David Talbott, Ev Cochrane and Dwardu Cardona refer specifically to the oldest mythological archetypes -- the "archaic" ones. For specific examples, you'd want to search for their talks on youtube.
Realize that Plato broadly cast all of the earliest stories as a recounting of a single event. This quote is very important, due not only to its specificity but also for the unrecognized fact that Plato would appear to be describing the action of gravity -- a concept which he did not understand -- drawing back to Earth a debris field. In fact, this is a very simple explanation for why civilizations like the Mayans created calendars which looked far beyond the prediction of simple seasonal cycles:
"Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burned up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth recurring at long intervals of time"
... then further on...
"All of these stories, and ten thousand others which are still more wonderful, have a common origin; many of them have been lost in the lapse of ages, or exist only as fragments; but the origin of them is what no one has told"
Re: "Except one is extrapolation from direct measurement and the other is, in your words, a 'short leap of imagination' which I think is being very generous about how long a leap it is."
I've created a graphic here which I think reduces the confusion of this paper. It lays out the surprising correspondence between laboratory-generated plasma instabilities in high-intensity electric discharges and common abstract petroglyph forms.
"40% of petroglyph types can be accounted for."
Re: "I think if you read up a bit more about Gerald Pollack you'll see that the folks who are co-opting his work are other crackpots extrapolating from his book and work to make bizarre claims about magic water which he never made."
You made this up. I am talking about mainstream researchers. There is nothing at all bizarre about structured water. It has been extensively studied in the laboratory. It can be observed to accumulate at the top of a typical cup of water as a reaction to casting a very specific frequency of infrared light onto it. The experiment is not complicated. Since the structured and bulk water are actually two different molecular arrangements, they exhibit differing net charges. And if you actually hook up a resistor to these two different regions of your typical glass of water, you can actually measure an electric current. You might consider that you don't actually know what you are arguing against.
Re: "The problem isn't a lack of rigor in dismissing bizarre claims, it's a lack of rigor in the claims themselves."
This is a stunning display of irony -- for you've arrived at this conclusion without any actual process for learning or tracking the claims.
Re: "Lastly there is no such thing as 'settled science'."
By "settled science", I am referring to the idea that we can assume that some questions are settled, without any need to track them for vindications over time. It is clear from your own comments that settled science is very real.
Re: "The areas you cite (with the exception of Pollack) don't even bother to make predictions, they're just folks jumping up and down yammering 'acknowledge my theory, acknowledge my theory'."
Some of our most important ideas in the sciences today originated in just this manner, actually. And in fact, pet theories are actually quite common amongst even academics.
If somebody was to ask you in the street -- without access to wikipedia or any other resources -- what the Electric Universe actually is, the nature of the problem would become immediately obvious. You would observably struggle to explain the idea's details.
The fact of the matter is that the most vocal critics here on Slashdot generally know the least about the idea. We need not perform such a survey, actually, because we can tell as much from the fact that none of the comments here exhibit the overt hostility to this nearly identical idea proposed by mainstream academics.
You've changed the subject. This is a meta conversation about the reaction here when the words "Electric" and "Universe" are placed in proximity to one another. I am not discussing the science at this point -- just the collective reactions here.
This story is another perfect example for why the "settled science" academic approach absolutely fails to produce a rigorous result, in practice. We need to be systematically tracking controversial science claims on a social network which is dedicated to crowdsourcing this information.
It also demonstrates -- once again -- an overt bias against the Electric Universe amongst the scientific community and science journalists. This is really straightforward, guys. Let me explain.
Alongside the core scientific claim that cosmic plasmas should be modeled as laboratory plasmas, the Thunderbolts Group has also proposed that the earliest human stories are best interpreted through the lens of plasma physics. And although there is not actually a consensus on these interpretations, what some comparative mythologists in their group have concluded is that the best way to explain the earliest stories mankind told -- mainly the mythological archetypes -- is with the suggestion that a foreign star entered into our solar system in human-historical times.
Notice the remarkable similarity in the two claims. We really have to dig into the very fine details in order to discern the differences between this mainstream science claim and the Electric Universe claim.
