Eric Lerner is presenting his paper on PhysicsForums

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, Eric Lerner is presenting his static universe paper over on PhysicsForums at this link:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/o ... as.943111/

Here's a link to his recently published paper:

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance- ... 28/4951333

You can find a free copy here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08382

You can also find an earlier test, and slightly different presentation of Lerner's model here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275

A couple of people pointed out to me at ChristianForums, that Lerner's model was tested in this paper and failed, whereas Holushko's static universe/tired light model passes that same test with flying colors:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0003

Since they are both based on 'tired light" models, I originally assumed that Lerner's paper had also passed the same test that Holushko's model passed, but apparently I was mistaken because they're evidently using slightly different mathematical models of "tired light'. Lerner however does address some some of the previous mistakes which have been made by the mainstream in such analyses in his latest paper

So far it's been an interesting and highly professional discussion at PhysicsForums. It's very informative and well worth checking it out if you have some time.

[Michael Mozina]

I'm still working my way through Lerner's most recent published and peer reviewed paper between tech calls at work, but the conclusion section of his paper is rather intriguing to say the least:

Predictions based on the size-evolution, expanding-universe hypothesis are incompatible with galaxy size data for both disk and elliptical galaxies. For disks, the quantitative predictions of the Mo et al theory are incompatible at a 5-sigma level with size data, as is any model predicting a power-law relationship between H(z) and galaxy radius. For ellipticals, a power law of H(z) does fit the data, but only with an exponent much higher than that justified by the Mo et al theory. All three mechanisms proposed in the literature-- “puffing up”, major and minor mergers—make predictions that are contradicted by the data, requiring either gas fractions or merger rates that are an order of magnitude greater than observations. In addition, any size evolution model for ellipticals leads to dynamical masses that, given the observed velocity dispersions, are smaller than stellar masses, a physical impossibility.
Contrary to some other analysis, we find that the r-z relationships for elliptical and disk galaxies are identical. The resolution-size effect must be taken into account for valid conclusions, and that effect is larger for disk galaxies that have smaller angular radii, either because they are observed at higher z or because they are observed at longer rest-frame wavelengths. The identical size evolution of disks and ellipticals appears as a very large and unexplained coincidence in the expanding-universe model.
In contrast, the static Euclidean universe (SEU) model with a linear distance-z relationship is in excellent agreement with both disk and spiral size data, predicting accurately no change in radius with z. The exact agreement of the SEU predictions with data could also only be viewed as an implausibly unlikely coincidence from the viewpoint of the expanding universe hypothesis. The contradictions with impossibly small dynamic masses are also eliminated with the non-expanding universe model.

Emphasis mine. Evidently the mainstream galaxy evolution models have *serious* unresolved problems to say the least. On the other hand, static models pass this complicated test beautifully without *any* extra parameters beyond the simple Hubble constant of redshift.

So, either we live in a pretty simple static universe where light simply loses some of it's momentum to the medium over distance, *or* we live in an implausibly complicated universe that requires four metaphysical constructs and who's galaxy evolution predictions *still* don't even come close to matching the data.

It seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.

FYI, if this paper holds up to scrutiny, I think Lerner should win the next Nobel Prize in physics. This is a *bombshell* a of paper and it's been published and peer reviewed in a reputable astronomy journal to boot. Congratulations are certainly in order. This paper seems destined to have a dramatic impact in astronomy.

[Aardwolf]

I'm still working my way through Lerner's most recent published and peer reviewed paper between tech calls at work, but the conclusion section of his paper is rather intriguing to say the least:

Predictions based on the size-evolution, expanding-universe hypothesis are incompatible with galaxy size data for both disk and elliptical galaxies. For disks, the quantitative predictions of the Mo et al theory are incompatible at a 5-sigma level with size data, as is any model predicting a power-law relationship between H(z) and galaxy radius. For ellipticals, a power law of H(z) does fit the data, but only with an exponent much higher than that justified by the Mo et al theory. All three mechanisms proposed in the literature-- “puffing up”, major and minor mergers—make predictions that are contradicted by the data, requiring either gas fractions or merger rates that are an order of magnitude greater than observations. In addition, any size evolution model for ellipticals leads to dynamical masses that, given the observed velocity dispersions, are smaller than stellar masses, a physical impossibility.
Contrary to some other analysis, we find that the r-z relationships for elliptical and disk galaxies are identical. The resolution-size effect must be taken into account for valid conclusions, and that effect is larger for disk galaxies that have smaller angular radii, either because they are observed at higher z or because they are observed at longer rest-frame wavelengths. The identical size evolution of disks and ellipticals appears as a very large and unexplained coincidence in the expanding-universe model.
In contrast, the static Euclidean universe (SEU) model with a linear distance-z relationship is in excellent agreement with both disk and spiral size data, predicting accurately no change in radius with z. The exact agreement of the SEU predictions with data could also only be viewed as an implausibly unlikely coincidence from the viewpoint of the expanding universe hypothesis. The contradictions with impossibly small dynamic masses are also eliminated with the non-expanding universe model.

Emphasis mine. Evidently the mainstream galaxy evolution models have *serious* unresolved problems to say the least. On the other hand, static models pass this complicated test beautifully without *any* extra parameters beyond the simple Hubble constant of redshift.

So, either we live in a pretty simple static universe where light simply loses some of it's momentum to the medium over distance, *or* we live in an implausibly complicated universe that requires four metaphysical constructs and who's galaxy evolution predictions *still* don't even come close to matching the data.

It seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.

FYI, if this paper holds up to scrutiny, I think Lerner should win the next Nobel Prize in physics. This is a *bombshell* a of paper and it's been published and peer reviewed in a reputable astronomy journal to boot. Congratulations are certainly in order. This paper seems destined to have a dramatic impact in astronomy.

I would like to think the game will be up once they launch JWST, but something tells me they will find excuses to explain why they are observing fully formed giant galaxies in the infrared, where there should only be baby one's, if any at all.

[Michael Mozina]

I would like to think the game will be up once they launch JWST, but something tells me they will find excuses to explain why they are observing fully formed giant galaxies in the infrared, where there should only be baby one's, if any at all.

I think that's exactly what will happen too, but unfortunately it's likely to take a bit longer than we might hope.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-nasa-next ... scope.html

The fact that Lerner's paper was published in a major astronomy publication makes me wonder if they don't already know that they have a serious problem, and this is their way of beginning to embrace reality. Admittedly it's a very professionally written paper, and it's as politically tactful as humanly possible, but it's surprising to me that it's seeing the light of mainstream publishing day.

I'll be interested in seeing how Lerner does in the PhysicsForums conversation. He's very clever in the way he's approaching the topic, and the moderators have been fair thus far. By fixating on the deviation from galaxy brightness and size predictions, he's opening up the backdoor to the photon redshift debate in a way that seems to be acceptable to at least some in the mainstream. It's a wonderfully written paper IMO.

[Michael Mozina]

Well, that certainly didn't last long. I took a brief break from the various message boards this week to focus on my family and on work, and when checked again today, I see that they've already banned Eric Lerner at PhysicsForums. Even with math, and published GALEX data to support his case in a *published* and peer reviewed paper, and even though he was very professional in all of his responses at PF, they banned him anyway. I think the conversation lasted less than 2 weeks until they publicly burned the witch at the stake. They did of course leave the thread open for others to comment on, negatively of course. Wow. What a twilight zone episode.

So much for JeanTate's previous chastisements about how the missing ingredient for the EU/PC community was a careful analysis of existing, freely available data sets, and papers that are submitted to reputable peer reviewed publications. Lerner did exactly what Jean suggested, and for all of his professional efforts, he was publicly lynched anyway in less than two weeks no less. Yikes.

I guess it only goes to demonstrate that the dogma of LCDM astronomers is just as bad and as scientifically indefensible as the dogma of astrologers. None of them can handle an honest public scientific debate on these issues. Anyone and everyone who dares to question the sacred supernatural creation mythology called LCDM is publicly burned at the heretical stake on all mainstream astronomy and physics websites. What a bizarre public spectacle. Between the draconian "Spanish Inquisition" rule system at Cosmoquest, and the propensity of PhysicsForums to ban everyone who dares to even question their holy LCDM scriptures, it's pretty clear that astronomers today are completely incapable and totally inept at publicly defending their beliefs in the age of the internet.

I think the only way LCDM ever actually "works" is in a classroom setting where they can threaten any potential "skeptics" and heretical students with failing the class if they don't toe the party line and bow down and give homage to their classroom high clergy. How sad that "science" has devolved to this extent.

It's ironic IMO that Tyson's pilot episode of the reboot of Cosmos tried to blame the Church for impeding the progress of science, when in fact Aristarcus of Samos was ignored by the mainstream scientific community for 1500 years before Bruno and Galileo again claimed that the sun was the center of the solar system. Now in the 21st century, the so called "scientists" have to continue to publicly and systematically burn all their "witches" at the heretical stake. My, my, my. What a sad and sorry bunch of blatant hypocrites.

Gah! It's really too bad that the launch of the James Webb space telescope has been delayed yet again. I think it's images are probably our last and only hope of extricating ourselves from the literal "dark ages" of astronomy in my lifetime. I guess we'll just twiddle our thumbs for another few years until JWST starts returning images of "mature" and massive galaxies for as far as it can see, and it's images start to destroy the LCDM model.

[Webbman]

you need your own forum

LCDM rants

[MotionTheory]

When every credible theory/insight is partly right about the Universe Elephant. We need sight to see the whole elephant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
... or the least we can do = incorporate all factual data into hopefully something close to the actual universe.

[Michael Mozina]

you need your own forum

LCDM rants

Alfven wrote something like a hundred published papers on various topics related to EU/PC theory. Peratt has written several as well, as has Scott and Bruce. Lerner even wrote this last paper "by the book" according to JeanTate's suggestion. He used a publicly available mainstream data set to demonstrate that a static universe is a better "fit" to their own data.

None of that however seems to matter one iota to the mainstream because they seem to be under the false illusion that their current model is 'oh so mathematically pretty', and so "good" at making useful "predictions". It's physically atrocious however, hence the need for supernatural/metaphysical constructs like dark matter and dark energy which make up 95 percent of the model. Worse still, it actually fails more tests than it passes, all of which they simply sweep right under the rug! LCDM doesn't even make any actual "predictions". It's composed of "postdicted fits" to the data sets, the last one requiring "dark energy" which now makes up more than the rest of their mass/energy theory combined.

I honestly don't think any real scientific progress is likely to occur in astronomy until the mainstream comes down off it's high horse and actually publicly acknowledges and admits that it's got serious unresolved problems with LCMD, starting with the fact that they've blown *billions* of dollars on the CDM part in the lab and they have absolutely *nothing* to show for any of it.

Lerner's last published paper and the subsequent conversation at PF demonstrate the nature of the real problem quite well IMO. Even thought Lerner did everything one could hope for, including getting the work published in a 'mainstream' publication, he's still "banned" from even discussing his work openly on any mainstream forums. They're simply incapable of having "honest" and open scientific conversations about astronomy anywhere on the internet, so they flat out ban anyone and everyone who questions or threatens their sacred dogma.

The problem isn't a lack of "science" to support EU/PC theory, or a static universe theory, they're a huge volume of published material out there to support it. The real problem is the mainstream's emotional attachment to their own supernatural dogma, and their incapacity to acknowledge it's shortcomings.

IMO, the only thing that *might* put a dent in their dogma is the JWST. It's likely to observe "mature" galaxies for as far it can see, just like Hubble did, only it will be able to see further back in time, making it much harder to ignore the conflicts with the LCDM 'galaxy evolution' models. Even then it's going to start of with rationalizations and denial galore before they *finally* come to realize that they're just wrong about the real cause of photon redshift.

Nothing can change however while they continue squelch the possibility of free speech and fair scientific debate. That's the real problem.

[BeAChooser]

I honestly don't think any real scientific progress is likely to occur in astronomy until the mainstream comes down off it's high horse and actually publicly acknowledges and admits that it's got serious unresolved problems with LCMD, starting with the fact that they've blown *billions* of dollars on the CDM part in the lab and they have absolutely *nothing* to show for any of it.

I think you know that's not going to happen. Because mainstream astronomy/astrophysics has become a RELIGION. A CULT. And a lucrative business for the cult leaders. They, like the AGW community's leaders and *scientists*, will do whatever it takes to keep their religion alive, keep the cult leaders in power, and keep the money flowing. Including smear and ban scientists like Eric Lerner from forums that are *supposedly* about "physics". We've already entered the dark ages, Michael, and I'm not even sure at this point the mainstream wouldn't tamper with the data coming from future experiments like the JWST to keep the public in the dark. They certainly are doing all they can to prevent the public from even hearing the views of the skeptics to the house of cards they've created. That's exactly what's happened in the AGWworld, the other great *scientific* endeavor of our time which has become a cult and a business. I see nothing to prevent that from happening here, either. Government funded science is simply dead.

[Brigit Bara]

Webbman » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:17 am

you need your own forum

LCDM rants

On the contrary. I am very interested in his experiences with a wide variety of different forums. I did not know that Physics Forum had done this to Eric Lerner.

I have noticed, however, that many people like to take all of science's failures, and re-categorize them as "religion."


But where science has gotten it wrong, and it so often has, let's give credit where credit is due:

[Brigit Bara]

After all, we wouldn't want to deprive a Generation of its recent achievement awards it is giving itself.

[Brigit Bara]

One problem with re-categorizing failed science as "religion" is that historically, at minimum, a religion deals with the afterlife. --That is, usually the afterlife is linked in some way to the kind of life the individual led.

Labeling failed science as a "religion" is also not helpful because there have been an abundance of scientific theories which were actually quite destructive and brutal, and wrong. For example, the barbaric practice of lobotomizing mental patients was awarded with a Nobel Prize or something. I will not bang on and on about it, but why not be honest with the younger generations about the more dark pages of scientific history. It might serve them better if they understood that science both has, and can still, get it badly wrong.

And let's always bear in mind that almost every intellectual revolutionary movement in the 1900s claimed scientific validity and proofs. They always do.

[BeAChooser]

One problem with re-categorizing failed science as "religion" is that historically, at minimum, a religion deals with the afterlife. --That is, usually the afterlife is linked in some way to the kind of life the individual led.

Labeling failed science as a "religion" is also not helpful because there have been an abundance of scientific theories which were actually quite destructive and brutal, and wrong. For example, the barbaric practice of lobotomizing mental patients was awarded with a Nobel Prize or something. I will not bang on and on about it, but why not be honest with the younger generations about the more dark pages of scientific history. It might serve them better if they understood that science both has, and can still, get it badly wrong.

I think I'm still justified in labeling modern mainstream astrophysics and AGWalarmism religions ... or more specifically cults, because they have and are behaving like religious cults. Here's an interesting article you might want to read:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/t ... l-warming/

It lists a bunch of characteristics that make AGWalarmism a cult (some excerpts below) and I maintain that the same characteristics are found in the mainstream astrophysic's advocacy of Big Bang Gnomes. Specifically,


**********
 
“1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything."
 
Now I ask you, are Big Bang proponents any different?   Aren’t they claiming to possess indisputable truths about the past, present and future?  Down to the minutest detail?  Into the state of the universe billions of years past and future?
 
"2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma."
 
Alternative astrophysics believers have a great deal of trouble getting Big Bang proponents to debate.  What just happened to Lerner is proof of that. Big Bang proponents call their beliefs “settled science” and they viciously attack their critics.   And the attacks include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts Big Bang.   I don’t know if they’ve made any death threats against the doubters … but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
 
"3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports and summaries by this body are considered by the alarmists to be the main source of authority on all things related to climate, energy, the biological cycle, and consequentially, everything else. The cult followers (individuals, organizations, and even governments) regularly quote these unholy texts and use them to justify their decisions."
 
What is NASA if not that doctrine setting body?
 
"4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class: taxpayer-funded impostor “climate scientists” who have no independent (of the climate alarmism) scientific achievements.’ … snip … The alarmists sincerely believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing “climate science.” … snip … It is worth noting that this priest class was appointed by politicians (mostly from developing countries) and is completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded climate change research at the peak of their scientific careers and produced the most results prior to 1985. All the eminent scientists who have publicly spoken on the topic since the early 1990s strongly opposed climate alarmism and were attacked or defamed by the alarmists."
 
That’s exactly the situation with regards to the Big Bang “traditional physics” community.   Astrophysicists are taxpayer funded.  They have no independent achievements.   Big Bang proponents believe only astrophysicists are capable of understanding what we see out there in the universe.   Electrical engineers and plasma scientists need not apply.  Even Nobel award winning ones. The astrophysicists the mainstream cites regarding plasma and magnetic fields are completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded those disciplines.   All those who speak out opposing the Big Bang gnomes have been attacked or defamed.
 
"5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its shamans built with their own hands — literally man-made idols. Needless to say, much of the content of IPCC’s texts comes from these computer models."
 
Ditto in Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc cosmology.  Computer models are the only thing they have.  Observations haven't proven a thing nor corroborated their computer models.  Just the opposite.
 
"6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids"
 
Ditto with regards to Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc cosmology.  How is constantly calling what’s out there "gas" and not "plasma" anything but denying, ignoring and distorting elementary scientific fact, which should be known to even kids?  Don't the school texts tell kids that what we actually see in the universe is 99.999% plasma?   Yes, they do.
 
"7) The alarmists appeal to medieval science errors."
 
Isn’t there something medieval about scientists insisting the universe had a beginning?   After all, the CHURCH, one of the biggest institutions to come out of the medieval period is a big supporter of the Big Bang theory because it too believes in a moment of creation rather than continuous creation and no end either way to the universe.  It’s even formally endorsed Big Bang, just like it now has AGW. And the believer believe with religious fervor.
 
"8) The alarmists have created and spread climate mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs that many alarmists attributed to religion."
 
Aren’t all the gnomes of Big Bang cosmology (inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, frozen magnetic fields, etc, etc, etc) essentially mythologies that have been created out of whole cloth much like demons and angels and rising sea levels?
 
"9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records."
 
Isn’t the start date for the Big Bang cult when instruments recorded objects whose interpreted motions and distances  seemed to suggest an origin back in the distant past ... some 13.8 billion years ago ... in a single point? Doesn’t the presumption of a single point depend on assumptions about red shift that now are accepted as gospel even though science suggests other possibilities?
 
"10) Climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming."
 
Big Bang cosmologists have some people fearing the creation of black holes in their super colliders.  What could be a worse catastrophe?  Others fear the creation of a new universe in those same machines.  And then inherent in the Big Bang Theory is the ultimate death of the universe … either the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze.  What could be more "eschatological"?
 
"11) The climate change cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Climate change is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about temperatures in 2100 are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as the infamous 1988 James Hansen testimony before Congress and early IPCC reports), they were proven to be incorrect."
 
Now read this:  The Big Bang cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Big Bang is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about string theory are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as claiming the existence of dark matter), they were proven to be incorrect.   See what I mean?  The Big Bang Cosmology has become just as much a religious cult as AGWalarmism.
 
"12) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments.  To add to the above, the climate change cult has survived multiple exposures of its frauds—something that a normal fraud cannot survive. Nevertheless, many cults involve fraud, and even true believers are not against profiting from their position in their cult. The climate change cult has been elevated by the Obama administration into state religion. Both the White House and NASA appear to have converted to this cult."
 
Big Bang cosmologists certainly seek and exert control over governments.   How else have they gotten the governments of the world to shell out the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars that have gone into costly instrument after costly instrument … all seeking to prove the existence of the countless gnomes that the astrophysicists have created out of whole cloth? All these experiments failed yet the cosmologists have such control the funding continues.
 
Certainly the multiple exposures of Big Bang frauds … like denying the plasma and filamentary nature of the universe … and failing to find proof of their many gnomes … hasn’t seemed to hurt Big Bang Cosmologists so far.   The money is still rolling in because Big Bang has become a “state religion” and it helps that the mainstream press is on board too … along with the White House (well, at least until Trump) and even NASA.    And perhaps one reason Big Bang proponents refuse to engage plasma/electric universe proponents in honest debate now is their fear that the massive fraud might be exposed to the public and then the public would revolt against all three institutions in this state religion.
 
**********

Just saying ...

[Cargo]

I would like to print that out and frame it. Well Done.

[Webbman]

Both religion and science are belief systems. Neither is worthwhile if they been undermined by a hidden collective force bent on the destruction of the many for the sake of the few.

i.e you havent performed a root analysis and haven't identified a root cause.

the most basic science.......