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

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

LCDM fails yet *another* observational 'test'.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:19 pm

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-ya ... 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 - physicsworld.com

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: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

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

Unread post by 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:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... neutrinos/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... 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: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:17 am

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/ ... 48080.html
Van Dokkum and his team spotted the galaxy with the Dragonfly Telephoto Array, a custom-built telescope in New Mexico they designed to find ultra-diffuse galaxies.

These faint galaxies, which include the newly discovered DF2, can be as large as the Milky Way but shine only one percent as brightly.

"For a galaxy this size, it should have 30 times as much dark matter as regular matter," he told AFP news agency on Wednesday.

"What we found is that there is no dark matter at all."
It seems that about twice a month LCDM fails another observational test. You'd think they'd get the hint sooner or later. :)

BeAChooser
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:32 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/ ... 48080.html
... snip ... "For a galaxy this size, it should have 30 times as much dark matter as regular matter," he told AFP news agency on Wednesday.

"What we found is that there is no dark matter at all."
It seems that about twice a month LCDM fails another observational test. You'd think they'd get the hint sooner or later. :)
True. But what's amazing is that some in the MSM are framing the result as proof of either new dark matter capabilities or suggesting it will make dark matter harder to disprove: https://www.popsci.com/galaxy-no-dark-matter .

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:32 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/ ... 48080.html
... snip ... "For a galaxy this size, it should have 30 times as much dark matter as regular matter," he told AFP news agency on Wednesday.

"What we found is that there is no dark matter at all."
It seems that about twice a month LCDM fails another observational test. You'd think they'd get the hint sooner or later. :)
True. But what's amazing is that some in the MSM are framing the result as proof of either new dark matter capabilities or suggesting it will make dark matter harder to disprove: https://www.popsci.com/galaxy-no-dark-matter .
Only in astronomy would you see someone try to spin a failed prediction into a "win". Oy Vey.

It just demonstrates that there's simply no logical way to falsify LCDM theory, so it's not really 'science" at this point, it's just unfalsiable dogma. The LCDM model has failed billions of dollars worth of tests in the lab, and more observational tests than I can count, but the metaphysical dogma continues unabated. Even failed "tests" are now spun as a victory. That's how desperate they've become.

BeAChooser
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:43 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Only in astronomy would you see someone try to spin a failed prediction into a "win".
Modern climate science does, too. The two share a lot of similarities with "cult" behavior. And if astronomers follows the path of climate scientists, they'll soon start altering the database. The galaxy mentioned in this thread will just disappear entirely, along with all those beautiful plasma filaments they've observed over the years. Poof! ;)

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

More money, more problems.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:43 am

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-un ... aster.html
"This is not just two experiments disagreeing," Riess explained. "We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras."
Ya, they're missing plasma redshift. :)

It's highly amusing to me that even with 4 different metaphysical fudge factors to tinker around with, the LCDM model is still internally inconsistent and self conflicted. Essentially it's been confirmed yet again that the CMB expansion speed estimates don't jive with local observations, so look for a new metaphysical band-aid coming soon to a universe near you. :)

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Physics or fantasy?

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:50 am

FYI, I think this particular problem is really quite amusing all things considered.

http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2019-25

We've got two different groups, the Planck group and the Riess group both claiming to have measured the exact rate of expansion based on two different methods, to an accuracy of better than 2 percent. They're off from each other by more than 9 percent, the error bars of both methods keep getting tighter and tighter, and they're already outside of the margins of error by a factor of three.

So, either the universe isn't actually expanding, and redshift is related to plasma redshift as laboratory tests with real plasma and real light would insist, or.....

.....the Plank data set, and everything in astronomy that is based upon the Plank data set, including the specific percentages of DE and DM is wrong, or.....

....everything else astronomers have learned about Cepheid variables and SN1A events over the last several decades is wrong.

The tension between the two methods is further complicated by a recent quasar study that showed agreement with SN1A data at lower redshifts, and disagreement with SN1A data at higher redshifts.

https://www.space.com/43166-dark-energy ... asars.html

Since Planck is a major topic of astronomy, and Riess' methodology is based on decades worth of studying supernovas and Cepheids, and there's also a conflict with quasars studies too, there are probably several thousand egos all wrapped up in this little "dilemma".

No side in this debate is willing to budge an inch, and publicly admit any serious errors in their work, so instead the public is being slowly prepared for the introduction of yet another metaphysical band-aid for the LCDM model.

It's not even clear who would get the 'credit' for this new metaphysical "discovery" since there are at least three different groups involved now, including the people involved in the recent quasar study.

Think about the totally ad-hoc nature of the big bang model for a moment.

The first "dilemma" of faster than light speed expansion brought us the first metaphysical introduction of 'space expansion", which is "justified" with a "bait and switch" routine involving "Doppler shift" related to moving objects. It was accompanied by an unethical rewrite of history by falsely asserting that Edwin Hubble 'proved" the universe was expanding when in fact Hubble personally rejected that idea.

The second major dilemma of homogeneity was "fixed" with another gigantic metaphysical band-aid called inflation. It was 'justified' in part by claiming it explained why the universe was 'flat' even though Penrose later demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely to generate a flat universe with inflation than without it.

The third major dilemma, the direct conflict with SNA1 data brought us the third metaphysical kludge of dark energy which defies the conservation of energy laws. That was actually the second time they violated the laws of physics because "space expansion" also leads to energy conservation violations.

The conflict with Plank power spectrum data requires the introduction of a forth metaphysical kludge which now requires that all 'dark matter" *must* be exotic (metaphysical) in nature. Ordinary forms of matter will not match the power spectrum data.

This new conflict between different observations is now looking to result in yet *another* metaphysical kludge!

Every single one of these conflicts with observation could have been avoided by the inclusion of empirical physics in the form of plasma redshift, and Maxwell's *full* set (including the E half) of equations.

Any astronomer that falsely asserts that the LCDM model has 'predictive" value is lying their ass off. There's been nothing "predictive" about the LCDM model. Every key aspect of that bogus model has been *postdicted* in a purely ad-hoc manner using one metaphysical band-aid after another after another every time their model came into conflict with observations.

Admittedly the public isn't well informed on these issues, but you really have to wonder how many times that astronomers can pull another magic metaphysical rabbit out of their mathematical hat before the public starts to distrust astronomers entirely.

When you think about it, the LCDM model really makes no sense at all. Even with four metaphysical fudge factors, the LCDM model is internally self conflicted. That internal conflict cannot even be remedied simply by tinkering with any or all of the four existing fudge factors. The only way to overcome the internal conflict is to add yet another ad-hoc element to the model, raising the number of unseen (in the lab) elements in the LCDM model to *five*!

All five of them can be replaced with two empirical changes, the inclusion of plasma redshift, and the inclusion of electric current, and all energy is conserved.

So really our choice is between a purely empirical theory of the universe that is based on laboratory plasma physics and the laws of physics, and a predicatively useless, self conflicted model with four or five metaphysical elements that violates the laws of physics. It's not even a difficult choice.

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: More money, more problems.

Unread post by JHL » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:14 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Essentially it's been confirmed yet again that the CMB expansion speed estimates don't jive with local observations, so look for a new metaphysical band-aid coming soon to a universe near you. :)
Remember, all such observatons are accompanied with breathless excitement that the Universe basically just needs a little more funding before LCDM is (re)confirmed:
"The Hubble tension between the early and late universe may be the most exciting development in cosmology in decades," lead researcher and Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which leads Hubble's science mission, said in a statement. "This mismatch has been growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss as a fluke. This disparity could not plausibly occur just by chance."

The Hubble team's results have been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.