But, also -- importantly -- notice that there was no immediate labeling of this mainstream version of the idea as "pseudoscience", even though the two claims are basically the same -- and -- more to the point, imo -- no demonstrable realization amongst the critics of the Electric Universe that this is what they are claiming. What I have observed is that people are against the Electric Universe brand -- not the idea itself -- for if a person can be convinced that some sort of foreign incursion has occurred in recent human-historical times, the suggestion that we can then interpret the earliest human stories through the lens of this idea is a very short leap of imagination.
Put another way, people are dead-set against an idea which they don't really know much about. This sort of behavior is not in the spirit of rigorous science, and it can actually lead to tremendous confusion in the sciences, for it institutionalizes a lack of rigor and biases into this process which is widely regarded as secure from such things. And, to be clear, this problem is far, far bigger than just the EU; this lack of rigor is occurring across all of the scientific disciplines. There are some controversial claims -- e.g., the work of Dr. Gerald Pollack on water and gels -- which is routinely coopted by the mainstream, for the simple reason that not even the mainstream researchers have tracked the controversial science claim. These mainstream researchers generally have no idea that they are vindicating or copying other peoples' work -- because we've yet to build out the tools which would track these claims. The information is all spread out, and lacks a system of organization which can facilitate crowdsourcing and discovery.
We really need to think more deeply about the implications of the "settled science" approach to science, for it really seems like a factory for mistakes which can, in theory, cause us to spin our wheels endlessly.
People will of course howl because I said the "EU" words, but if you really want to see substantial progress in the sciences over your lifetime, you'll think more deeply about the more general case, and you will favor the approach which results in a more rigorous scientific result. I invoke the Electric Universe to make my point, but this problem is truthfully much bigger than any individual disagreement in the sciences.
What I've observed over time are a lot of poorly-argued hit pieces which people who claim to believe in peer review immediately adopted as truth. In some cases -- as in the case of Professor Koberlein of RIT -- there have been some glaring errors in his analysis.
For example, this claim he made in that article (below) is completely false, and there is -- to this day -- no retraction observable in the article posted to his own personal blog:
The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.
Koberlein recently published a redaction -- after four years of refusing to do so -- where he clumsily admitted that this claim is not entirely accurate.
It's interesting that people who claim to believe in peer review are so quick to accept critiques which have not been reviewed by anybody. It's also interesting that Koberlein does not go back and correct the original article, so anybody reading that -- to this day -- would have to sift through all of the comments attached to it in order to understand that a mistake was made. I'm betting that most people don't do that.
Re: "The further we progress in our understanding, the harder and harder it gets have such huge breakthroughs."
Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)
Revitalizing Science In A Risk-averse Culture: Reflections On The Syndrome And Prescriptions For Its Cure
G.H. Pollack
... A half-century ago, breakthroughs were fairly common events that could be counted on to occur from time to time on an unpredictable but not infrequent basis. Pioneering such breakthroughs were scientific heroes -- legendary figures such as Linus Pauling, Jonas Salk, Richard Feynman, James Watson, Francis Crick, and others, names familiar even to lay people...
But things have changed. While the past 30 years have brought a great outpouring of scientific results, breakthroughs are less common. Modern equivalents of Pauling, Salk, and Watson-Crick are not easy to identify. Considering the massive investment in science today, why is it that scientific heroes have become so scarce? Why so few conceptual breakthroughs? I refer to realized breakthroughs such as the biochemical nature of heredity or the polio vaccine, not incipient breakthroughs whose realization seems always just around the corner. Can you name more than a handful of realized breakthroughs that have come during the past three decades?...
Some argue that this settling down is all but inevitable. After all, science today is far more complicated than it has been, often requiring teams of investigators and large groups to pursue effectively. Others argue that there is simply not much more to be discovered -- that the breakthroughs have had their heyday and we need content ourselves with merely filling in the gaps. Thus, breakthroughs might not be expected to occur on an everyday basis.
Perhaps some of this is true -- but a significant role may also be played by another factor: the growing aversion to risk taking. Although funding agencies have much to be proud of for past achievements, it is broadly perceived that they have become less agile in dealing with proposals that dissent from orthodoxy...
Challengers of the status quo rarely succeed in today’s scientific climate. Hence, those approaches most apt to generate conceptual breakthroughs are throttled before they can emerge from the scientific womb.
