Thanks for having this discussion and conveying your viewpoint (that made a coupe of things more clear for me as well).
Like I said I am not necessarily an EU theory/model proponent as I do realize there are quite a few problems there as well. Perhaps let me just go into one more point:
To conclude, mainstream science is not closed to new ideas.
Within the sociology of science I think it has been rather clearly demonstrated that science is not an objective undertaking. Human biases play a role here which not only calls into question the idea that "hard sciences" can offer insights into an objective reality (independent from the observer), but it also looks at the way how institutionalized science (unconsciously) creates and upholds paradigms and legitimized world views. This is also why I am skeptical of claims regarding the peer-review system. To quote P.M. Robitaille
How can peer review truly exist, when all the reviewers are linked by necessity to a much larger scientific network determined to validate the findings?
I always like to discuss, even of controversial topics as this one, provided the discussion is polite. It is unfortunately quite rare when one enters this slope.
Well. This is quite a very general statement and while it may be correct in some cases, it may also be wrong in other cases. For instance, in particle physics, we have independent open-access journals that are not held by big editors and where the peer review system is also publicly available. How could we make it more transparent than that? But again, this is one case and we should not generalise. I just wanted to show with one example that nothing is either black or white.
Any finding needs to be replicated. This is the essence of the scientific method. However, the lack of independent validation should not be a reason not to publish a work (if no obvious fault is found).
I just stumbled over this video today, it might be worth your time:
Just with the title that does actually not mean much, I won't click on it... Sorry. The real reason is that I have not much time at the moment, I don't like watching videos in general and we have a bad title... :)
To go back to the physics, the cosmic microwave background is a prediction from standard cosmology and has been observed by many independent experiments since the late 1970s... One may have another explanation, this is fine. However, saying all other explanations including the standard paradigm (that is reinforced by many independent effects) are bullshit is not the way one gets listened... In short, having an alternative explanation does not prove all other explanations are rubbish.
He doesn't say that they are bullshit :) He just asks some really good questions. But I'll stay critical for sure as well
Note that I didn't watch the video: I only commented form the title (for my defense; I thought I was clear about this ;) ).