The complete stagnation of astronomy

[Michael Mozina]

If you look back at the last several decades, the field of astronomy has simply stagnated. Fritz Zwicky was the first one to coin the term "dark energy" in the 1930s, and almost nine decades later, and tens of billions of dollars later, the mainstream still has no explanation for it. Whole careers were spent studying the topic by countless astronomers and they utterly *nothing* to show for it.

The term "dark energy' was coined a couple of decades ago, but again, there's been no progress whatsoever in terms of identifying even so much as a source of the mythical stuff, let alone any logical explanation as to how or why it would retain a near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. There's been nothing but pure stagnation on that topic since it was first proposed.

Between the two ideas, they represent a full 95 percent of the LCDM model, and yet nothing has changed in terms of astronomers ability to explain these concepts since they first proposed them. It's been in stagnation mode ever since.

Over a century ago, Birkeland managed to recreate a solar corona and a planetary aurora in a lab based on EU theory, but the mainstream has never been able to replicate these things with 'magnetic reconnection" in spite of all the massive changes in technology and science since the time of Birkeland.

If you look at the computer industry, or the electronics industry in general over the last few decades, it's improved by leaps and bound over the last century and over the last few decades. Astronomy is being left in the dust because it's all based on pseudoscience and metaphysical garbage galore. How sad.

[Zyxzevn]

Astronomy is not in stagnation. It is going backwards.

The dark matter and dark energy are parameters that were added to correct for
problems that could not be solved with the normal model.
This means that they delay the complete collapse of false theories, by adding an other one.

And this delay is promoted as progress.
It is totally backwards.
And they are looking in the wrong corner.

The same backwards progress can be seen in the statistically generated image of a
"black hole" and the weird use of statistics in the gravitational waves noise.
This brings us more backwards and away from reality.

This is all works of students and science-fiction writers, not real scientists.

On the other side, if we look at the laboratory and observation based theories,
they still stand and progress.
We now know that plasma causes redshift.
That plasma can contain strong electric fields.
That magnetic reconnection is not real.
That the corona of the sun is not so hot.
That comets have almost no ice.
Strong magnetic fields in galaxies (and this means strong electric currents).
Etc. etc.

But this is not seen as progress by the astronomy community.
Instead, they are in complete denial of the reality.
Because most of these observations break with
the fantasy card-house of theories that they have built.

[Michael Mozina]

I would certainly agree with you that the introduction of dark energy was a gigantic step backwards, away from empirical physics. I was thinking more in terms of what I've seen over the last 20 years or so.

Think about the money they've now spent in search of extensions to the standard particle physics model at the LHC, XENON-1T, PandaX, etc. You'd think that sooner or later their own so called "tests" would cause them to rethink their position, but I see no sign of such honest introspection.

The part that adds insult to injury is how poorly the BB models predicts anything correctly at higher redshift. The predictive track record of the expansion model is absolutely abominable. I can't imagine how it could do any worse actually.

I just don't see how BB proponents expect to survive the JWST program. It's certainly going to show "mature" and "massive" galaxies for as far as it can see too, just like the Hubble telescope and now ALMA. There's not even a hint of galaxy evolution at high redshift.

[Zyxzevn]

I would certainly agree with you that the introduction of dark energy was a gigantic step backwards, away from empirical physics.

I think that the problem is that astronomy has stepped away from basic scientific principles.
Normally you have phenomena that you can measure with many different parameters.
But because the phenomena are not in their control they are doing it backwards.

First they construct a belief system around a phenomenon,
like the universe started with a big bang.
Then they construct an optimistic model in the line of that system.
This is the famous "maths".
And then to confirm the model/theory, they match the observations
to the model that they have invented.
So we get curve-fitting and cherry-picking.

So their process of data-gathering is going towards the imaginary model that they believe in.

Which is the opposite of a scientific process, which derives a model
from all the gathered data. And from then we get to understand the phenomenon.

For example, we see plasma lines on the sun.
On laboratories we know that these can come from electric currents only.
And we can see that these currents are caused by electric fields.

In the astronomy they believe that the plasma lines come directly from magnetic field-lines.
That these lines come from the magic of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD).
And that no electric fields exist in plasma, against the inventor (Alfven) of MHD and actual observations.
And they do not seem to believe that there are electric currents in plasma.
So they do not even have a solid basis for how such magnetic fields are caused.
And from there they are inventing unicorns like magnetic reconnection and frozen-in magnetic fields.

With the inflation model, they just denied all possible causes for light to change.
And then just assume that space can expand for no reason at all.
All because it fits (partially) in a formula, that no astronomer really understands.

This is all totally backwards, and no different from
how people proof the earth is flat.

I just don't see how BB proponents expect to survive the JWST program. It's certainly going to show "mature" and "massive" galaxies for as far as it can see too, just like the Hubble telescope and now ALMA. There's not even a hint of galaxy evolution at high redshift.

I notice that too.
It is already unbelievable that completely symmetric round galaxies come from only a small number of rotations.
I have not seen far-away galaxy images that are not fuzzy.
But photographic blobs are sometimes used by scientists as "proof" that all these galaxies are blobs.
I expect the same thing:
With better resolution they will just be a normal galaxy, just much "older than the universe".

But I also know that they will not change their belief.
I predict that "dark matter/energy can increase the speed of time".

[Sci-Phy]

I think that the problem is that astronomy has stepped away from basic scientific principles.

No, it is not.
In fact astronomy just following the same trend in the whole science.
What do you call "scientific principles"? The study of quantum teleportation?
There are no science at all these days does not matter what branch we are talking about.
To make the impression, not results is the key of modern science.
Sometimes I just enjoying reading "Physical Review" something about the year of 1900. What a difference with novadays!
Computers are developing due to technology, not science. Compare the computer you have with one a year ago.
Was everything doubled according to the Moors law?

Cheers.

[Michael Mozina]

I think that the problem is that astronomy has stepped away from basic scientific principles.

No, it is not.
In fact astronomy just following the same trend in the whole science.

I don't think so. Look at particle physics. It's core tenets and concepts can and have been tested in a lab. The standard particle physics model was put to the test at LHC in very elaborate experiments, and it passed those predictive tests with flying colors. Even various SUSY models and "dark matter" concepts have been tested in the lab, and they all failed. Either way, the ability to "test" the models in controlled experimentation is a given or at least a possibility.

Compare and contrast that with the astronomy claim that "space expansion" is a cause of photon redshift. That claim is now and forever required to remain a "act of faith" on the part of the believer because it can never be put to the test, or shown to happen in a real lab experiment on Earth. Astronomy is unique in that sense.

Likewise terms like "dark energy" and "dark matter' are so ill defined in astronomy that the basic concepts defy falsification entirely. No single lab experiment can rule out all potential definitions of either term.

Astronomy as a field of science has become a purely faith based belief system which defies falsification, whereas other areas of science are still rooted in direct experimentation.

Sure, they all posit wacky ideas from time to time, but astronomy is in a class by itself in terms of requiring pure acts of faith, and in terms of a lack of a real falsification mechanism.

[Sci-Phy]

Look at particle physics.

Particle physics it is.
The neutron. As follows from its name, the neutron is neutral particle and could not be detected by modern physics.
The theory of neutron decay was introduced and neutron detectors looking for decay product which corresponds to said theory. Neutron was never been detected by the meaning of something else. It is the conjecture tested not even by different conjecture, but just by itself.
1+1=3. You see "1"? Yes. Another "1"? Yes. And plus sign? Yes. Then indeed 1+1=3. That's how it works.

Cheers.

[Zyxzevn]

Compare and contrast that with the astronomy claim that "space expansion" is a cause of photon redshift. That claim is now and forever required to remain a "act of faith" on the part of the believer because it can never be put to the test, or shown to happen in a real lab experiment on Earth. Astronomy is unique in that sense.

I find it so stupid that they do not even use plasma redshift (or similar)
to solve the dark energy problem.

When I was still a hardcore big banger, I would find such solutions very plausible.
But somehow the astronomers are no long scientists, but just idiots.

[Michael Mozina]

Compare and contrast that with the astronomy claim that "space expansion" is a cause of photon redshift. That claim is now and forever required to remain a "act of faith" on the part of the believer because it can never be put to the test, or shown to happen in a real lab experiment on Earth. Astronomy is unique in that sense.

I find it so stupid that they do not even use plasma redshift (or similar)
to solve the dark energy problem.

When I was still a hardcore big banger, I would find such solutions very plausible.
But somehow the astronomers are no long scientists, but just idiots.

As you note, even a *tiny* amount of plasma redshift eliminates any need for dark energy (70 percent of their model), but I think they're deathly afraid of opening up the door to real empirical physics and any concept of plasma redshift, lest their entire belief system bite the dust (literally).

They aren't scientists anymore, that's for damn sure. If they were actual scientists rather than cult followers, we'd see real dissent by now, and real physics being used in their models rather than their one pitiful model relying almost exclusively (95 percent) on make-believe forms of metaphysics.

It's literally just like the epicycle fiasco all over again. The moment one switches from expansion interpretations of redshift to plasma physics and plasma redshift, it all makes perfectly empirical sense, even the high redshift observations. They're just living in pure fear at this point and scrambling to figure out what to do about mature and massive objects they're finding at high redshifts. They are like deer in the headlights at the moment. They can't decide what to do about their model and it's falling apart at the seams.

[crawler]

........Compare and contrast that with the astronomy claim that "space expansion" is a cause of photon redshift. That claim is now and forever required to remain a "act of faith" on the part of the believer because it can never be put to the test, or shown to happen in a real lab experiment on Earth. Astronomy is unique in that sense.....

Conrad Ranzan says that aether expansion & contraction etc in each cosmic cell is a cause of redshift. This is i suppoze a kind of space expansion. Aether "particles" dont expand or contract, but the aetherwind flow streamlines converge or diverge in different zones in each cosmic cell. Photons stretch as they pass throo each cell, ie az the photon approaches mass & then again as the photon departs from that mass, its a double whammy.

This Ranzanian redshift need not require an act of faith exactly, koz it can be seen locally, it is the (real) cause of Einsteinian gravitational redshift (which is well established)(alltho there is debate)(& of course spacetime is nonsense).

[crawler]

........Compare and contrast that with the astronomy claim that "space expansion" is a cause of photon redshift. That claim is now and forever required to remain a "act of faith" on the part of the believer because it can never be put to the test, or shown to happen in a real lab experiment on Earth. Astronomy is unique in that sense.....

Conrad Ranzan says that aether expansion & contraction etc in each cosmic cell is a cause of redshift. This is i suppoze a kind of space expansion. Aether "particles" dont expand or contract, but the aetherwind flow streamlines converge or diverge in different zones in each cosmic cell. Photons stretch as they pass throo each cell, ie az the photon approaches mass & then again as the photon departs from that mass, its a double whammy.

This Ranzanian redshift need not require an act of faith exactly, koz it can be seen locally, it is the (real) cause of Einsteinian gravitational redshift (which is well established)(alltho there is debate)(& of course spacetime is nonsense).

[Sceptical lefty]

I think they're deathly afraid of opening up the door to real empirical physics and any concept of plasma redshift, lest their entire belief system bite the dust (literally).

That's pretty much everything in a nutshell. It's a safe bet that self-interest will trump science.

What has always got to me is the colossal hypocrisy of claiming scientific objectivity when the actual goal seems to be retaining (or improving) a seat on the gravy train. It's certainly human, but it's not science.

[Michael Mozina]

I think they're deathly afraid of opening up the door to real empirical physics and any concept of plasma redshift, lest their entire belief system bite the dust (literally).

That's pretty much everything in a nutshell. It's a safe bet that self-interest will trump science.

What has always got to me is the colossal hypocrisy of claiming scientific objectivity when the actual goal seems to be retaining (or improving) a seat on the gravy train. It's certainly human, but it's not science.

Ya, the concept of "objectivity" is highly subjective. In astronomy it's directly related to how the money flows.

[Webbman]

has it really stagnated or has it just become more obvious as to what it is.

[Michael Mozina]

has it really stagnated or has it just become more obvious as to what it is.

I'd say both. The big bang model has failed every lab test to date, failed pretty much every high redshift observation I can think of, and yet nothing has changed. It's become more obvious now that the LCDM model has zero useful predictive value, but they're not even making any serious changes to try to deal with the obvious problems anymore. They're just banning everyone who points out their problems and pretending that it's 2001.

The dark energy fiasco was apparently their last attempt to try to make the theory compatible with observation. It was an obviously pitiful modification, and I think they're afraid if they add a few ad hoc elements to attempt to deal with their current problems, people will simply start complaining in droves. It looks like they're just sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that the high redshift failures of their model are irrelevant and hoping that nobody notices how pitifully their model predicts high redshift observations.

The maturity and size of galaxies and quasars at high redshifts utterly and completely defy their models, their computer models and all their actual "predictions" about galaxy evolution. It seems to be panic time at this point. They're acting like deer that are caught in the headlights and they have no idea what to do anymore other than live in pure denial. The JWST program is going to run them over.