The funding agencies worldwide are aware of this problem. Several agencies have held recent workshops to deal with the issue, and some measures have been taken over and above existing remedial programs. In the US, for example, the term 'high risk' now permeates review guidelines. And, both the NSF and the NIH have established special programs to encourage novel approaches...
These institutional responses acknowledge the problem. Yet, it is broadly felt that the responses are nominal. Few dissenters from orthodoxy report any more success than before. The reviewers are largely the same, and have not abruptly changed their well-honed views. Admonishing them to be 'less conservative' comes with no guarantee that they will be. Thus, effective action has yet to be taken."
Here's a shot of the aurora that you may have missed. Long-range attraction, short-range repulsion. You can derive this from the math. Fluids equations will not be of much help. It's called a Birkeland current.
I have consistently posted specific technical claims to make my case, and you guys have consistently taken the conversation back to narratives and stereotypes every time.
You guys are really asking for somebody to document all of the numerous misconceptions which are posted about plasmas into Slashdot comments. The tech community is completely discrediting itself on this subject of cosmic plasmas. Here's some friendly advice: Think about where you learned what you are posting, and if you cannot identify the source, then phrase it as a question.
Somebody needs to alert all of the office building managers who have been using plasma-based lighting (aka "fluorescent lights") above everybody's heads that plasmas are always hot.
Strong variations in density indicate that the electrically charged part of Saturn's atmosphere (the so-called ionosphere) has a strong coupling to the visible rings that consist primarily of ice particles. The ice particles are also electrically charged.
"It is as though the small ice particles in the D-ring suck up electrons from the ionosphere," says Jan-Erik Wahlund. "As a result of the coupling, electrical flows of gas to and from the rings along the magnetic field of Saturn cause the greatest variations in density."
"Sir Fred Hoyle, 67,... said he believed a free and imaginative approach was the key to scientific progress: 'The solution to unsolved problems must lie in unexpected directions. If the conventional view were correct, the problems would already be solved.' Conformism meant fewer discoveries were being made. 'The only way discoveries can be made in that system is for people to stumble on them by chance. Everything becomes accidental, without directed purpose."
The tech community needs to rid itself of this overt bias against electricity in space. We can have a debate over the nuance of whether or not electricity in space does things of importance, but this tradition of calling anybody who even mentions electricity in space a crazy person is increasingly out-of-step with mainstream astrophysical consensus. Astrophysicists increasingly agree that electricity travels through space; what they are trying to suggest is that it doesn't actually do anything of importance. Whether or not that is the case demands that we observe, over time, whether or not we can see evidence that the cosmic plasma is behaving as laboratory plasma (as conductors). This is not something that people will be able to determine without even trying.
Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of stars become elongated, creating a “bar” of stars that runs through the centre and tilts out of the disc’s plane. The combined effect makes the once-flat galaxy look like it has buckled under enormous pressure.
People who do not track the electricity in space debate would not see this as a vindication for those claims, but it certainly is.
You're applying the wrong toolbox - electrostatics. The macroscopic behavior of charged particles is defined by the domain of plasma physics, not electrostatics. You can observe this simple fact by observing any novelty plasma globe: Plasmas form into filaments within the laboratory, and these filaments conduct electric currents. The filaments tend to wrap around one another without combining, demonstrating both a long-range attraction and a short-range repulsion. What this means, in practice, is that the electric force can be extended to any distance. Wherever the plasma filament goes, it carries with it the electric force.
No matter how big the black hole is, no matter how much matter is in the galaxy, no matter how much dark matter might exist, no matter when the black hole formed, and regardless of the unique histories we observe each of these galaxies to have had...
... they all rotate at the same rate.
Here's the thought you did not have, but should have:
If each of these galaxies is connected with one another through the jets we sometimes see coming out of them, then one reasonable way to explain this very strange observation is if it is the jets that are driving all of the galaxies, rather than the reverse.
Like many others, this observation can be called a vindication for the idea that electricity in space -- the jets -- actually does things of importance at the cosmological scales.
But, also notice that you did not recognize this on your own. It took somebody else tracking the controversy to see it and inform you. When the world convinces itself that it does not need to track "settled science" claims, there is no doubt that things are going to fall through the cracks.
"There is no such thing as 'the' scientific method. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question 'what is science'. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking."