Riess says the discrepancy strongly suggests there's a piece missing in the puzzle that scientists have put together over the years to model the history of the universe.
https://www.cnet.com/news/universe-is-e ... knows-why/

There's a piece missing and by gosh it addresses a phenomenon that couldn't have happened by chance. Not that the model is faulty; that the next ad hoc instrument to correct the equations just hasn't been devised. Yet.

This field doesn't even rise to the level of releasing a poor computer operating system under a great marketing program and then using the customer base to report back all its failures. At least operating systems function.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: More money, more problems.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:11 am

JHL wrote: There's a piece missing and by gosh it addresses a phenomenon that couldn't have happened by chance. Not that the model is faulty; that the next ad hoc instrument to correct the equations just hasn't been devised. Yet.
They've essentially painted themselves into a metaphysical corner over the Planck 'power spectrum' curve fitting exercise. In order to get a mathematical fit to that CMB related power curve, they have to commit themselves to a highly specific percentage of both dark energy and exotic matter. Ordinary matter won't work.

That tight percentage is then fed into the computer model simulations and the expansion speed estimate is fixed to very strict limits.

The expansion speed estimate based on Hubble data isn't restricted by the theory in the same way, and it's tougher to put strict limits on the potentials for error. Even still, it's limited to the actual data sets that it's based on. The two "methods" simply don't match, and there's no easy way to explain why they wouldn't match.

They can try to explain the difference by turning 'dark energy' into a variable rather than a constant, but it's a very ugly solution from the perspective of GR theory. While GR theory is fully mathematically consistent with a non-zero constant, it doesn't predict the existence of a non-zero *variable* that changes over time. There is nothing mathematically elegant about that solution from the standpoint of GR. It's already bad enough that dark energy has to remain constant over multiple exponential increases in volume, but they'd have to claim that dark energy somehow *increases* in density as the volume increases. That would put a spotlight on the violation of energy conservation and make it stick out like a sore thumb.

They can also add yet another ad-hoc metaphysical process that turns on and off at exactly the right time to generate greater acceleration over time, but that sounds even more contrived than turning dark energy into a variable. It would allow them to keep dark energy as a constant and more consistent with GR, but it's a much more obvious "fudge factor" that is designed to save one and only one cosmology theory.

In one of the articles I read yesterday, they mentioned a 4.4 sigma certainty figure based on current constraints. The magic number to claim a new "discovery" is five sigma and they're working on the error bars of the Hubble calculation method to get themselves to the 5 sigma level.

Yesterday seemed like a "dress rehearsal" for a 'new discovery' claim that appears to be just around the corner. All the media outlets covered the story.

I'd assume that they'll keep working on the Hubble calculation error bars until they get to the magic five sigma level and by then maybe they're have a consensus on how they intend to 'fix' the problem.

Even with four metaphysical fudge factors, they've managed to paint themselves into a mathematical corner, and the only way out is to make major changes to one of the fudge factors, or add a new metaphysical fudge factor.

Only a cult would attempt to resolve their observational failures by constantly inserting more and more ad-hoc features into the model. LCDM isn't "science' anymore, it's metaphysical dogma on a stick and the metaphysical elements are more and more contrived as time goes by. Their motto is: "All hail to the dark sky deities that control the fate of the universe".

The weirdest part of all of this is the fact that empirical physics can and does explain the whole set of cosmological data *much* better than the LCDM model, and it has better actual predictive value.

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: More money, more problems.

Unread post by JHL » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:11 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Even with four metaphysical fudge factors, they've managed to paint themselves into a mathematical corner, and the only way out is to make major changes to one of the fudge factors, or add a new metaphysical fudge factor.

Only a cult would attempt to resolve their observational failures by constantly inserting more and more ad-hoc features into the model. LCDM isn't "science' anymore, it's metaphysical dogma on a stick and the metaphysical elements are more and more contrived as time goes by. Their motto is: "All hail to the dark sky deities that control the fate of the universe".
Well said.

I happen to frequent a ongoing public discussion on a particular technology set. The ostensible aim is creating a faithful facsimile of reality - say, sound and vision; that sort of thing. Many barrels of ink are spilled asserting various claims and drawing conclusions, none more fallacious than those from the ostensibly scientific as they insist that anything that does not follow their prejudices must by rights be unscientific - after all, if it's accepted it's reality and that puts to rest anything that's not accepted. QED; they win, you lose

It's a deeply circular argument and it's further hampered by their status quo as Objectivists. The Subjectivist - by their same definition - by nature and default simply cannot take part in reality, as these Objectivists see it, and the rest is all a foregone conclusion.

Yet the Subjectivist is the more objective an experimenter of the two, and as we see the self-styled Objectivist is actually a practitioner of scientism. Having co-opted "science" - and used it to rule out whole swaths of theory and experimentation before the fact - the Objectivist then makes the rules, establishes the standards, and sets the tone and the membership list.

It reminds me of the LCDM advocate, albeit presumably the latter with more real scientific knowledge thrown in. However the refutations lofted by both status quo thinkers are just as real, and they rely on a host of fallacies. This is the greatest give-away and tell, and none larger than the simple prohibition that if the Scientist hasn't considered it - where "Scientist" is defined by the status quo - it may not be either introduced or accepted. The Scientist is gate-keeper.

It all reflects a double-standard: we're Scientists and you're not so the onus is on you to prove theory while we deploy ours. After all that's what Scientists like us do and since you're by definition not one of us, for you to displace our establishment requires a special proof. The fact we're dogmatic is simply our inherent rightness and since we're right and your thoughts may not apply, we have our prescribed reality. QED.

No, Mr. Scientist, you deploy no greater or lesser theory than the next movement and since yours is mathematical and since it fails so many logical tests, we're all on equal footing, even though nothing else about any camp can be equal. When you call alternative theorists cranks you expose your bias: that you're unable to distinguish between rational thought (in the open, objective pursuit of knowledge) and what amounts to flat-eartherism. You haven't that capacity because you don't want it.
Michael Mozina wrote:The weirdest part of all of this is the fact that empirical physics can and does explain the whole set of cosmological data *much* better than the LCDM model, and it has better actual predictive value.
As with the Objectivist vs Subjectivist non-argument, the LCDM zealot has too much explaining to do to enjoy a valid right to cast stones or aspersions. There are just too many fallacies bound up in current reasoning about models that don't begin to explain the cosmos, and the many attendant fallacies are telltales of fault and error. As I've alluded, confirmation bias is truer for the folks using the term as a weapon against those outside the status quo than it is for those targets. Objectivist and Subjectivist have been reversed.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: More money, more problems.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:05 pm

JHL wrote:Well said.

I happen to frequent a ongoing public discussion on a particular technology set. The ostensible aim is creating a faithful facsimile of reality - say, sound and vision; that sort of thing. Many barrels of ink are spilled asserting various claims and drawing conclusions, none more fallacious than those from the ostensibly scientific as they insist that anything that does not follow their prejudices must by rights be unscientific - after all, if it's accepted it's reality and that puts to rest anything that's not accepted. QED; they win, you lose
I think it's quite telling that EU haters try to "debunk" the whole EU/PC concept based on some perceived conflict with observation or a single failed "test" of some kind. Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to these kinds of major problems with the LCDM model, not to mention the fact that the LCDM model violates the conservation of energy laws of physics. :roll:

Nobody believes in "free lunches" except astronomers. :mrgreen:

It will be interesting to see how they work through this particular problem. This is the second time in the last two decades that the expansion interpretation of redshift has failed a major "test". The first failure brought us dark energy. The logical thing to do now would be to reevaluate your assumed cause of redshift. Their "sacred dogma" (of the bang) will of course prevent that from happening however. The proposed ad hoc "fixes" mentioned to date all sound rather inelegant and down right ugly. No doubt however it will be sold to the unsuspecting public as "an exciting new discovery in physics" as soon as they hit the magic five sigma figure. Of course all the five sigma figure will *really* demonstrate is that their expansion interpretation of redshift failed again by another five sigma. :)

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

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

Unread post by crawler » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:53 pm

If cosmic expansion fails does the BB fail?
If the BB fails does Ligo fail?

If Ligo fails does the BB fail?
If the BB fails does cosmic expansion fail?

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

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

Unread post by JHL » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:40 pm

crawler wrote:If cosmic expansion fails does the BB fail?
If the BB fails does Ligo fail?

If Ligo fails does the BB fail?
If the BB fails does cosmic expansion fail?
Heavens no. History tells us that when something fails it's never a wasted opportunity.

1. Issue a breathless press release on the colossal size of your humility. Pepper it with buzzwords like scientists and rethink and wonder and horizons. Adopt great courage at the the sheer mountain of new work your peers, with grace and their vast intelligence, will surely accomplish on your joint noble quest.
2. Remodel the model and rework the math. Throw around enormous figures. Fill blackboards with revisions.
3. Proclaim a new Entity. Play to the Higgs Boson (failure that it was) or the largest collider you can imagine, or something about Einstein. Call this Entity Darkest Nature or something catchy and leave em all spellbound.
4. See that it makes it onto the big screen. Whatever happens, a stint in the next 3 hour Trek Wars spectacular is generally a slam dunk for popular credibility.
5. Although its not in the visible spectrum, bonus points for photographing the real thing. "Scientists color-enhanced Darkest Nature", and so on.

You get the idea. If you're really good you can peddle your celebrity and monetize the thing for years. Get a YouTube channel and a contract with a network. Nobody will remember when the whole cycle plays out the next time.

And fewer than that will remember the definition of the word science.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

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

Unread post by crawler » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:51 am

JHL wrote:
crawler wrote:If cosmic expansion fails does the BB fail?
If the BB fails does Ligo fail?

If Ligo fails does the BB fail?
If the BB fails does cosmic expansion fail?
Heavens no. History tells us that when something fails it's never a wasted opportunity.

1. Issue a breathless press release on the colossal size of your humility. Pepper it with buzzwords like scientists and rethink and wonder and horizons. Adopt great courage at the the sheer mountain of new work your peers, with grace and their vast intelligence, will surely accomplish on your joint noble quest.
2. Remodel the model and rework the math. Throw around enormous figures. Fill blackboards with revisions.
3. Proclaim a new Entity. Play to the Higgs Boson (failure that it was) or the largest collider you can imagine, or something about Einstein. Call this Entity Darkest Nature or something catchy and leave em all spellbound.
4. See that it makes it onto the big screen. Whatever happens, a stint in the next 3 hour Trek Wars spectacular is generally a slam dunk for popular credibility.
5. Although its not in the visible spectrum, bonus points for photographing the real thing. "Scientists color-enhanced Darkest Nature", and so on.

You get the idea. If you're really good you can peddle your celebrity and monetize the thing for years. Get a YouTube channel and a contract with a network. Nobody will remember when the whole cycle plays out the next time.

And fewer than that will remember the definition of the word science.
Correction: I notice that my No4 should have said If Ligo fails does cosmic acceleration fail?

Yes, the day will surely come when an Einsteinian Dogma bites the dust, the first fail, in which case lots of other fails will follow, quickly.
But history has shown us that Einsteinologists are tricky. Their own failed experiments can sometimes be turned to non-failures by massaging the numbers.
Experiments not supporting GTR & done by others are written off by employing a long list of observers & by invoking gamma in any way that it helps, in such a way that no-one knows who's up who & who's paying.
Their own experiments that dont support GTR (& where the massaging of numbers etc doesnt work) are written off as having problems.
I saw a paper showing how GTR gives IAAD, strewth, nothing is impossible for Einsteinologists.
Einsteinologists own the money & the institutions & the universities & wiki etc etc, it will be a hard fight, but the times they are a'changin.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests