Zyxzevn wrote:In astronomy they have their unique scientific methodology.
They start with some theoretical model, then they oversimplify it,
add invisible stuff and apply it on a different situation.
This usually does not only break the original model, but also basic physics.
Then they claim that it works, because they found a rare case that is similar to what the
false model predicted.
And now any observation and criticism that shows the model is wrong, is attacked.
The new "discovery" starts new research by PhD's and they slowly breed
a new theoretical model on top of the old false one.
That way the system maintains itself, and the theories contain more and more
things that are never detected or can never be detected.
I think you're being a little too kind my friend by referring to that pretty accurate representation of their irrational behavior as a 'unique scientific methodology."
It's more like the antithesis of scientific methodology.
I'm actually very curious to see what the mainstream is going to do about that recent quasar data. It does falsify their current LCDM model as surely as the SN1A data broke the original big bang model. The logical thing to do would be to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate their whole assertion that redshift is related to expansion, but then astronomers never seem to do the logical thing, and logic has nothing to do with their dogmatic emotional attachment to the expansion model. Still, it's an interesting dilemma for them.
If we go by your very concise description of their bizarre methodology, they'll probably start off by attacking the quasar data for awhile, and eventually they'll add some more irrational claims to the mix about how dark energy increases in density over multiple exponential increases in volume, and they will go further down the conservation of energy defying rabbit hole. They'll just ignore the conservation of energy violations as usual, they'll award some more Nobel prizes to make it seem legit, and viola, they're back in business.
I'm curious to see how they attempt to salvage their BAO claims and their nucleosynthesis predictions while tinkering with the magical properties of dark energy. I don't think they even have a clue how do to that yet which is why there's been such a deafening silence so far in response to that recent quasar study. It should be entertaining at least to watch them scurry around in a pure panic for awhile.
I've also been very amused at the responses I get to my questions to LCDM proponents about their internally inconsistent use of their space expansion claim. It's a sure way to make an astronomer squirm. They usually just avoid the question and pretend that I never asked them about it. Occasionally I get "magic just happens" sort of goofy rationalization, but it's always just as internally inconsistent as the original space expansion claim. The mental gymnastics are a hoot to behold and typically pretty entertaining.
The only thing I really feel good about is the fact that the LCDM model has never been in such a vulnerable place and so tattered and torn. The last time their big bang model was broken this badly was about 20 years ago when the SN1A data first came out. Between the endless string of failed dark matter experiments and that new quasar study, the LCDM model is in a world of hurt.
I suppose the metaphysical 'fix" is easier this time around since they won't have to reinvent the whole concept of dark energy and try to sell the public on dark energy from scratch. They can just tinker around with it's metaphysical properties this time. At least they won't be able to relate dark energy back to Einstein's non zero "constant" in a GR formula like they originally did with dark energy, not that it will deter them from trying to turn a constant into a time related variable. At least I'll then get to ask them about their inconsistent misuse of what is supposed to be "constant" in a GR formula however, so the silver lining is that I'll get to have even more fun watching them squirm.
The internal inconsistencies are really starting to pile up now.