Thanks! Care to explain why two central bulges for galaxies is not a vindication for Peratt's dark matter solution (as is shown in the thread I directed you to?).
But, in science, we do not just settle for "what works" because epicycles also work; we have to identify "what works best" -- and the only way to do that in a rigorous manner is through tracking controversies. If academia -- and the people who subscribe to their preferred ideas -- want to have confidence that their preferred theories are "what works best", then they would focus more upon creating a system of checks-and-balances, in the spirit of the United States government. As things stand, there is nobody reviewing the peer reviewers, and that is a recipe for abuse.
Guess what? I personally noticed two vindications for the Electric Universe just this week (one actually traces back to 2016 and I just didn't notice it when it happened). If you had been tracking the topic with me, you would have noticed them as well.
I explain them in this other thread. Please read this to better appreciate with live, recent examples the importance of tracking controversies. I promise: I am not crazy. When the world convinces itself that nobody needs to pay attention to something, stuff starts to fall through the cracks.
Slashdot Mirror
David Talbott, Ev Cochrane and Dwardu Cardona refer specifically to the oldest mythological archetypes -- the "archaic" ones. For specific examples, you'd want to search for their talks on youtube.
Realize that Plato broadly cast all of the earliest stories as a recounting of a single event. This quote is very important, due not only to its specificity but also for the unrecognized fact that Plato would appear to be describing the action of gravity -- a concept which he did not understand -- drawing back to Earth a debris field. In fact, this is a very simple explanation for why civilizations like the Mayans created calendars which looked far beyond the prediction of simple seasonal cycles:
... then further on ...
And, by the way, they actually do make predictions -- which is the first link that comes up if you type into Google "electric universe predictions".
Re: "Except one is extrapolation from direct measurement and the other is, in your words, a 'short leap of imagination' which I think is being very generous about how long a leap it is."
"Eighty-four distinct high-energy-density Z-pinch categories have been identified in petroglyphs, nearly all of which belong to the archaic [50] class. Only a small percentage of these petroglyphs, or petroglyph patterns, do not fall into any of these categories."
I've created a graphic here which I think reduces the confusion of this paper. It lays out the surprising correspondence between laboratory-generated plasma instabilities in high-intensity electric discharges and common abstract petroglyph forms.
"40% of petroglyph types can be accounted for."
Re: "I think if you read up a bit more about Gerald Pollack you'll see that the folks who are co-opting his work are other crackpots extrapolating from his book and work to make bizarre claims about magic water which he never made."
You made this up. I am talking about mainstream researchers. There is nothing at all bizarre about structured water. It has been extensively studied in the laboratory. It can be observed to accumulate at the top of a typical cup of water as a reaction to casting a very specific frequency of infrared light onto it. The experiment is not complicated. Since the structured and bulk water are actually two different molecular arrangements, they exhibit differing net charges. And if you actually hook up a resistor to these two different regions of your typical glass of water, you can actually measure an electric current. You might consider that you don't actually know what you are arguing against.
Re: "The problem isn't a lack of rigor in dismissing bizarre claims, it's a lack of rigor in the claims themselves."
This is a stunning display of irony -- for you've arrived at this conclusion without any actual process for learning or tracking the claims.
Re: "Lastly there is no such thing as 'settled science'."
By "settled science", I am referring to the idea that we can assume that some questions are settled, without any need to track them for vindications over time. It is clear from your own comments that settled science is very real.
Re: "The areas you cite (with the exception of Pollack) don't even bother to make predictions, they're just folks jumping up and down yammering 'acknowledge my theory, acknowledge my theory'."
Some of our most important ideas in the sciences today originated in just this manner, actually. And in fact, pet theories are actually quite common amongst even academics.
If somebody was to ask you in the street -- without access to wikipedia or any other resources -- what the Electric Universe actually is, the nature of the problem would become immediately obvious. You would observably struggle to explain the idea's details.
The fact of the matter is that the most vocal critics here on Slashdot generally know the least about the idea. We need not perform such a survey, actually, because we can tell as much from the fact that none of the comments here exhibit the overt hostility to this nearly identical idea proposed by mainstream academics.
You've changed the subject. This is a meta conversation about the reaction here when the words "Electric" and "Universe" are placed in proximity to one another. I am not discussing the science at this point -- just the collective reactions here.
This story is another perfect example for why the "settled science" academic approach absolutely fails to produce a rigorous result, in practice. We need to be systematically tracking controversial science claims on a social network which is dedicated to crowdsourcing this information.
It also demonstrates -- once again -- an overt bias against the Electric Universe amongst the scientific community and science journalists. This is really straightforward, guys. Let me explain.
Alongside the core scientific claim that cosmic plasmas should be modeled as laboratory plasmas, the Thunderbolts Group has also proposed that the earliest human stories are best interpreted through the lens of plasma physics. And although there is not actually a consensus on these interpretations, what some comparative mythologists in their group have concluded is that the best way to explain the earliest stories mankind told -- mainly the mythological archetypes -- is with the suggestion that a foreign star entered into our solar system in human-historical times.
Notice the remarkable similarity in the two claims. We really have to dig into the very fine details in order to discern the differences between this mainstream science claim and the Electric Universe claim.
But, also -- importantly -- notice that there was no immediate labeling of this mainstream version of the idea as "pseudoscience", even though the two claims are basically the same -- and -- more to the point, imo -- no demonstrable realization amongst the critics of the Electric Universe that this is what they are claiming. What I have observed is that people are against the Electric Universe brand -- not the idea itself -- for if a person can be convinced that some sort of foreign incursion has occurred in recent human-historical times, the suggestion that we can then interpret the earliest human stories through the lens of this idea is a very short leap of imagination.
Put another way, people are dead-set against an idea which they don't really know much about. This sort of behavior is not in the spirit of rigorous science, and it can actually lead to tremendous confusion in the sciences, for it institutionalizes a lack of rigor and biases into this process which is widely regarded as secure from such things. And, to be clear, this problem is far, far bigger than just the EU; this lack of rigor is occurring across all of the scientific disciplines. There are some controversial claims -- e.g., the work of Dr. Gerald Pollack on water and gels -- which is routinely coopted by the mainstream, for the simple reason that not even the mainstream researchers have tracked the controversial science claim. These mainstream researchers generally have no idea that they are vindicating or copying other peoples' work -- because we've yet to build out the tools which would track these claims. The information is all spread out, and lacks a system of organization which can facilitate crowdsourcing and discovery.
We really need to think more deeply about the implications of the "settled science" approach to science, for it really seems like a factory for mistakes which can, in theory, cause us to spin our wheels endlessly.
People will of course howl because I said the "EU" words, but if you really want to see substantial progress in the sciences over your lifetime, you'll think more deeply about the more general case, and you will favor the approach which results in a more rigorous scientific result. I invoke the Electric Universe to make my point, but this problem is truthfully much bigger than any individual disagreement in the sciences.
What I've observed over time are a lot of poorly-argued hit pieces which people who claim to believe in peer review immediately adopted as truth. In some cases -- as in the case of Professor Koberlein of RIT -- there have been some glaring errors in his analysis.
For example, this claim he made in that article (below) is completely false, and there is -- to this day -- no retraction observable in the article posted to his own personal blog:
Had he simply googled "electric universe neutrinos", the professor would have run into the EU explanation for solar neutrinos.
Koberlein recently published a redaction -- after four years of refusing to do so -- where he clumsily admitted that this claim is not entirely accurate.
It's interesting that people who claim to believe in peer review are so quick to accept critiques which have not been reviewed by anybody. It's also interesting that Koberlein does not go back and correct the original article, so anybody reading that -- to this day -- would have to sift through all of the comments attached to it in order to understand that a mistake was made. I'm betting that most people don't do that.
It's what you would expect if there was a jet which ran through all of them, which was driving the galaxies.
Re: "The further we progress in our understanding, the harder and harder it gets have such huge breakthroughs."
Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)
Revitalizing Science In A Risk-averse Culture: Reflections On The Syndrome And Prescriptions For Its Cure
G.H. Pollack
There is no need to break the rules. All of the interesting things happen without any of that.
Here's a shot of the aurora that you may have missed. Long-range attraction, short-range repulsion. You can derive this from the math. Fluids equations will not be of much help. It's called a Birkeland current.
I have consistently posted specific technical claims to make my case, and you guys have consistently taken the conversation back to narratives and stereotypes every time.
You guys are really asking for somebody to document all of the numerous misconceptions which are posted about plasmas into Slashdot comments. The tech community is completely discrediting itself on this subject of cosmic plasmas. Here's some friendly advice: Think about where you learned what you are posting, and if you cannot identify the source, then phrase it as a question.
Re: "Plasma is hot, dense"
Somebody needs to alert all of the office building managers who have been using plasma-based lighting (aka "fluorescent lights") above everybody's heads that plasmas are always hot.
Something to consider:
The tech community needs to rid itself of this overt bias against electricity in space. We can have a debate over the nuance of whether or not electricity in space does things of importance, but this tradition of calling anybody who even mentions electricity in space a crazy person is increasingly out-of-step with mainstream astrophysical consensus. Astrophysicists increasingly agree that electricity travels through space; what they are trying to suggest is that it doesn't actually do anything of importance. Whether or not that is the case demands that we observe, over time, whether or not we can see evidence that the cosmic plasma is behaving as laboratory plasma (as conductors). This is not something that people will be able to determine without even trying.
Slashdot is mangling my links. Here's the link to Peratt's galaxy simulation: plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation
Let me give you another example of a vindication which everybody missed for electricity in space doing things of importance:
In July of 2016, it was admitted that many galaxies exhibit two separate bulges:
People who do not track the electricity in space debate would not see this as a vindication for those claims, but it certainly is.
Anthony Peratt simulated proper galactic rotation curves in the early 80's on government supercomputers without the need for any dark matter. . Look carefully at the simulation results, and you will see your two separate bulges.
You're applying the wrong toolbox - electrostatics. The macroscopic behavior of charged particles is defined by the domain of plasma physics, not electrostatics. You can observe this simple fact by observing any novelty plasma globe: Plasmas form into filaments within the laboratory, and these filaments conduct electric currents. The filaments tend to wrap around one another without combining, demonstrating both a long-range attraction and a short-range repulsion. What this means, in practice, is that the electric force can be extended to any distance. Wherever the plasma filament goes, it carries with it the electric force.
"Several researchers have reported direct evidence for large scale electric currents along astrophysical jets," and not only that, but in plasma physics, it's not always the case that the plasma emits any light. Plasmas can conduct even while they are in a dark mode - much like the wires in your home, of course.
Think about what they are saying for a moment ...
No matter how big the black hole is, no matter how much matter is in the galaxy, no matter how much dark matter might exist, no matter when the black hole formed, and regardless of the unique histories we observe each of these galaxies to have had ...
... they all rotate at the same rate.
Here's the thought you did not have, but should have:
If each of these galaxies is connected with one another through the jets we sometimes see coming out of them, then one reasonable way to explain this very strange observation is if it is the jets that are driving all of the galaxies, rather than the reverse.
Like many others, this observation can be called a vindication for the idea that electricity in space -- the jets -- actually does things of importance at the cosmological scales.
But, also notice that you did not recognize this on your own. It took somebody else tracking the controversy to see it and inform you. When the world convinces itself that it does not need to track "settled science" claims, there is no doubt that things are going to fall through the cracks.
Thanks! Care to explain why two central bulges for galaxies is not a vindication for Peratt's dark matter solution (as is shown in the thread I directed you to?).
That's nice. Would you care to explain why galaxies with two central bulges are not a vindication for Peratt's solution to the dark matter problem?
But, in science, we do not just settle for "what works" because epicycles also work; we have to identify "what works best" -- and the only way to do that in a rigorous manner is through tracking controversies. If academia -- and the people who subscribe to their preferred ideas -- want to have confidence that their preferred theories are "what works best", then they would focus more upon creating a system of checks-and-balances, in the spirit of the United States government. As things stand, there is nobody reviewing the peer reviewers, and that is a recipe for abuse.
Guess what? I personally noticed two vindications for the Electric Universe just this week (one actually traces back to 2016 and I just didn't notice it when it happened). If you had been tracking the topic with me, you would have noticed them as well.
I explain them in this other thread. Please read this to better appreciate with live, recent examples the importance of tracking controversies. I promise: I am not crazy. When the world convinces itself that nobody needs to pay attention to something, stuff starts to fall through the cracks.