I'd like to open once more with the confessed "Crises in Cosmology" as put forward by consensus based on the standard model:
IN BRIEF
Astronomers have repeatedly calculated the rate of the universe’s expansion—the Hubble constant—with two different techniques. These measurements have produced a seemingly intractable conflict.
One method, which involves measuring supernovae and stars in the relatively recent universe, arrives at one value. The other strategy, which uses light left over from shortly after the big bang, finds another.
Experimental problems could cause the discrepancy, but no one is sure what those problems would be. Another possibility is that the conflict points to undiscovered phenomena — “new physics.”
End
Now I don't know about you, but I do not consider "new physics" any kind resolution, especially when considering that every explanation put forward by ^CDM thinking ultimately requires new physics to bail them out of the intractable logical conflicts, singularities and invisible dark speculation their model yields. Don't lose sight of the uncomfortable fact that when theory is reconciled with observation a staggering 95.4% of matter is missing!
Put another way, cosmology is left justifying the enormous public funding privilege the current establishment monopolizes (for decades) with a paltry predictive success rate of 4.6%. Let that sink in...
Baked into this sneaky successor to the scientific method, disingenuously called "consensus science" are two factors at play which are fundamentally at odds with the spirit of science as put forward by the likes of Karl Popper.
Consider that if the single unbalanced force of gravity were not to be found in perfect relation (as its reverse engineering requires to be used to predict its trajectory) the hypothesized "expansion of space" (space is a concept with no material properties that cannot be acted on IN ANY WAY, while what fills it can be freely speculated) then the model must by its own reasoning retire itself and funding redirected to more promising ideas, which abound. There is a word for that, or a phrase rather. A "conflict of interests"
Similar special interests form impenetrable policy coups over public policy whenever any anti-trust violating monopolies capture public funding sources. Monopolies come to dominate the private AND public institutions with enough power to lobby civil servants to issue policy, R&D, Grant funding, pass legislation and scorn any threat to the narrative once it has passed into conventional wisdom. We saw that characteristic in the old establishments such as the organized Church which formed a powerful lobby to concentrate political power. We also saw it in special interests such as with big oil before they reinvented themselves along with other "Economic Hitman" multinationals in telecommunications the weapons industry, Big Pharma/Agri/Chemicals/Mining etc.
What is an "Economic Hitman?
The connection to science will become apparent despite how obscure it may appear at first.
It was through this loosely aligned collective of Capital Finance sorcerers, Banksters, Multinationals and lobby operations, mercantile or commodity traders, arms dealers Lobby Groups (parading as a cause) fine-tuned or refined crack corporate PR strategies, rethought strategic investment, took think tanks to the next level and hob-knobbed with David Rockefeller's Bilderberg (elite vettors of who they would make or break to keep a unified direction) or Klaus Schwab's bunch of elitest tosspots at Davos.
They effectively captured the green parties by treading water on pollution and eco system impact of mankind's industry. This was achieved. by removing all attention from pollutants like heavy metals, solvents, mercury, medical and toxic waste, industrial waste and fracking shale and focusing 90% of the environmental budget and energy on a harmless gas vital for life with a bait and switch using CO2 as a euphemism for "pollution" while claiming not to. It was a bait 'n switch that would make Houdini feint in envy. The best part was that the CEO's I mentioned could keep their private jets and instead of accountability for tax rebates being used to subsidize public roads or health or education, the oversight faced by government would go along with anti-trust laws and in the name of carbon footprints all carbon based peasant life would foot the bill while Big Oil, GE, Wall Steet, Collapsed Banks (all of them) would be state subsidized by taxpayers without being publicly held!
In other words, the rich elite keep the shares, but we bail them out and pay what ultimately amounts to the salaries of Walmart and Amazon employees, presumably just to make sure we could never compete with such companies in a free market. All of the environmental impacts would continue except thanks to two things all of the blame and guilt would be shifted onto the gullible peasants.
Sounds ambitious, in reality it was easily done. All that was needed was:
1) Remove Competitors
2) Marketing spin to your benefactors, the public.
By the late 80's and 90's we basically saw the end of Anti-Trust prosecutions. Other factors include tax exempt status and non-profit philanthropy and globalist policy rolled out by internationalist bodies not accountable to taxpayers, ending democracy in a single stroke.
Legal Stock buybacks/ Mergers/Acquisitions/allocation of deficit spending (money printing) to wall street/banks etc while the sovereign debt would be held by taxpayers who to further insult get no stake in those enterprises profit share or yields from the stocks which government would game through inside trading.
Media must guard the narrative so large in order corporations must form monolithic conglomeration or s absorbing independent broadcasting or publishing to administrate this subtle censorship of free speech and ultimately criminalize it.
Banking must be the same internationalist high leverage low liquidity debt based bond swap ponzi scheme shell game laundered with Arms Dealing, State Medication becoming illegal to refuse, Saudi Oil In USD enforced by captured unipolar global shadow power structure, sanctions, the UN bodies and in line with the international derivative tragedy that swapped prosperity for Austerity in every once great nation in Europe once the globalist experiment takes a nations ability to finance its own government away courtesy Brussels Fed style bankster cabal.
Open borders and culture wars as so effective with EMPIRE to divide and rule the peasants as partisan/tribal identity determine the peasant's ability to evaluate if policy is in the public interest.
Regime change and Divide and Conquer foreign threats to the globalist economic hitman system by 2030 or they (ie BRICS) will possess too much competitive leverage to allow the West to effect a controlled collapse of the over-geared, liquidity bereft, low grade asset and QE characterized treasury bond market in an environment leading to 2030 that makes it impossible to keep interest rates low as well as inflation as falling production contends with ballooning money supply in the derivative damaged economic system (a great reset) and roll out the "you rent the planet and money from the state" Feudalised Communism parading as Malthusian stake-holder carbon capitalism.
The new one World Religion (thank you think tanks) will emerge as: SCIENTISM/CONSENSUS SCIENCE with the provisor that the state controls it's funding and curriculum and college education culture IE indoctrination
We see it everywhere. It's in the ESG scores, climate "consensus", the funding around v♤x|NES, the military discretionary spending budget, it's deficit spending budget, in the MIC socialist spend capture of the tax base and it's widespread industry of wholesale death and forever wars, and now we see the new face of the lobby of consensus science which emerged to safeguard the failed old guard from challenges by enterprising and innovative new thinkers.
That is a reverse lobby seeking to justify misuse of public funds in science by highly regarded academics and pop culture celebrities who will be rewarded for championing consensus science agendas, standard models etc with their strategy implied through incentive of reward in public regard, money, blackmail (Do you honestly think there was only one Jeffery Epstein?) to take the radical step of abandoning the empirical, evidence based, falsifiable science of the 20th century and instead relying on CONSENSUS, Credentials, the argument from authority, Peer Review, Pop Culture and the entrenched power of institutions.
So....
Back to the need to invent new physics with the launch of each new telescope. Why? collapse of predictive success of a standard model which MUST FIND SOMETHING when the main bureaucrats, er, I mean scientists have spent obscene amounts over decades chasing the ghosts of theoretical physics. When old ideas face death, the model can evidently still be saved by: NEW PHYSICS!
I consider that line of thinking the clearest possible indication what the consequence of a fundamental flaw in the understanding of theoretical science such will yield. it must, must, must reconcile a theories prediction with observation and direct measurements/evidence, mainly cosmology. Same in particle physics, archeology (looking at you ARCE!), geology, climatology, pharmaceutical chemistry in those industries supporting Big Pharma, right Fauci?)
Special mention to the new biology that links the 23rd chromosome pair, XX or XY, not with an offsprings primary expression of a range or spectrum of sexual characteristics, not put forward as a social construct but as biological fact. Instead, the old notion linking a Y chromosome pairing with X on the 23rd notch to manifest a genome with reproductive systems that produce sperm, and XX manifesting a genome with reproductive systems genetically determined towards production of the Ova, and womb to incubate the fertilized egg in the case of mammals like Homosapiens. We now learn that actually THIS second scenario is a social construct, that 47 other factors involved with Mitosis affect gender and Meiosis in the gonads only a small part of sexual reproduction, like pregnancy, and to imply such is reducing an enlightened, spiritual, cosmically validated child of God to their reproductive role. It follows logically that after gender, other differential biological aspects will surely become constructs too. Progress of the well-adjusted that have been prepared to accept reality and keep perspective with no expectations or entitlement towards be indulged.
Perhaps age, race, height, weight and shoe size will reduce us grounded and well-adjusted disciples of empirical science to the description as defined by the nouns category. IE words reducing communication to unambiguous and clear common understanding. Let's all decide our own meanings. Why reduce yourself to your species, genera? Kingdom... of animals? Why not become a potted plant? Why be living, try being a mineral instead, and why contemporary, why not circa 1789?
Yes? 1789 in Paris, France, but not a Bourbon mineral. Rather a Jacobin mineral! Viva la revolution!
But in all seriousness, regarding cosmology and astrophysics...
ABOVE: The shaky foundations of cosmology | Bjørn Ekeberg
I'd like to go back to where I think that fundamental flaw began corrupting their model, and it emerges with an assumption.
When it was discovered that there was not nearly enough matter to hold together a galaxy without having stars fly out into the abyss, or that the galactic rotation curve revealed a mismatch in the expected rate of rotation of outer stars with the estimated gravity of galactic matter, we developed the seeds of another crises, similar to the dark energy inflation rate I opened with, but this time specifically around galactic rotation, where we invoked another dark unicorn, this one of course being dark matter.
You can get a gut feel for the nature of the problem when you look at the universes size and scale comparisons and discover that when a star like our sun is reduced to scale at the size of a grain of sand, the next star would be located well over two miles away. Now think about it. You don't need to do any calculations to realise that with gravity dropping off at the inverse square over distance, we are running into problems. Not just problems, we are not even in the ballpark.
Another explanation that better fit the data wasn't even considered. That was either too much of a threat to the established model, or another scientifically reckless assumption was made.
Instead of the logical question being asked:
"Is it in fact gravity that is driving this?"
