A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

In order for science to progress healthily, it should be open to alternative ideas and constructive challenges.
Emerging theories should be listened to and tested to their limits by examination. This should be done through
consideration of the views of peers from within the discipline involved and possibly the views of experts from
other disciplines, where appropriate. And as has been said many times by good scientists, there should always
be opportunity for alternative theories to progress in parallel with, or to replace completely, an original theory.
It seems however, that the less rigorous and less professional members of the science establishment (in theoretical
astro-science, cosmology and mathematics especially) have paid questionable heed to these things. Many of
them seem instead, for their own reasons, to want to continue following what have been shown to be ‘fairy
stories’. In the words of Francis Bacon … “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
To underline the main message here, think of a very young child in a sweet shop without any supervision. We
can easily imagine their childish motivation to sample a few of the items on display that are within their reach.
They would probably do this without any sense of guilt or real understanding that what they are doing is wrong.
It would appear to be a similar situation in the worlds of theoretical astro-physics and theoretical mathematics.
It seems to come down to simple human nature that, in the absence of a perceived need to follow some form
of professional code, and, while effective external controls are non-existent, some people will tend towards
distinctly self-serving behaviour, often unconsciously. In other words, what we might describe as people with
no constraints ‘letting their imaginations run riot’ while not necessarily being focused on reality or being fully
aware of their actions and the consequences thereof.
Take this idea into the situation where we have working astro-scientists today with their intellectual freedom
and their freedom to act, as they see it, being enshrined as a right. It does not matter where we find these people
positioned on the professional career ladder or what they actually do within a particular hierarchy, the same
will apply. Accepting first that many scientists, if not most, will feel a strong, fundamental need to be true
to the tenets of their chosen profession, there are undoubtedly others who are not focused in this way. These
others may, in order to achieve and maintain a quiet life and a quasi-successful career, take the view that they
have no choice but to stick with broadly accepted theories and to just get on with non-contentious research
and ultimately minimally productive work. There might also be those who put materialistic tendencies behind
them but who wish to direct their energies single-mindedly towards protecting their positions in a hierarchy
of their peers in order to stoke their own egos. Others might find themselves with an involvement in ongoing
prestigious work for which they will do anything to protect said project’s status and ongoing funding. Some will
put their families and economic situations first and will just not speak up when involved in work that they view
personally as questionable. Some others, sadly, will have a clear awareness of what the right things are to do but
lack the courage or moral fibre to break ranks and openly state their doubts. Through whatever form of inaction
we care to consider, any perpetuation of pointless work and waste of public money is just not acceptable [2-1] .
Shame on those who fit any of these definitions, for every one of us is 100% responsible for the decisions we
2 | The thinking that got us here