Bubble, bubble toil and trouble for the LCDM model.

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

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

Bubble, bubble toil and trouble for the LCDM model.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:01 pm

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/scie ... nergy.html
So far, the smart money is still on cosmic confusion. Michael Turner, a veteran cosmologist at the University of Chicago and the organizer of a recent airing of the Hubble tensions, said, “Indeed, all of this is going over all of our heads. We are confused and hoping that the confusion will lead to something good!”
I think the cosmic confusion is a direct result of *interpreting* redshift as being related to expansion. That seems to be the one assumption that nobody dares to question or mess with.

So.......they're going to ignore all the other observations of "mature" and massive galaxies at very high redshifts which defy their galaxy evolution models, and ignore the h-alpha lines from high redshift galaxies that shouldn't be visible according to their model, and they'll just tinker with the metaphysical dogma a bit more. Lovely.

This metaphysical manipulation will take some time because they don't dare change the model too much lest they break things which current work right.

User avatar
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Bubble, bubble toil and trouble for the LCDM model.

Unread post by neilwilkes » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:09 am

It's the same placeholder terms for "we do not have an effing clue".
Long, long ago, when the universe was only about 100,000 years old — a buzzing, expanding mass of particles and radiation — a strange new energy field switched on. That energy suffused space with a kind of cosmic antigravity, delivering a not-so-gentle boost to the expansion of the universe.

Then, after another 100,000 years or so, the new field simply winked off, leaving no trace other than a speeded-up universe.
Based on what, exactly? the usual Redhift = recessional velocity nonsense I suspect.
The cosmos is expanding only about 9 percent more quickly than theory prescribes. But this slight-sounding discrepancy has intrigued astronomers, who think it might be revealing something new about the universe.
So now 9% is only a "slight sounding discrepancy" then. Good job these idiots are not engineers if they think errors of 9% is only "slight".
And so, for the last couple of years, they have been gathering in workshops and conferences to search for a mistake or loophole in their previous measurements and calculations, so far to no avail.
In short, it is reality that is wrong, not their maths, so the observations they interpret are obviously (from their standpoint) in error. Oh good grief.
Adding to the confusion, there already is a force field — called dark energy — making the universe expand faster. And a new, controversial report suggests that this dark energy might be getting stronger and denser, leading to a future in which atoms are ripped apart and time ends.
Yet more speculative nonsense dressed up as research - they literally make this stuff up almost ad hoc, it seems
Thus far, there is no evidence for most of these ideas.
Now we get to the crux of the matter. Finally!
Or it could all be a mistake. Astronomers have rigorous methods to estimate the effects of statistical noise and other random errors on their results; not so for the unexamined biases called systematic errors.
Ah. Again it seems it is reality that is in error again. I knew the previous quote was too good to be true.
As Wendy L. Freedman, of the University of Chicago, said at the Chicago meeting, “The unknown systematic is what gets you in the end.”
??? I think they might be trying to describe Systems Theory here, and then applying it to a closed system paradigm (LCDM is one of these) yet it only works in open systems......bad case of mixing incompatible things and wondering why the milk then curdles perhaps. Pure supposition on my part though, as I am not 100% sure what they are trying to say here.
Generations of great astronomers have come to grief trying to measure the universe. At issue is a number called the Hubble constant, named after Edwin Hubble, the Mount Wilson astronomer who in 1929 discovered that the universe is expanding.

As space expands, it carries galaxies away from each other like the raisins in a rising cake. The farther apart two galaxies are, the faster they will fly away from each other. The Hubble constant simply says by how much.

But to calibrate the Hubble constant, astronomers depend on so-called standard candles: objects, such as supernova explosions and certain variable stars, whose distances can be estimated by luminosity or some other feature. This is where the arguing begins.
Ah. Here we go again. As Michael has pointed out over and again, not only did Hubble never claim to have discovered the Universe is expanding but he also never bought into the idea that Redshift was recessional either. Yet still we read this over and again.
This is then compounded onto another error - standard candles. The idea that you know how big & how far away something is by how bright it appears to our limited vision. Insanity. This fails, and fails in a spectacular manner. I will not go into details as Michael has done this countless times.
String theory suggests that space could be laced with exotic energy fields associated with lightweight particles or forces yet undiscovered. Those fields, collectively called quintessence, could act in opposition to gravity, and could change over time — popping up, decaying or altering their effect, switching from repulsive to attractive.

The team focused in particular on the effects of fields associated with hypothetical particles called axions. Had one such field arisen when the universe was about 100,000 years old, it could have produced just the right amount of energy to fix the Hubble discrepancy, the team reported in a paper late last year. They refer to this theoretical force as “early dark energy.”
There are an awful lot of "Coulds" in there - in short, fiddle with the numbers, plug the new guess into the model & tweak until it says what you want it to then force reality into this.
I am not going to quote anything further as it descends into stupidity at this point, with magical events happening that violate all principles we know and mentioned above - strange forces switching on and off at just the right time, mystical Dark Energy somehow increasing in total defiance of a closed system conservation of energy principle. Metaphysical nonsense - and I will close by saying just one more thing for anagram fans:
Metamagical Themas = Mathematical Games.
I think that says it all really. The Universe is an Open System, not a closed one.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

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

The lack of ethics is annoying.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:43 pm

It's really annoying that the mainstream intentionally and continuously misrepresents Hubble's research and his beliefs. It's totally unethical to claim that Hubble "proved" or that he 'discovered" that the universe is expanding. He actually rejected an expansion interpretation of redshift so he didn't believe any such thing.

Their bait and switch routine with respect to Doppler shift (baiting the argument an effect of moving objects and then switching to "space expansion") is another blatant ethical violation that really speaks to the weakness of the whole LCDM model.

You'd think after all these different observations at higher redshifts which defy their model they'd get around to eventually questioning their whole subjective interpretation of redshift as being caused by expansion, but no. Instead they appear to be trying to turn what is supposed to be a 'constant' in a GR formula into a time changing variable, or dreaming up a whole new form of energy to turn on and off at exactly the right time to save their otherwise falsified model from certain death. The mental gymnastics required to keep their model alive is mind-boggling. The really irrational part is that they could replace 3 (maybe four now) metaphysical cause/effect claims with simple plasma redshift, an empirical phenomenon that has been *documented* in his laboratory experiments.


It's inconceivable to me that the LCDM model could survive another 10 years at the rate they're going. They keep blowing up their own model and they keep trying to patch it up again by moving the goalposts further and further away from empirical physics. Evidently four metaphysical fudge factors are still not enough to make it work right, so now they may have to add a fifth metaphysical band-aid to try to stop the massive redshift hemorrhaging. Big Bang theory is a metaphysical monstrosity.

Meanwhile EU/PC theory remains entirely consistent with the standard model of particle physics and even a plasma redshift interpretation of the observed redshift/distance relationship that Hubble described enjoys laboratory support. Chen even demonstrated an empirical relationship between the number of free electrons in a plasma and the amount of redshift he observed.

You really don't have to be a genius to see how ridiculous it is to try to salvage a metaphysical monstrosity by adding yet *another* ad-hoc metaphysical band-aid to the model.

I can't stress enough how absurd it would be to try to transform a simple constant in a GR formula into a variable that changes over time, only to salvage a model that is supposed to be based on GR theory. Changing a constant into a variable would violate every core principle of GR theory. Adding a fifth metaphysical kludge to the model is also entirely irrational. Enough is enough already. It's time for them to go back to the drawing board with redshift and actually take Hubble's advice to heart this time.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests