LCDM and M-theory are both unfalsifiable

[Michael Mozina]

I'd like to preface this post by saying that I personally liked Stephen Hawking more than I care for most astronomers and I loved his guest appearances on the TV show "The Big Bang Theory". He had a great sense of humor. I certainly have nothing against Stephan Hawking personally but I came across a recent article, and this comment caught my eye:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... ultiverse/

Carlos Frenk, professor of cosmology at Durham University, told The Sunday Times: The intriguing idea in Hawking’s paper is that [the multiverse] left its imprint on the background radiation permeating our universe and we could measure it with a detector on a spaceship.

“These ideas offer the breathtaking prospect of finding evidence for the existence of other universe.”

Aside from the blatant attempt to idolize the man after death, that comment is breathtaking alright, but not for the reasons that are specified in the article. What's breathtaking is the fact that it demonstrates just how impossible it is to falsify inflation theory and the LCMD model in general.

Alan Guth claimed that his inflation hypothesis was supported by three specific observations.

Guth claimed that a *lack* of monopoles supported inflation which is exactly like claiming that a *lack* of unicorns supports young Earth creationism. A lack of one hypothetical entity absolutely cannot be used to support the existence of yet *another* hypothetical entity. That argument was simply ridiculous from the day that he made it.

The second piece of supporting evidence for inflation according to Guth was the 'flatness" of the universe, but Roger Penrose later demonstrated that it is 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that we'd end up with a flat universe with inflation than without out. So much for that claim too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation ... Criticisms

The last (and only semi-intact) observation left standing that supposedly supports inflation is the relative homogeneous layout of matter, leaving us with a nice smooth CMB after they manipulate the hell out it it. Aside from the fact that hemispheric variations and "holes" found by Planck already put that claim in jeopardy too, consider the ramifications of that breathtaking quote for a moment.

He's claiming that not only would variations from homogeneity *not* falsify inflation (the only thing left standing), it would somehow now A) support inflation *and* B) also lend support M-theory to boot! In short, there never *could* be any logical or rational way to falsify any aspect of LCMD theory because they'd simply move the goalposts yet again and away they would go with M-theory.

LCMD is the single dumbest theory in the history of physics. It's a complete metaphysical kludge that is utterly unfalsifiable in any logical way.

[Zyxzevn]

Had a related discussion where someone believed that theoretical physicists
would be eager to disproof the big bang theory.
Source reddit

I think it explains a bit the unfalsifiable aspect of LCDM

Summary:

Why are theorists not eager to disproof the big bang?
It is easier just to add another variable. So we got dark matter, dark energy, etc..
Those are real toppers in the scientific field.
(See Nobel prizes)

The Lambda in General Relativity is one of those variables.
That is what really started the big bang. Pun intended.

It is very hard to do empirical physics in astronomy. We can not do most of it in the laboratory.
But we can also not proof many theories wrong.

To me it seems that the problem is also caused by the people controlling the scientific process.
It is easier to graduate or get in a good position when you are in line with the existing consensus.
I know some scientists that were not in line and got expelled. (Arp)

Where is evidence of redshift by plasma?
Observed Redshift in laboratory: http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
It should be interesting to repeat this experiment and to discover why it occurs.
Brillouin scattering maybe?

That is a good place to start any investigation into "dark energy"
and any other anomalous redshifts.
Yet I have only seen ignorance and denials from the mainstream scientific community.
I think that denial is anti-science, while these scientists often claim the opposite.
(They think it is anti-science or pseudo-science, if you go against THEIR theories).

The plasma variates enormously in space, and seems to have much more effect
than most scientists belief. They have made some miscalculations.
They do not attribute the red-shift to interstellar plasma,
but have no problems claim blue-shifts when it meets with their expectations.
(Inverse Compton Scattering, which is not repeatable in laboratory)

Question:How is it safe for scientists to propose multiverse or other weird theories?

How many established scientists claim that inflation might be false,
or GR might be false, etc? Not many.
Usually these are placed into the crackpot corner.

The multiverse theory which is very schizophrenic, is very popular among famous scientists.
Even Hawkins was talking about it.

How is this possible?
That is because it is easier to add variables, dimensions, or even universes,
than it is to change any of the more fundamental theories.
In science it is better to be a schizophrenic than a heretic.

Hawkings singularity theorem shows that the big bang could arise from a singularity

So this theorem is basis of the big-bang? I don't know much about it,
but I suspect the Big bang is used as evidence for the theorem.
Probably making it circular reasoning.
Sadly I often see circular reasoning in astronomy, disguised with amazing maths.
That is why I usually skip the theories and go to the actual observations and evidence.

I work with singularities in other parts of physics, and they usually describe parts
where the simple system breaks, and the non-linear and complex part of
physics becomes relevant. Yet astronomy is the only department
where they claim that this complex physics is hidden.

[Michael Mozina]

It's pretty clear that the mainstream would rather wallow around in total ignorance for the rest of their professional careers and for the rest of their lives rather than to admit to the two basic mistakes that they made.

The mainstream obviously doesn't have a clue how to estimate the baryonic matter of galaxies correctly, and they simply forgot to include ordinary laboratory demonstrated processes which demonstrate (in the lab) that light transfers and loses some of it's momentum to plasma as it traverses a plasma medium.

Were they to admit to making those two key mistakes, they'd have to basically admit that their entire cosmology model is wrong, and admit that we probably live in a static universe that is easily explained by very ordinary physics and ordinary physical processes.

I don't think they can handle "boring" empirical reality and empirical physics, nor do they have the scientific integrity to admit their mistakes, so they invented and continue to invent metaphysical faerie-tales galore about magical forms of matter and energy, and processes that never show up in the lab.

Astronomer's outright rejection of ordinary empirical physics is virtually 100 percent now. Approximately 95 percent of LCDM is made of magical forms of matter and energy, and most of the rest of their math that is related to plasma is pure "pseudoscience" according to Hannes Alfven. LCDM proponents have essentially experienced a complete psychotic break from empirical reality for which there is apparently no possible cure as that recent article so aptly demonstrates.

Even an outright fail of the inflation model's CMB predictions related to a homogeneous distribution of matter would simply push them even further away from empirical physics, and into the realm of multiverse theory. There's no obvious or simple cure for this type of overt psychosis.

I remember watching a "Spaces Deepest Secrets" video last year where Michelle Thaller put it this way:

"Wouldn't it be depressing to be in a universe where you could understand everything? I mean I don't like that idea. I love it that there are still real mysteries out there."

I think that quote sums up the primary problem with astronomers today. They're depressed by the mere thought that we actually *might* be able to understand everything that happens in the universe.