credit beyond simply recognising it, and it comes from the most unlikely of places, the pinnacle of the establishment itself.
Let's take a trip back in time to when the unholy alliance of the corporate state was still in its infancy and the experts in this tactic, the central bankers who had long since established private unelected corporate takeover of the most important government instrument (money) were diversifying into military socialism (ie requiring libertarian capitalist countries to become socialist nations whose beneficiary list of the poor, the sick and the old would be replaced by rich banks needing bailouts and rich military contractors needing perpetual wars to develop a potential market, and competitors to the government awarding them their funding seemed the perfect place to start.
Here is his famous warning about the potential to form what he first coined as a "Military/Industrial Complex" now in common parlance as the "MIC"
But there was another lesser known warning about the danger facing science we now recognise as the "Consensus Science" Complex, I have never seen a pop culture reference to any CSC though...
Dwight Eisenhower: The Consensus Science & Tech public funding incentive replacing intellectual curiosity and forming a "Frankensteins Monster" with corporate research motives and methods.
I found this quite stunning. Eisenhower has been able to grasp something about the subtle sanitizing, taming and ultimately the owning of science as a tool purchased for the express purpose of lending legitimacy to whichever propaganda campaign it's purchasers require. At the time science (defined in contemporary pop culture of the late 50's principally as a method and despite the Manhattan Project having probably set off a series of events that would forever change this understanding)
He anticipates this in 1961. Even as I write this in 2023 there are many reasonably bright people I know who (despite having science degrees) are sociologically or politically naive about the nature of the special interests which steer both the funding for research grants and public policy.
Through projecting concerns and extrapolating social pop culture/ institutional emerging behaviour patterns Eisenhower and JFK had extaordinary intuitive powers of being able to anticipate trends in social architecture
Eisenhower's successor John F Kennedy would give a similarly visionary speech on "secret societies" 《=click text but skip to 6.30 for the actual since he opens with banter and anecdote to the Press Club which was customary.
JFK's iconic speech (which is never cited and rapidly being scrubbed from the internet to my utter disbelief!) was one of the best ever. Every word was considered. The lead up and structure and progress of themes was carefully considered. Nuance, metaphor and euphemism were literary devices that were all called upon and used it the best possible way. He succeeded in crafting two speeches in one, and in many ways was reaching to the media and public to resound with them the need for support if they wanted the establishment to be taken on. It would have to be together. But he was ahead of his time and neither were ready.
The speech was outwardly an assessment on the freedom of the press and its importance in resisting capture, as well as allusions to the communist threat of the day. But by this time it was already more difficult to speak openly and JFKs speech was delicately phrased, every word carefully chosen to reflect rather the need for vigilance in society against the transatlantic Anglo American dynastic elite and other cabals like the Intelligence Agencies and Dynastic power behind what would later be known as the "Deep State". This is the type of vigilance his predessor equally warned us of in the scientific and military industrial complexes.
If we had such vigilance, in a fantasy land where public interest shapes public policy, we would not be in this mess. But lets pretend we can the lance the boil of the corporate state merger. If achieved would we not be well positioned having learned immensely from the tactics and players who conspired to bring such a state of affairs to fruition as they already have?
In other words...
Do We Already Have The Solutions?