A foolish path was set upon rather that does not even necessarily follow on logically in the way we understand reasoning. The conclusion was made in the beginning instead of following as a conclusion from all the evidence and observations. They started with the assumption it must be gravity so when the matter was found lacking, their unscientific assumptions meant that they were never doing science, and were locked in and doomed to begin an 85 year long fruitless quest for the mysterious invisible matter that must by their reasoning be there exerting its magical influence though the one tool in their tool box, namely gravity.
Now obviously this shy and elusive matter (which supposedly makes up the overwhelming MAJORITY of matter) still to this day remains invisible and utterly imperceptible to any mortal and all manner of science and particle detection.
I have already dealt with that fruitless search, what the history was, how we got into this mess (and more) for "Dark Matter". It was actually to become the first in my very first "Assumptions in science" post nearly 2 years ago, and started a whole new area of interest and focus for this site. But that was a while back. I feel the need to expand upon what is accounting for these "missing" forces and further scrutinise the reasoning behind them. I am even going to cite a few of the plentiful discoveries in the mainstream which refuse to accept it for primarily political reasons. I also hope to demonstrate that despite this refusal, they are unwittingly serving as an ironic partner in proving it.
Let me explain what I mean and also why the sources you encounter through links on this particular post, number 6 in the serious of which at least ten are planned, are mostly from consensus science dogmatic publications.
All the peer reviewed papers I use in my sources page in Cosmology and Astrophysics are in spite of, not as a result of the peer review process. By definition the peer review process set up to defend an establishment by giving favour and recognition to defenders and channeling scorn to its detractors. Nobody can seriously put forward that such a statement is without a ring of truth in their mind. If they do they most likely have a peer reviewed paper supporting the notion that a trace gas making up 0.0391% of the atmosphere drives climate rather than the sun and the global electric circuit together...
But on a more prosaic level I want to use this post to show how simple the solution would have been had they not started with the conclusion and allowed a scientifically rigorous endeavor to lead them to the truth.
In fact there were those who did follow such a path, but their findings were brushed aside by the defenders of the standard model of astrophysics , the LAMBDA-CDM model, and their careers suffered as a result. Now the establishment itself has been lead so far astray that even the findings of its own scientific publications which are proving those early pioneers correct, is not being understood or vindicating the work of those earlier mavericks.
PLASMA
Plasma is known as the fourth state of matter (solids, liquids and gasses being the first three) although in truth it should be known as the first since plasma actually makes up over 99% of matter in the universe. The influence of gravity as a very weak force compared to the electromagnetic force is well established (electromagnetism - the force we know best and the reason you don't pass directly through your chair when you sit down on it - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That means that it is a whopping
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!
This fact has been well integrated into plasma physics, or more so with Plasma Cosmology.
Plasma cosmologists understand that magnetism is everywhere in space, and that only electric currents cause magnetic fields, even in the case of remnant magnetism in bar magnets, they originally need an electric current to form. The origin, structure, dynamics and morphology of Electromagnetism isn't an open speculation, but it should not be thought of in "Chicken or the egg" terns either. Field orientation, polarity and circuits are established by separation of charges. The more positive or negative charge accumulating in one area, the more potential, The electric circuits current direction is established before the charge movement can even begin.
There is no such thing as magnetic charge, it is an electric phenomenon. Once it determines the direction of the current the fate of any magnetic polarity is fated
Plasma only needs to be 1% ionized to conduct. It is not a perfect conductor but it's certainly an excellent conductor. Ionized plasma has the charged particles, the protons and electrons, separated from the atomic structure to some degree to facilitate the movement of charge (electric current). This ionized plasma in the form of Birkeland Current provides the facilitation of these currents over vast distances and even when they may be extremely weak in any one concentrated place. Once this happens then self-contained plasma magnetic entities form (Plasmoids) and plasma self organising double layers. Nobody disputes this, but not everyone assimilates it and applies it to astronomy. This is is due to the previous dispute that electric currents can flow through space, which is settled now, and it can, so the implications of Birkeland Currents must now be reevaluated. Their influence over galactic scales is powerful compared to the weak force of gravity.
As mentioned, stars are like grains of sand separated by kilometers of space. At galactic scales there is not even close to enough gravity for them to influence each other, especially with the momentum and inertia at cosmic speeds and scales.
Gravity is an inverse square law thing, let's call it a force because that's what it is - so the strength of gravity depends on the SQUARE of range between two objects. If you double your distance from the center of the Earth - the force of gravity drops by a factor of two-squared… four times less strong. If you triple your distance, gravity drops by three squared… or nine times less strong.
This kind of law is very common in physics - it applies to the way light gets dimmer (an EM wave) the rate magnetism drops off, coulombs law / electrostatics as well as gravity of course..
Scrutiny of the reasoning behind Dark Matter.
1) Scientists in Spain published a study in 2010, titled "M31's Odd Rotation Curve, which is still referenced by Universe Today's website.
Also note "Magnetic Fields and the Outer Rotation Curve of 31" inthe Astrophysical Journal Letters.
The conclusion was the galactic magnetic field explains the rotation curve. The paper implies they changed the model to use a specific value from M31 for their confirmation.
The galactic magnetic field would cause a relatively flat curve in the disk, as observed.
Prior to this, M31 was expected to have its billions of stars follow orbits like our 8 planets around 1 star, our Sun.
That assumption was unjustified to say the least. A complex disk having multiple spiral arms is nothing like our solar system and the dynamics involved would obviously be very different.
Recent discoveries of galaxies "without dark matter" drive this point home. It cannot be understated how straightforward this problem is. Those galaxies are ROUND!
That being said, the failure of accretion models has caused recent attention on magnetic fields even for planet formation at solar system scales. But no mention of the charge movement needed to form them.
A simple NASA experiment in the microgravity of the ISS demonstrates that the electric force plays a role even in simple orbital systems. Electrodynamics at galactic scales may mean gravity plays absolutely ZERO role in rotation.
1) A second solution using magnetic fields and a mathematical model.
The galactic rotation curve problem has at this point quite possibly been solved. Let's include the paper by Professor Donald Scott from the United States.
In outer space, the harsh radiation that is everywhere is known to ionizing. We cannot understand "gas" in space by gas laws or thinking in terms of noble gasses like here on earth. Plasma is self-contained by its own magnetic fields, like with fusion research plasmas in a Tokomak or a Plasma Focus device, or a plasmoid (Plasma Magnetic entity).
In Scotts paper, the relative velocity of stars can be calculated given any two out of three variables and its been impressively tested on 100 years of archived data. The results are impressive. This is by using his mathematical model of a Birkeland Current.
2) Another alternative to dark matter was found in 2015.An important conclusion after a study of IC342, a large obscured, nearby spiral galaxy: Excerpt from the study from Max-Planck Institute titled: "Twisted magnetic field in galaxy IC 342"
"Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone",
continues Rainer Beck. "This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms."
There is of course only one possible way of producing magnetic fields outside of the remnant magnetism of solid iron, and that is obviously the movement of charged particles or what we would call current.
Elsewhere they refer to the currents known to flow through ionised plasma (which we have a decades long name for, Birkeland Current) as "magnetised gas". Other euphemisms used are such terms as " Radio Bridge" or "River of charged hydrogenation" or even "magnetic ropes". But why would serious professionals in any field of science choose to sound like bumbling oafs rather than use proper terms? I can think of two reasons. Either they they do not know the term, or a second, more terrifying prospect presents itself. They cannot admit the plasma cosmologists are right. If they did what would be next? The Electric Universe? The Thunderbolt's Project? Halton ARP was right? And Hannes Alfven?
3) Zwicky used invalid galaxy velocities. All galaxies have their velocity measured by atoms in the line of sight. That can never be the galaxy's velocity. For example, M31 has a blue shift because there are calcium ions in the line of sight and their absorption line blue shift comes from the ions, not M31, moving toward Earth. Dark Matter is the excuse for wrong galactic rotation rates and Dark energy is the excuse for wrong Galactic velocities.
Now Dark matter is also the excuse for the mistake when atoms in
motion are assumed to be the galaxy's motion.
4) Filaments are explained as caused by dark matter. This ignores an important, well-established behavior of ionised plasma in motion, where the magnetic field being generated maintains the filament. That well established behavior of filaments is why plasma has its name. It's also the basis of Birkeland Currents which are likely not much different in the Aurora of the earth, the galactic spiral arms or the cosmic web itself.
There is no "Dark Matter" There is only the unobserved magnetic field, likely present in all galaxies just like it is in M31.
Focus on nonexistent Dark matter may even be the reason for any missed magnetic field, or the missed importance of its implications.
5) The right or wrong number of satellite galaxies is based on unfounded assumptions, not dark matter, which is explicitly in the name of the cosmological model to freely excuse what is not yet understood.
6) Gravity doesn't form strings. As you probably know, dark matter is the sign they are stuck using gravity to explain the prevalence of magnetic fields, and also the spinning, twisting filaments needed at all scales accordingly just as was predicted by plasma cosmology instead of trying to reconcile old nonsense after the fact..
Along with their associated magnetics fields, mainstream is begining to get to grips with the self contained plasma magnetic entities that form Birkeland currents in space via ionised plasma.
History
Winston Bostick 1956
Bostick caused a media storm in the 50's
Bostick was able to perfectly replicate the shape of spiral and other galaxies using the electrodynamics of ionised plasma and this was done scaled in lab conditions completely without any gravitational attraction needed at all.
Over the next thirty years, Bostick, a Professor of Physics at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, investigated plasmoids further and found that "not only the morphology [shape] but the controlling dynamic elements, electric and magnetic fields, are the same in the laboratory as in the galactic phenomena".
Bostick's theory describes galaxies as analogous to series-wound homopolar generators (a kind of motor) that convert gravitational energy of rotation into increasing magnetic energy that causes galaxies to expand away from each other. Furthermore, Bostick suggested that such a model could produce a concentration of current perpendicular to the galactic disk that would be a cosmic-sized "plasma focus" – a device that produces high energy, relativistic (near the speed of light) particle beams, or jets.
Winston H. Bostick was born in 1916, and died January 19, 1991, at age 74.
Alven was Noble Prize winner who was the first to come up with a workable model for the galactic circuit that allowed for the flow of charge (current) along strings of ionised plasma in a collapsing plasma cloud. The charge flowed along the spiral arms to a central plasmoid where it would be discharged just like a plasmoid does in a lab when scaled down and ejected outwards from the poles at the centre of the circuit where it would also create redshifted baby galaxies, or quasars which eventually become regular shifted accompanying galaxies.
Above is a 60 second overview of Alvens galactic circuit.
Above: The Ionised plasma filaments in space are self contained naturally twisting plasma magnetic entities.
Above: A two minute quick look at a lab scale plasmoid.
Please have a look at this post to read more about the plasmoid working with electrodynamic forces at the galactic centre, which completes the circuit, and not an isolated, gravity based black hole which just so happens to find itself there:
Updating the plasma cosmology galactic models.
Why is an establishment that refuses to acknowledge electrodynamics in space proving the Plasma Cosmologists right?
Because they do it without knowing it.
All of the below links are from traditionally more establishment ^-CDM friendly publications. These publications have a record of reception of the most outlandish dark matter, unicorns and fairies, wormhole, spacetime folding pixies dust science with no sign of the scepticism it so desperately begs for.
However, they will be sure to make light and pour scorn on proven physics grounded in Faraday's work and Maxwell's equations.
If you are wondering why so many real science stories are slipping through, it's not by a conscious shift in policy or mandate. To be perfectly frank they don't even necessarily know they are providing evidence for plasma cosmology because they don't understand plasma cosmology. So like children they claim plasma cosmology is "debunked" like good dogs barking for their biscuit, then immediately set about proving plasma cosmology correct!
1) The impossible case of all galaxies rotating at the same speed. Impossible if random gravity is driving rotation, but not if galaxies are all the electric motors from the same Birkeland current in the cosmic web!
Mainstream unknowingly corroborate Plasma Cosmology all the time:
2) Synchronized rotation? It may seem that "something strange and unseen" is causing all galaxies to not only rotate at the same speed as the above illustrated, if you subscribe to the gravity rotation model, but also in perfect synch. If you follow the electrodynamic models you will see this is explicitly predicted.
3) Acknowledging finally that stars are not formed in collapsing gravitational clouds, but instead along Birkeland currents. Gravity does not form strings!
The University of Liverpool talks about a 476 000 year old structure they are investigating.
You read correctly: Four hundred and seventy six thousand years old!
Those who have an interest in the recent finds challenging the accepted narrative on human development, anthropology, archeology, geology, the timeline of civilization etc will immediately understand the importance of this.
I have decided to launch my inaugural DWAHTS year end awards.
...so let's get cracking
1) Media/Sport/Science
The most banned, censored or ignored award:
The award that guarantees you are on the right track.
JACKSON HINKLE
Jackson is young and fearless enough to have been thrown off every platform I followed him on, I think his presence still endures on Rumble and X, where I notice his followers only seem to grow.
Truth-teller Award:
JIMMY DORE
His podcast, unlike Jackson's, somehow survives on YouTube, serving as a modern-day miracle.
This survival on the most censorship-heavy platform boggles the mind since his unyielding "go for the jugular" style doesn't allow any room for compromise. This survival has seen him call out even the softball cultural figures like Cornel West and RFK.
Award for popularity & influence
TUCKER CARLSON
Since being fired from Fox News, he has gone from strength to strength. Just recently he got Alex Jones reinstated on X just by interviewing him. His rise this year has culminated in the Tucker Carlson Network (TCN).
Twat of the year:
PIERS MORGAN
This Zio-cuck tosspot endures as Rupert Murdochs project to create a snobby twat and parade him as an ironic champion of the working man. It doesn't work because snobby twats like him are the reason that the working man is so screwed today. Being arrogant and rude on top of that isn't edgy, it's being a c#nt. Shouting matches on TV are not compelling viewing, they are the obvious contrivance of a ponce with disdain for the everyman looking to rub their faces in their own disenfranchisement and then lament the injustice of not being lauded for it.
Guest/Appearance of the year:
BASSEM YOUSSEF
Award for the years most epic revenge.
NOVAK DJOKOVIC
Djokovic was a close runner up for man of the year and for good reason. After being prevented from playing for over a year (at 36 that should have been the end of his career) he came back with one of the best and most dominant seasons ever winning 3 of the 4 grand slams, all the biggest masters 1000 events and the Year end ATP finals played in Round Robin format by the top 8 in the world. He won a record 7th ATP finals and extended his own record in Slams and Masters, finished over 400 weeks as the worlds top ranked player and another year end #1 blowing out all records held by Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Djokovic is now the undisputed GOAT of tennis. The only record of any significance that still eludes him is Jimmy Connors record for total tournaments won, 109, and he is only 5 away from that. If he was not sidelined for the Vaccine nonsense he would have already surpassed it.
Hypocrite of the year:
BEN SHAPIRO
After making a career out of lambasting the left for their record suppressing free speech, this little bitch immediately devoted all his energy to suppressing free speech after October 7th.
Scientific achievement of the year:
CHANDRAYAAN 3/ India
India got to the moon and collected more data than any preceding nation at 1/50th of the cost.
Chandrayaan-3 is the third mission in the Chandrayaan programme, a series of lunar-exploration missions developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation.
The mission consists of a lunar lander named Vikram and a lunar rover named Pragyan, similar to those launched aboard Chandrayaan-2 in 2019.Wikipedia
Power:Propulsion Module: 758 W; Lander Module: 738 W (WS with Bias); Rover: 50 W
_______________________
2) Politics/Geopolitics
Country of the year:
Military of the year:
Economy of the year:
Leader of the year:
Person of the year:
RUSSIA / PUTIN
Ukraine, Economics, BRICS, Oil and Gas, the Middle East, you name it, Russia has come out on top in every conceivable sphere, and much of the credit goes to Vladimir Putin, what else is there to say.
New leader of the year:
IBRAHIM TRARORE
The Burkina Faso leader cuts an imposing figure on the worlds stage and embodies all the qualities of a new African leader. He has cut all the right deals and played a vital role in kicking French Imperialism out of Francophile Africa especially in neighbouring Niger.
Most incompetent leader of the year:
OLAF SHULZ/ Germany
For single-handedly deindustrialising Germany and being a total cuck turning the other cheek when supposed ally the U.S. blew up critical infrastructure in the Nordstream II pipeline.
Most damaging policy:
ANNELINA BAERBOK/ Germany
The German Green Party clown never set a foot right all year.
Check out his excellent geopolitical analysis site Sonar 21
Consider this a public service. I am not pretending to be a scholar of Middle East history by any stretch. Yet, I’m pretty sure that the majority of people of all races and religions do not understand the 3023 year history of the lands now called Israel and Palestine. Guess which nation/ethnic group that had the longest rule over the region? If you guessed the Arab Muslims (521 years), give yourself a gold star. Second longest was Rome (454 years) followed by the Ottoman Empire (401 years). If you combine the time the Arab Muslims with the Turkish Muslims ruled the region you get a total of 922 years.
It is true that the Jews arrived “first” after the tribes of Israel conquered the Canaanites and Philistines somewhere between 1100 BC and 1020 BC. If you add up the different times that Israel had independent control of the land you get roughly 626 years. I think that most people in America do not realize that Arabs, Turks and Jews define their modern claims on their respective lengthy histories. I am making no claim about who is right and who is wrong. I simply think it is important that the various ethnic group laying claim to Israel/Palestine are thinking in terms of centuries, which is part of what makes finding peace in the Middle East so intractable.
So, let’s jump into the timeline.
TIMELINE
1020 BC — Modern archeologists believe that the Israel described in the Bible came into being around 1020 BC (or BCE). Scholars are divided on the Exodus story — some believe it and some insist that Israel emerged from indigenous tribes.
According to the Hebrew Bible, a “United Monarchy” (consisting of Israel and Judah) existed as early as the 11th century BCE, under the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon; the country later split into two kingdoms: Israel, containing the cities of Shechem and Samaria in the north, and Judah (containing Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple) in the south. The historicity of the United Monarchy is debated—as there are no archaeological remains of it that are accepted as consensus—but historians and archaeologists agree that Israel and Judah existed as separate kingdoms by c. 900 BCE[1]: 169–195 [2] and c. 850 BCE,[3] respectively.[
931 BC Kingdom of Israel
Kingdom of Israel — Lasted 211 years (931 to 722 BC). Last King, Hoshea, Reigned over Israel in Samaria for 9 years.[8] King Shalmaneser attacked and captured Samaria. He charged Hoshea with treason and he put him in prison, then, he deported the Israelites to Assyria.
913 BC Kingdom of Judah
Kingdom of Judah — lasted 327 years (913 to 586). Last King, Zedekiah, Reigned for 11 years. His reign saw the second rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar (588–586 BC). Jerusalem was captured after a lengthy siege, the temple burnt, Zedekiah blinded and taken into exile, and Judah reduced to a province.
720 BC Assyria destroys Kingdom of Israel
587 BC Babylon pillages Jerusalem, destroys First Temple
538 BC Jews return to Jerusalem from Babylon
Jewish Reign After Return from Babylon — 206 years
332 BC Alexander the Great conquers the area
Greek Rule — 132 years
200 BC Judea conquered by Seleucid Empire
Seleucid Rule — 33 years
167 BC Maccabean Revolt Restored Temple Worship (167 to 160 BC)
Rome ruled, in a variety of arrangements, from 64 BC until the Roman Empire split in 390 AD (aka CE).
Roman Rule — 454 years
64 BC Roman Pompey conquers Syria and restores Hyrcanus II as High Priest
6 AD Ceaser Augustus made Judea a Roman Province
L66 AD Start of Jewish Roman War
70 AD Second Temple destroyed
132 AD Bar Kochba Revolt
390 AD Split of the Roman Empire, Byzantine period begins
1917 AD Brits vanquish Turks and take control of Israel
British Rule — 31 years
Israel Rule — 1948 to present
I don’t dare call this Middle East history for dummies. I may be the dummy here and await comments and criticisms over this timeline. A couple of things are clear from this timeline — Israel/Palestine has been a very “popular” tourist stop for more than 2000 years. Regardless of who inhabited the land now known as Israel/Palestine over the last 3000 years, the inhabitants have witnessed war, murder and mayhem for centuries.
