LCDM fails yet *another* observational 'test'.

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

LCDM fails yet *another* observational 'test'.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:19 pm ... ysics.html

Explaining a Vexing Discrepancy

Riess outlined a few possible explanations for the mismatch, all related to the 95 percent of the universe that is shrouded in darkness. One possibility is that dark energy, already known to be accelerating the cosmos, may be shoving galaxies away from each other with even greater - or growing - strength. This means that the acceleration itself might not have a constant value in the universe but changes over time in the universe. Riess shared a Nobel Prize for the 1998 discovery of the accelerating universe.

Another idea is that the universe contains a new subatomic particle that travels close to the speed of light. Such speedy particles are collectively called "dark radiation" and include previously known particles like neutrinos, which are created in nuclear reactions and radioactive decays. Unlike a normal neutrino, which interacts by a subatomic force, this new particle would be affected only by gravity and is dubbed a "sterile neutrino."

So basically, since astronomers *assume* that redshift is caused by metaphysics rather than empirical physics, there's now about a 10 percent discrepancy between the expansion rate as it is calculated based on Planck data, and the metaphysical expansion rate as it is calculated by Hubble data, and the error rate of the later calculation has been reduced to about 2.5 percent. This means that there's only about 1 in 5000 chance that this isn't a "real" problem.

The first proposed "fix" for this problem is to claim that dark energy isn't just remaining constant during expansion, which is bad enough in terms of energy conservation, but rather to claim that 'dark energy' is "growing stronger" over time/distance/volume increases due to expansion.

The second proposed "fix" to this metaphysical kludge is to add yet *another* metaphysical fudge factor called "dark radiation" to the calculations, bringing the total number of invisible metaphysical fudge factors up to *five*, and relegating ordinary matter/energy to something *less* than it's currently measly 5 percent figure. Note also that the proposed 'sterile neutrino' fix has already been blown out of the water by the Ice Cube data:

IceCube telescope in Antarctica rules out sterile neutrinos

The third proposed 'fix' suggested in the article would be to modify the metaphysical properties of the fudge factor known as "dark matter" in spite of the fact that dark matter has already failed 10's of billions of dollars worth of lab "tests" to date, and failed many other observational "tests" including another one earlier this month.

Satellite galaxies of Centaurus A defy dark-matter model -

What a metaphysical mess and a complete kludge! LCDM fails virtually every conceivable "test" on the books, yet astronomers are constantly trying to "save" it from what 'should be' a natural scientific death.

The *other* possibility of course which is *not* discussed in that article is that redshift is simply caused by *already empirically identified* processes in plasma like inelastic scattering, and none of the observed redshift is related to metaphysical nonsense. :)

Oy Vey. The LCDM model is falling apart of the metaphysical seams at this point. It's failed two major observatoinal "tests" of it's claims in the past month alone, and it's failed *billions* of dollars with of lab tests over the past decade.

LCDM is unfalsifiable dogmatic nonsense. It's like a bad metaphysical smell in physics that just won't go away.
Michael Mozina
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: LCDM fails yet *another* observational 'test'.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:22 pm

Ooops. I see that two of the links to the sterile neutrino article and the other test that LCDM recently failed didn't come through in the last post, so I'll post them here: ... neutrinos/ ... tter-model

That's actually the second major failed observational "test" of the LCDM model in the past month alone. Between the very expensive cold dark matter experiments all going up in smoke over the past decade, and all the recent failed observational/astronomical tests of dark matter and other parts of the LCDM model, the mainstream has to be a little uncomfortable by now.

I keep reminding myself that in the realm of "science", empirical physics *always* eventually triumphs over metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, and the field of astronomy won't be any different. It's really only a matter of time before that transition to empirical physics happens in astronomy too, but how long that might take is certainly questionable. I'm sure hoping that the James Webb telescope launches and deploys as expected. I suspect that observations from Webb, along with the results from LUX-LZ will drive the final nails in the LCDM coffin. Time will tell.

One wonders if it's these types of uncomfortable observations are what motivate the EU/PC haters to flat out publicly lie about the actual predictions of EU/PC models. If they tried to actually "play fair", and act with scientific integrity, the transition to EU/PC theory would simply occur on a faster timeline. I get the feeling that LCDM proponents are trying to stick their fingers in the holes in the dike with lies and tricks, with the hope of saving LCDM, but alas the holes in LCDM are more numerous by the month, and the growing number of leaks and cracks are getting ever more serious.

The fact that the mainstream can't even get the Hubble expansion numbers to jive between the Planck and Hubble data sets is pretty amusing. It demonstrates that expansion isn't the actual 'cause' of photon redshift in the first place.

Their proposed "fixes" for this problem sound like a choice between ugly, uglier and ugliest. It would make a lot more logical sense to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate the *second* proposed explanation by Hubble to explain the redshift phenomenon, namely the tired light solution. Inelastic scattering is a *known and demonstrated* cause of photon redshift in the lab. It seems inconceivable that the mainstream "fix" to their broken model would include the introduction of yet *another* ad hoc entity, but 'fixing' it by adding increasing amounts of 'dark energy" would simply beg the question as to where that increasing amount of energy comes from to begin with.

LCDM is falling apart before our very eyes. It seems like every month there's some other new 'test" that LCDM failed yet again, and sometimes it's failing multiple tests per month. IMO that's only going to get much worse as the technology continues to improve over time.
Michael Mozina
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cargo and 2 guests