Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:14 am

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery ... ifies.html

There's something rather amusing about the fact that the mainstream claims that SN1A's show evidence of "time dilation" while blatantly ignoring the fact that Quasars defy that explanation entirely. If redshift were in fact caused by expansion, then we would expect Quasars to also show evidence of time dilation as well, but they don't.

If however ordinary signal broadening caused by inelastic scattering is the actual cause of that "stretching" of the signal that we observe in SN1A events, then the timing of distant cyclical events from Quasars wouldn't necessarily be any different in terms of their cyclical timing, even if the signals are "broadened" over time/distance. The repetitive signals might occasionally be smeared together in some instances, but the timing of the cycle would still be about the same regardless of the amount of redshift which is exactly what we observe.

Redshift isn't a function of "space expansion" either in the lab or in space. Ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma is the cause of redshift and the cause of signal broadening, which is exactly why distant Quasars show no sign of time dilation.

Quasars are the Waterloo of LCDM.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby JHL » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:53 am

From the link:

(1) the speed of light is a constant (independent of how fast a light source is moving toward or away from an observer)


Sorry to bring this back to such basics, but how do astro-types anchor this Dopplerless light to its own redshift on one hand, to fabricy spacetime aether on the other? I'd suppose they posit that the Universe is this syrpy fabric - with some vague center region thereto - to which everything is pinned at the same time as there is no medium to pin it too. With everything rigidly nailed down to nothing like that the whole thing sounds like spooky action at a distance in the extreme.

I'd just like to locate the current edge of the conflicted standard model's astrophysical suppositions. If this is their fundamental building block, then it seems to me, at least, that their model is as incredibly long in the tooth as it is faith-based. From there I can easily see how the leap from dark matter as a unknown placeholder for an unknown phenomenon to a real physical entity happened. They're building on a faith of their own making.

That stark line really drove home the conundrum of Einsteinian observation and the want of scientific phenomenon - let's just conclude that an aether exists at the same time that instantaneous spooky action exists, and for good measure let's just not expect GR, quantum physics, and Newton to coincide while at the same time we heap all sorts of confirmation bias on these various sciences; after all, we're dealing solely in transient observation and not verifiable phenomenon or their basis. Lightspeed gravity waves from entities whose moons gravitationally orbit the instantaneous centers of? No problem.

I'm not actually questioning the multitude of finer points in the field; just the thought process that led to what looks a lot like a blind alley. I can see how Wal appears supremely dismissive of this field...
JHL
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:23 am

JHL wrote:From the link:

(1) the speed of light is a constant (independent of how fast a light source is moving toward or away from an observer)


Sorry to bring this back to such basics, but how do astro-types anchor this Dopplerless light to its own redshift on one hand, to fabricy spacetime aether on the other? I'd suppose they posit that the Universe is this syrpy fabric - with some vague center region thereto - to which everything is pinned at the same time as there is no medium to pin it too. With everything rigidly nailed down to nothing like that the whole thing sounds like spooky action at a distance in the extreme.

I'd just like to locate the current edge of the conflicted standard model's astrophysical suppositions. If this is their fundamental building block, then it seems to me, at least, that their model is as incredibly long in the tooth as it is faith-based. From there I can easily see how the leap from dark matter as a unknown placeholder for an unknown phenomenon to a real physical entity happened. They're building on a faith of their own making.

That stark line really drove home the conundrum of Einsteinian observation and the want of scientific phenomenon - let's just conclude that an aether exists at the same time that instantaneous spooky action exists, and for good measure let's just not expect GR, quantum physics, and Newton to coincide while at the same time we heap all sorts of confirmation bias on these various sciences; after all, we're dealing solely in transient observation and not verifiable phenomenon or their basis. Lightspeed gravity waves from entities whose moons gravitationally orbit the instantaneous centers of? No problem.

I'm not actually questioning the multitude of finer points in the field; just the thought process that led to what looks a lot like a blind alley. I can see how Wal appears supremely dismissive of this field...


If we're too dismissive however, we lose the ability to use their own claims against them, like that missing time dilation component of quasars. GR itself doesn't *require* all the various metaphysical components of LCDM. Space expansion for instance is a mathematical possibility in GR theory, but that that doesn't automatically mean that space expansion is a real physical process. Likewise nothing prevents someone from stuffing magic energy into a GR formula, but that doesn't mean that magic energy exists either.

I just think we need to extremely cautious so that we aren't conceding any sort of GR high ground to LCDM proponents. GR theory can be applied to EU/PC theory as well as it can be applied to any cosmology theory, and the metaphysical aspects of LCDM aren't actually "givens" in GR.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Cargo » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:24 pm

You know why Cosmic Jets are proof of Relativity, because a Clock moving at the speed of said Jet must experience relativistic effects based on the theory of Relativity. It's quite silly. But over 450 published papers keep referencing it because it allows them the freedom to create any formula for anything as long as they can get back to zero and infinite. Just reference G and all will be fine. How many solar masses would you like in your tea cup?

There are too many Waterloo's to choose from, look at Pulsars and Neutrons Star, Cosmic/Astrophysical Jets. Comets, heck stuff about our own Solar System is nothing but Shocking Unknowns and Fundamental Missing pieces.
Cargo
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:00 am

Cargo wrote:You know why Cosmic Jets are proof of Relativity, because a Clock moving at the speed of said Jet must experience relativistic effects based on the theory of Relativity. It's quite silly. But over 450 published papers keep referencing it because it allows them the freedom to create any formula for anything as long as they can get back to zero and infinite. Just reference G and all will be fine. How many solar masses would you like in your tea cup?

There are too many Waterloo's to choose from, look at Pulsars and Neutrons Star, Cosmic/Astrophysical Jets. Comets, heck stuff about our own Solar System is nothing but Shocking Unknowns and Fundamental Missing pieces.


I think we'd all agree that LCDM has many serious problems, but quasar observations falsify LCDM outright. :)

SN1A events have been used in recent years to not only to give us "dark energy", but also to supposedly verify the expansion model. The length of SN1A events increase over distance, and this stretching of the duration of the signal has been used to supposedly 'verify' the existence of time dilation from distant objects, thereby verifying an expansion model that is consistent with LCDM.

Ordinary signal broadening in plasma would of course produce the same stretching of these SN1A signals, so which of these two interpretations of the cause of signal broadening is correct?

If LCDM were correct, we would expect to see *all* distant events show similar evidence of time dilation, not just SN1A events. Quasars are a good test of this claim. They are different from SN1A events because they produce cyclical and periodic brightening signals, not just 'one off" brightening events as is the case with SN1A events. What we *should* observe if LCDM were correct is a consistent slowing down of these cyclical events with distance. The more distant the quasar, the slower it's cyclical activity should appear.

That's not what we observe however. Instead we observe the same cyclical timing patterns everywhere, regardless of their distance from Earth. A simple signal broadening effect would tend to "smear together" the various brightening and darkening events, making them a little less distinct and harder to detect, but it would not change the actual timing between the various brightening/darkening cycles.

LCDM fails this very simple, and key test of it's core claims. The quasar results are entirely *inconsistent* with LCMD and time dilation, and entirely consistent with ordinary signal broadening in plasma.

This is no small problem for LCDM. Quasar cycles are entirely *inconsistent* with a pattern of time dilation, and there's no easy way to "fudge it". It's like having a series of massive neon signs in space screaming "The LCDM model sucks"! :)

I can't believe I didn't hear about or catch this issue long before now because it's a very serious problem for any type of expansion model, and it's entirely consistent with observations that we would anticipate from a static universe.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

This is why we should embrace GR.....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:46 am

FYI, this is a perfect example of why it's in our community's best interest to embrace the empirically demonstrated elements of GR theory, including time dilation.

The LCDM proponents attempt to take the GR high ground and ride the coattails of GR theory, but their model fails very important elements and important predictions of GR theory. There is no observed time dilation in cyclical quasar emissions so the logical explanation of redshift is *not* a metaphysical form of expansion, rather it's caused by ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma as we observe in the lab. The quasar observations favor a static universe/tired light interpretation of redshift, not expansion. LCDM proponents don't want to (can't) deal with this quasar observation, so they simply try to ignore it altogether. Somehow in their mind if they simply bury their collective heads in sand, the problem somehow magically disappears. The only way they can avoid a bad case of cognitive dissonance is to resort to pure unadulterated denial.

Their attachment to GR theory is a double edged sword. They wish to gain all the scientific credibility that is associated with GR theory, but GR theory doesn't jive with their metaphysical space expansion model!

By embracing GR theory, we take away their scientific high ground and we force them to deal with their own BS. If we reject GR altogether however, we can't turn around and use it to disprove their own claims.