I am posting the following video to add more depth to the discussion. It is definitely out of the box thinking and challenges a lot of deeply held beliefs. I also think it adds some additional context to the timeline above. Please pay close attention to the narrators discussion of “anti-Semitism.” What he says about Shem, son of Noah, is true.
One observation relative to the term, “anti-Semite.” The term is wrongly used as a synonym for anti-Jewish. To be a “semite” originally meant a descendant of Shem, one of the sons of Noah.
Apologies for the lighting. This was as load shedding hit and I forgot it was due. I had to vent after my Wi Fi cut out and my battery seemed destined soon to follow.
This clip, the little gem above, is very old, although I don't exactly know which year saw it's creation or the context for which it was made. Its specific purpose is a bit mysterious. It's general purpose is fortunately self evident.
It seeks to portray Big Bang Cosmology as dogmatic, hastily concluded and flimsy. I would add tribal (Ive discovered that when trying to raise the issue for discussion people are divided along polar lines of one team vs another. Such division is a lot like faith based religion or cultural practices.) This portrayal is justified. The standard model needs a purposeful suspension of disbelief. It appears more and more like a political conviction. Perhaps so, but the tribal aspect seems to have its origin in a social/psychological cause.
Our personal sense of identity is increasingly based on some of these cultural norms. It follows logically that we would increasingly risk a self-image crises (or worse) accordingly. Linking our sense of who we are to any ideology or school of thought is the fastest way to lose clarity on an issue. Our psychological need to avoid a crises of identity will involve defending whatever issue is at hand as if it were our own personal standing.
Lately, in the age of politicised science surrounding climate and vaccines, if we fundamentally do not attribute the implications of the ossification of various standard models to their own conduct then we are inviting trouble. By placing standard models beyond reproach we make a defacto declaration that we have stopped doing science, at least at institutional level.
This ossification includes a monopoly on the public funding allocated to a rotten academic establishment. This in turn partly explains why the scientific method was abandoned for "consensus science". The other part is ostensibly also related to special interests financially, but outside the scientific establishment itself, but with a tangible need for the experts to lend legitimacy to whatever they have cooked up. Within the consensus science establishment they always place their vote with themselves to positions of influence, this is human nature. Such positions invariably are the same ones that receive R&D or grant funding. It goes without saying that they design their own course material for academic curriculums as well as public understanding of science.
"Public understanding of science" is an insidiously poised collection of academics or cultural influencers who the public respond well to, and usually this involves a high level of trust and credibility. This is no accident. When you effectively steal taxes you require a PR arm to create justifications for plundering societies to fund dead-end research.
Don't lose sight of the framing of this critical issue raised by the satirical old clip I embedded at the start. Then keep in mind that it is the insiders overseeing their own funding, and the big bang has held that monopoly for years, how interesting to see such old satire lamenting this!
Of course this site, the one you are currently reading, is loaded with gripes in that regard, and competing cosmolgies are as recurring theme here.
I had imagined that no true resistance of any substance was really in the public consciousness before around, let's say the 1980's. That's a long time after the Big Bang itself started becoming more widely accepted perhaps in the 20s or 30s. What do I know apparently? There must have been alot more resistance and a lot earlier than I had imagined. I am aware of the resistance of Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Immanuel Velikovsky, Halton Arp, Wallace Thornhill and Many Others right up to Eric Lerner (who has been in the news often recently in the fall out following the James Webb Space Telescope's failure to uncover the anticipated data predicted by the ^CDM establishment). Regarding the JWST, they had had to be creative to salvage the Big Bangs purely gravity centered dark universe from the widening crises in cosmology. This crises is as ominous as the aforementioned identity crises. It is poised to tear the establishment apart the way I remember "the nothing" tearing Fantasia apart in "The Never Ending Story" when watching it as a child in the 80's.
How apt for a model which was itself 96% dark, this being the most dramatic and spectacular failure of predictive success since the predictive success of cosmology was put forward by many of those voices of descent at 4.6%. A predictive success rate of 4.6% cannot be seriously propsed to a public as a legitimate science that is in their interests to have the national budget in any nation provide for its tax support in R&D. That 4.6% is the paltry proportion of the universe that can be accounted for when the Friedman Equations are applied through layers of contrivance (like cosmic inflation). The equations require a variety of fudge factors such as dark matter and dark energy, and a "big bang" start. The very critical start date yielded by such equations 13.8 billion years ago. In their rampant unchecked hubris these cosmologists have resorted to describing the first nanosecond of creation while other lines of evidence are off by orders of magnitude. S staggering state of affairs.
The supposed precisely calculated reverse engineered concoction they have utilised skirts around such contradictions by periodically making small adjustments or selecting which lines of evidence are most useful in preserving the entrenched narrative. Descent is treated in the way one would usually reserve for treason or heresy and the price paid by such traitors is suitably dire, ensuring theirs is the ONLY set of variables anyone can ever use. This applies unless they prefer being fired and chased from their career by village mobs brandishing flaming pitchforks.
Those variables were only ever calculated by processing the dynamics through a single force, an unbalanced force of attraction that presented a problem. In absence of all other forces the problem was obvious. It required a balancing force to explain why gravity didn't collapse the universe. In this case after misunderstanding evidence such as redshift and the CMB, an explosion type outward force to exist throughout time and exist in precisely the fine balance needed to balance out the model. Contrived much?
There has never been a better example of pure fudge factor parading as evidence. Every line of evidence, every single one has been evidence against a big bang. An unbalanced dark universe where every new observation disproves the previous one unless new physics is invented with every new telescope.
Those who did not blow a trillion dollars of our money and who account for 100% of the observable universe, who have never has a single need for any of the 65 new physics inventions of theoretical physics (this goes far further than dark matter multiple dimensions of space or curved spacetime or the new matter required to hold together the preposterous, borderline supernatural spectacles these clowns have filled our skies with just to avoid using proven physics been put forward used by competing models to explain the universe with the same physics we use on earth to replicate in labs every single one of the observations we invented hypothetical physics for to keep Lambda CDM on life support. That's right. Models exist that account for 100% of the universe purely based on observable matter. In these models we never needed a single new theoretical physics principle to explain a single observation in 50 years. They pretty much got every prediction to match observation and only learned what was not predicted in observation. Rather than predicting something wrong keeping and "tweaking" the model dozens of times, we should have taken another look at models that predicted all the emerging anomalies. They behaved just like it was a climate model (ie just for show and to secure funding, doomed for perpetual overhaul) and that is telling.
If you didn't know there were models around for decades that performed so excellently, you are not alone. They will be around always, basically correct and unchanged as usual, you dont change a model with predictive success, you plump them out, with funding.
But thats not going to happen. I've done a rough calculation, in around 20 years the current model will be the same as the models that worked all along, whose discoverers lost their jobs, were ridiculed and insulted by those whose junk model is slowly being tweaked to match the models they mock. With each new tweak they copy one more principle from the people whose potential jobs they unjustly occupy. In about 2 decades nobody will remember the mistakes, or who had a solution a century before that was (at the time) 180° opposed to theirs in this imagined future where I put forward it will end up as identical. This happens slowly at the pace of new technology arriving and verifying findings. There are bookies that will offer odds on the cheats. If you want a good hint for the age of the universe by the time a new telescope is launched, increase 13.8 billion years to 26 Billion years. If you want good odds for 20 years in the future, I might suggest that new future telescope will offer data to concede that the age and size of the universe are not currently knowable, and every one of the goons in observatories today will claim they knew all along: "Nobody really believed dark matter existed" or that they never seriously considered "the accelerating expansion rate of the universe.
So why even bother to discover new science from such a protected position?
Where else have we seen disaster emerge out of lack of accountability? How about our politicians and diplomats?
Having useless wars is a great way to secure taxpayer cash, especially for military contractors or those invested in their stocks. In fact we could further by pointing out that decisively winning wars is less profitable that dragging them out for decades. Logic dictates that this would replace victory as the primary incentive for those who stand to profit.
Having a model that is useless is a great way to blow cash if results are not your only motive. The sooner you get results the sooner your need to have your research funded arrives. Besides, we don't need the money apparently. Our infrastructure is in too good a condition, right? Families eat too much, blow far too much on luxuries like insulin and surgery, and in any case, why build roads and keep educating kids to high standards when we could keep blowing trillions on pointless wars and totally monopolize the arms dealing industry to support our western core of diplomats. How did that work out? We ended up with diplomats who are actually not working for taxpayers but instead as "market development specialists" for the MIC. They develop a global marketplace to create new business for our arms dealers at the MIC, ie conflict zones. Even a gun given to a child soldiers must be secured with access to your hard work and tax. You will be plundered to keep building new NASA projects that never learn anthing and hogg the world's best engineers frm JPL. Why not just keep blowing all the time and money, it's how you keep rivals from getting it who will learn from it. That way nobody can expose how bad the current "expert's" are until after they kick the bucket.
That is unavoidable and the space sciences scientific establishment already has a predictive success in line with the record Western diplomats have in avoiding wars.
The solution seems clear to me: We fund them. We can cut them off.
All that's missing is the public appetite for oversight. Going forward all funding should be commensurate with performance, this goes without saying. I guess what is revealed is the inherent lack of respect public servants have for our money and together with all the special interests they have a sense of entitlement to a free lunch on you and I.
This is just a quick post absent of my usual geopolitical angles. To be honest it's about everything surrounding the topic, the sticking points that seem to sabotage a discussion capable of advancing the issue in civil discourse.
In all honesty I personally almost consider much of what I choose to bring up irrelevant in understanding the geopolitics, but since (despite there being content out there parading as geopolitical analysis) I keep running into the same tired and totally ossified myths and mishevious (or misunderstood) synopses. It's all weak, lacking in self consistent reasoning and based on a false premise, or two.. or ten.
The case being made out there by the MSM doesn't impress me much.
▪•○●☆●○•▪
Always keep in mind that Hamas was Israel's creation to effectively end Yasser Arafat's PLO.
Always keep in mind that Israel has nuclear weapons, and honestly I have zero doubt that they would sooner use them than ever allow their enemies inbthe region to defeat them. Broader all out war is a no win situation, Its vital this gets de-escalated.
.jpg)
.png)
