https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html
So, at a 180 million years after the supposed 'Big Bang' the gas in the universe is already less than half of it's "predicted" temperature (epic fail), yet somehow, as if by pure magic, we're supposed to believe that the CMB today is *exactly* the right temperature according to LCMD "predictions"? Oy Vey.The team originally tuned their instrument to look later in cosmic time, but in 2015 decided to extend their search. "As soon as we switched our system to this lower range, we started seeing things that we felt might be a real signature," Rogers says. "We see this dip most strongly at about 78 megahertz, and that frequency corresponds to roughly 180 million years after the Big Bang," Rogers says. "In terms of a direct detection of a signal from the hydrogen gas itself, this has got to be the earliest."
The study also revealed that gas in the universe was probably much colder than expected (less than half the expected temperature). This suggests that either astrophysicists' theoretical efforts have overlooked something significant or that this may be the first evidence of non-standard physics: Specifically, that baryons (normal matter) may have interacted with dark matter and slowly lost energy to dark matter in the early universe, a concept that was originally proposed by Rennan Barkana of Tel Aviv University.
First LCDM proponents tell us that "dark matter" is presumed to be "dark" because it doesn't interact with light (heat) or ordinary matter which is how the LCDM model exactly matches the temperature and power spectrum of the CMB today, but yet we're also supposed to believe that dark matter *does* interact with ordinary matter to "cool off" the early universe, without having any adverse effect on the temperature or the power spectrum of the CMB today or their nucleosynthesis predictions? Make up your minds already!
This particular rationalization is a three for one ad hoc "miracle" modification. Somehow another set of unexplained miracles take place along the line so that even though dark matter isn't really dark as they originally "predicted", and the universe is less than half the right temperature at 180 million years, the temperature and power spectrum of the CMB is still *exactly* the right fit today. We miraculously have a perfect CMB fit today, even though the temperature of the early universe was less than half it's predicted value at 180 million years after the bang. The other miracle is that in spite of the temperature being less than half of it's predicted value, it has no effect at all on their nucleosynthesis predictions either. Ya right.
Then there was this gem of a failure last month too:
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-ya ... ysics.html
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.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."
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:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... 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.
http://www.newsweek.com/whirling-galaxi ... ogy-797531
And yet again, the mainstream computer model "predictions" are falsified by observation.New research could undermine the standard cold dark matter model of cosmology. Scientists have found the galactic arrangement of Centaurus A, a massive galaxy 12 million light-years away from Earth, does not match up to predictions, joining the two other best-studied galaxies—the Milky Way and Andromeda—as so-called outliers.
This latest discovery, published today in Science, suggests these galaxies aren’t unusual after all. Instead, they could be the norm.
And then of course that are some more dark matter "tests" that LCDM failed again recently. Not only have WIMP "tests" come up empty at LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T etc, axion models of dark matter have fared no better:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_s ... e_999.html
And that's on top of another failed "test" of the axion model a month earlier:The results of the search turned out to be negative: no trace of the existence of axions with masses between 10-24 and 10-17 electronvolts were found (for comparison: the mass of an electron is more than half a million electronvolts). In addition, scientists managed to tighten the constraints imposed by theory on the interaction of axions with nucleons by 40 times. In the case of potential interactions with gluons, the restrictions have increased even more, more than one thousand-fold. So then, if axions do exist, in the current theoretical models they have fewer and fewer places to hide.
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-bound-axions.html
Dark matter models (plural) have failed every experimental test to date, and many observational tests as well. The gaps keep getting smaller and smaller by the month.The search did not find the signature of axions. It does, however, set an important new limit on the strength of the coupling between axions and photons, and is able to rule out a substantial fraction of the possible future experiments that might be undertaken to detect axions.
I'm pretty sure that no hypothesis in the history of physics has enjoyed the benefit of so much funding and found exactly nothing. Dark matter models all share one thing in common: They all fail miserably to work in the lab.
What a convoluted metaphysical mess. The LCDM cosmology model is the single most 'ad hoc' cosmology theory ever invented! It's certainly failed far more "tests" than it's ever 'passed', including numerous major failures last month alone. Gah! What a piece of metaphysical crap.