GR theory isn't the problem, LCDM is the problem. GR doesn't favor any particular cosmology model and LCDM doesn't even jive with the predictions of GR theory to start with. That missing time dilation feature in distant quasars is a back breaker for the mainstream. They can't handle it, so they are forced to simply ignore it. It's time to get in their face and point out their problems based on the predictions of their own model and the predictions of GR. Their "space expansion" model sucks. LCDM is not capable of riding the coattails of GR theory because it doesn't jive with the actual predictions of GR theory in the first place!

LCDM is the worst cosmology theory that has ever written and it's not improved one bit by them stuffing their magical invisible nonsense into a GR formula.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:55 pm

It's worth pointing out some of the *other* celestial observations that obliterate LCDM creation mythology.

Their supernatural creation mythology predicts that it took about a billion years before the reionization process was complete, but lo and behold we see h-alpha lines from galaxies that we shouldn't even be able to see:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 91373.html

"The surprising aspect about the present discovery is that we have detected this Lyman-alpha line in an apparently faint galaxy at a redshift of 8.68, corresponding to a time when the universe should be full of absorbing hydrogen clouds," said Richard Ellis, a professor of astrophysics at University College London, said in a statement.


Oooopsy daisy.

And of course let's not forget that contrary to evolutionary predictions of LCDM, those ancient galaxies are "dustier' and they contain more heavy elements than they're supposed to have. They are "mature" galaxies that defy their predictions:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... ies-space/

The problem, the scientists report Monday in Nature, is that while the tiny galaxy dates from just 700 million years or so after the big bang, it's far more dusty than something this young and small has any right to be.


Oooooops.

Not only that, they have massive black holes already which defy their big bang "predictions":

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... nce-space/

Oh no! The only semi-rational "explanation" they seemed to come up with involves more special pleading of course:

The only problem with the jump-start scenario is that astronomers don't know for sure that million-solar-mass stars ever existed. "We've never seen one," Loeb admits. "But with the James Webb Space Telescope," he says, which is scheduled to go into orbit in 2018, "we just might."


They just might not find such stars too. :) Hope springs eternal I suppose.

There are literally huge (black) holes in LCDM mythology that simply defy all their early predictions, and that's not even including all those dark matter experiments that defied all their predictions, not to mention the fact that the standard particle physics model has passed every conceivable test to date with flying colors, again in pure defiance of the LCDM model.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5927315/hubble- ... ldnt-exist

"The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said University of Toronto's David Law, lead author of the study. "Current wisdom holds that such ‘grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe."


And of course there are those 'grand design' galaxies in the ancient universe that shouldn't exist yet....
Oh, and let us not forget those blazars galaxies and their black holes that are simply way more massive than anything LCDM predicted:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/d ... ack-holes/

Black holes of this size should take a very long time to form, so finding them in the early universe is something of a surprise.

In addition, finding so many seems to suggest that these blazars are far more common than scientists thought.


It's simply amazing how many times that mainstream astronomers are "surprised" by various observations at high redshifts. I'm pretty sure the jig is up when the Webb telescope keeps finding more mature galaxies for as far as it can see, and it blows more holes in their claims.

[sarcasm]So aside from quasars which are devoid of time dilation as predicted by LCDM theory, and mature galaxies which defy their claims of galaxy evolution, and massive black holes in the early universe that shouldn't be that large yet, and h-alpha lines from galaxies where we shouldn't see them, and heavy elements in early galaxies before they should be there, and all the laboratory experiments in particle physics which blow dark matter theory out of the water, their supernatural creation mythology is in pretty good shape.[/sarcasm]

If EU/PC theory had failed even a quarter of these kinds of "tests", we'd never hear the end of it. LCDM fails them all, and yet they erroneously claim it's a "better" theory, in spite of the fact that it's mostly made of placeholder terms for human ignorance, mixed with a smattering of "pseudoscience" just for kicks. Oy Vey. What piece of crap cosmology theory LCDM turned out to be. It's hard to imagine how it could be any worse in fact. It fails every high redshift prediction it makes!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:40 pm

The examples are great.
Space is much older than expected, if there is even a beginning.

Also does redshift appear to be caused by interstellar plasma instead of inflation.
It is funny how the general relativity equation is often seen as "evidence" for inflation, instead
of an equation being a model to describe it.

While I do not believe that black holes exist in the form as mainstream describes, I do think
that certain massive objects may be possible.
And it is just weird to use the ultimate end-state of matter as a creation-process
for certain types of elements (lead, gold, uranium, etc.).

If we use some kind of electrical process or electric-like process on nuclear level (do quarks flow too?),
we have creation-process that can appear at any high-energy phenomenon.
The EU now promotes the electrical only process, but I suspect that there might be more going on.

I find it sad that the astronomers do not look at these edge cases and try to find new theories
for them. Instead they are usually ignored. That is because the astronomers need to publish or perish,
and get no time to go into the darker corners of the theories.

But to "defend" the LCDM theory,
is it possible that extreme variations in redshifts (caused by plasma or whatever)
can repair the holes in the inflation theory?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:39 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:The examples are great.
Space is much older than expected, if there is even a beginning.


I think its the height of hubris to claim that we can even be sure that the universe even had a "beginning". There's no doubt however that's it's older than 13.8 billion years old. I think the Webb Telescope will make that very apparent actually.

While I do not believe that black holes exist in the form as mainstream describes, I do think
that certain massive objects may be possible.


I also tend to agree with Einstein's rejection of "point" like objects (maintream black holes), although like you I entertain (actually accept) the concept of massive objects in space. They don't necessarily have to be as massive as the mainstream assumes however. X-ray output is more a function of current flow than object size IMO.

I find it sad that the astronomers do not look at these edge cases and try to find new theories
for them. Instead they are usually ignored. That is because the astronomers need to publish or perish,
and get no time to go into the darker corners of the theories.


I think the basic problem is that they can't really address those issues and not destroy the whole creation dogma in the process. The moment you accept that quasars do not exhibit time dilation, "tired light" explanations of redshift become more useful to explain such observations. That's the end of any "bang" theory, or dating capability related to the universe itself. Such information *has* to be simply swept under the carpet lest the whole creation mythology bite the dust. They can futz around with some of their ideas related to the maturity of ancient galaxies, but those large "black hole" observations push them to the limit, over it in fact. Those observations of h-alpha lines in such distant galaxies also blows their "reionization" claims out of the water. I think they're forced into denial by pure fear. The moment they try to address these large z value redshift observations which don't match up with their theory, the whole expansion claim falls apart.

But to "defend" the LCDM theory,
is it possible that extreme variations in redshifts (caused by plasma or whatever)
can repair the holes in the inflation theory?


Don't even get me started on the absurdity of inflation theory. Alan Guth literally "made it up" in his head and the whole concept can be traced back to a single paper by a single individual. Guth used three basic claims to support inflation originally. He claimed that inflation "explained' the "non existence' of unicorns, er, I mean "monopoles". The non existence of something doesn't require an "explanation" in the first place or the non existence of gnomes might be used as evidence to support 'gnome poison'. :) It's just a ridiculous claim to start with. The second big 'claim to fame' of inflation theory according to Guth is that inflation explains the "flatness" of the universe, yet Penrose has demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat universe" would be achieved with inflation rather than without it. Strike two. The third observation which Guth cited as evidence to support his claim is the homogeneity of universe, but Planck data sets show hemispheric variations which defy that prediction too. There's not a single one of Guth's original justifications for inflation theory that hold any water in 2017.

There's nothing which might save inflation theory, even if GR theory is exactly the right way to describe gravity.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Quasars are the Waterloo of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:11 am

It should also be noted that expansion models fail the surface brightness test at larger redshifts too:

https://www.libertariannews.org/2014/05 ... rightness/

And:

The emtire basis of the dark energy claim is that SN1A's are "standard candles", and that claim has also be falsified by later studies:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/supern ... -after-all

Their LCDM models fails pretty much every high redshift observation on the books. Why? Because their *assumption* that "space expansion" is a legitimate 'cause" of photon redshift was never supported by empirical physics in the first place, and it's obviously the *wrong* interpretation of the observation of photon redshift.

If it were the correct interpretation, they wouldn't fail every high z redshift observation on the books and they wouldn't need ad hoc placeholder terms for human ignorance to decribe 95 percent of the universe.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

They missed it by two whole orders of magnitude.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:55 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... grees.html

FYI, quasar jets are about 2 orders of magnitude hotter than the LCDM models predicts, probably because they insist on denying the existence of the current that is flowing through the jets. :)

I can see why Halton Arp focused on quasars. They utterly destroy the LCDM model. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests