Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

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

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

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon May 06, 2019 1:21 pm

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -problems/

It looks like even mainstream scientists are starting to rebel. :)

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by JHL » Mon May 06, 2019 1:40 pm

This article is based on edited excerpts from the book Metaphysical Experiments: Physics and the Invention of the Universe
Heh.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon May 06, 2019 1:57 pm

My favorite line:
This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with observations of the distant universe.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ne ... ament.html
Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early.
That particular article/study is from 2004, so the "steady crop of dependencies" has been going on for a long time, and don't even get me started on all the lab failures related to "dark matter".

It looks to me like the speed of expansion problem is creating a serious rift in the scientific community. Assuming they eventually get to a five sigma certainty that there's a problem between the two types of measurements, the only way to 'fix' the problem will be to add new metaphysical nonsense to a model that is *already* 95 percent metaphysical horse manure. Astronomers keep heading further and further down the metaphysical rabbit hole, and they keep failing all of their own internal "tests" and observational tests as well. What does it take to falsify a metaphysical monstrosity the violates conservation of energy laws anyway?

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by JHL » Mon May 06, 2019 2:41 pm

Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early.
"This big". Gotta love that perspective.

I'm not a astrophysicist or a theoretical one either, but it seems to me that if your model has no empirical foundation, stacks up irreconcilable paradox on irreconcilable paradox, defies reason and common sense, hinges on antiquated theories and outright conjectures, and ranges to contradictory evidence the magnitude of entire galaxies spanning a realm a hundred million parsecs across, that you defer, dial back your assumptions, and punt.

I mean, come on. I think the effects of institutional momentum have been grossly underestimated. You almost can't blame them for taking this to the cliff and right over it.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by JHL » Mon May 06, 2019 2:56 pm

And then there's this from a couple of years ago: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... everything
Of course, there is the other possibility: that the Universe simply doesn't unify. That the multiple different laws and rules we have are there for a reason: these symmetries that we've invented are simply our own mathematical inventions, and not descriptive of the physical Universe. For every elegant, beautiful, compelling physical theory that's out there, there's an equally elegant, beautiful, and compelling physical theory that is wrong. In these matters, as in all scientific matters, it's up to humanity to ask the right questions.
Reasonable enough. Then the author connects it to thin air:
But it's up to the Universe to tell us the answers. Whatever they are, that's the Universe we have. It's up to us to figure out what those answers mean.
I see. In other words, paraphrasing Voltaire: "And man, being the gentleman he is, promptly created God."

Or, excerpted from the same article, God's equivalent: https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x ... angian.jpg

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon May 06, 2019 4:14 pm

JHL wrote:And then there's this from a couple of years ago: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... everything
Of course, there is the other possibility: that the Universe simply doesn't unify. That the multiple different laws and rules we have are there for a reason: these symmetries that we've invented are simply our own mathematical inventions, and not descriptive of the physical Universe. For every elegant, beautiful, compelling physical theory that's out there, there's an equally elegant, beautiful, and compelling physical theory that is wrong. In these matters, as in all scientific matters, it's up to humanity to ask the right questions.
Reasonable enough. Then the author connects it to thin air:
But it's up to the Universe to tell us the answers. Whatever they are, that's the Universe we have. It's up to us to figure out what those answers mean.
I see. In other words, paraphrasing Voltaire: "And man, being the gentleman he is, promptly created God."

Or, excerpted from the same article, God's equivalent: https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x ... angian.jpg

I hope we're finally seeing some evidence of real dissent within the scientific community. It's bad enough that the LCMD model is predicatively useless at higher redshift, but now it's internally self conflicted to boot. The proposed "fixes" for the internal conflicts sound like more of the same metaphysical nonsense, and that still only fixes one of it's many predictive failures over the past couple of decades. Ever since the SN1A data resulted in their dark energy nonsense, the LCDM model has continued to fail one "test" after another.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by crawler » Mon May 06, 2019 4:45 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -problems/

It looks like even mainstream scientists are starting to rebel. :)
That article itself regurgitates dogma that Hubble said that the universe was expanding, no he didnt .........
But when Hubble observed that the universe was expanding and Einstein's solution no longer seemed to make sense, some mathematical physicists tried to change a fundamental assumption of the model: that the universe was the same in all spatial directions but variant in time. Not insignificantly, this theory came with a very promising upside: a possible merger between cosmology and nuclear physics. Could the brave new model of the atom also explain our universe?

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by crawler » Mon May 06, 2019 4:51 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:My favorite line:
This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with observations of the distant universe.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ne ... ament.html
Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early.
That particular article/study is from 2004, so the "steady crop of dependencies" has been going on for a long time, and don't even get me started on all the lab failures related to "dark matter".

It looks to me like the speed of expansion problem is creating a serious rift in the scientific community. Assuming they eventually get to a five sigma certainty that there's a problem between the two types of measurements, the only way to 'fix' the problem will be to add new metaphysical nonsense to a model that is *already* 95 percent metaphysical horse manure. Astronomers keep heading further and further down the metaphysical rabbit hole, and they keep failing all of their own internal "tests" and observational tests as well. What does it take to falsify a metaphysical monstrosity the violates conservation of energy laws anyway?
Strings & walls are explained by Conrad Ranzan's DSSU (Dynamic Steady State Universe) which has an infinite number of cosmic cells each 250 million ly across.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by crawler » Mon May 06, 2019 4:54 pm

JHL wrote:
Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early.
"This big". Gotta love that perspective.

I'm not a astrophysicist or a theoretical one either, but it seems to me that if your model has no empirical foundation, stacks up irreconcilable paradox on irreconcilable paradox, defies reason and common sense, hinges on antiquated theories and outright conjectures, and ranges to contradictory evidence the magnitude of entire galaxies spanning a realm a hundred million parsecs across, that you defer, dial back your assumptions, and punt.

I mean, come on. I think the effects of institutional momentum have been grossly underestimated. You almost can't blame them for taking this to the cliff and right over it.
They are not paradoxes (paradoxes have a logical explanation), they are contradictions.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon May 06, 2019 5:25 pm

I'd personally have to say that the single "biggest" problem with the LCDM model is the fact that it grossly violates the conservation of energy laws. Everything else is a relatively "minor" problem by comparison.

Nobody would believe that kind of law of physics defying BS in any other area of physics, but slap the concept into a GR formula and point at the sky, and the laws of physics go flying out the window. Sheesh.

The LCDM model is so pathetic it's not even funny. It has zero predictive value, and in fact it's *fails* it's own predictions by the dozen. It's a total POS.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by crawler » Mon May 06, 2019 7:07 pm

I found two YouTube videos by J Richard Gott that regurgitate many of the standard cosmology cheats pushes excuses & hand-waving (links below). The BB inflationary predictions match the measurements "exactly".

Gott mentions ......... voids, edges, corners, honeycomb architecture, cellular structure, polyhedrons, sponge-like geometry, swiss cheese, slices, cells, froth of bubbles, great wall, super wall, filaments (making a sponge), tunnels (joining the voids), cosmic web (name of Gott's book).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9AuqxSVHUY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4duk3RiQzA
The Royal Institution Published on Jul 12, 2017
J Richard Gott leads a journey through the history of our understanding of the Universe’s structure, and explains the ‘cosmic web’: the idea that our Universe is like a sponge made up of clusters of galaxies intricately connected by filaments of galaxies. Watch the Q&A here: https://youtu.be/B4duk3RiQzA Subscribe for regular science videos: http://bit.ly/RiSubscRibe J Richard Gott was among the first cosmologists to propose that the structure of our Universe is like a sponge made up of clusters of galaxies intricately connected by filaments of galaxies – a magnificent structure now called the 'cosmic web'. In this talk he shows how ambitious telescope surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are transforming our understanding of the cosmos, and how the cosmic web holds vital clues to the origins of the universe and the next trillion years that lie ahead. J Richard Gott is Emeritus Professor of Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University and is noted for his contributions to cosmology and general relativity.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by JHL » Tue May 07, 2019 4:03 am

crawler wrote:They are not paradoxes (paradoxes have a logical explanation), they are contradictions.
Point taken, however paradoxes stem from seemingly rational or logical assumptions but, as in this case, come to contradictory conclusions. The paradox is useful in exposing faulty reasoning, premises, and methods, the elements LCDM inherently involves.

I may have given LCDM proponents more credit than you feel they've earned, but an arguably rational basis was indeed the starting point. The question is how long the evident errors will stand before someone pulls the alarm cord.

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by JHL » Tue May 07, 2019 4:06 am

our Universe
Pet peeve: "Universe" in the possessive. A completely mystical existence is hardly ours.

To wit: https://youtu.be/NMYlcS7pMT4

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

Re: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue May 07, 2019 8:53 am

crawler wrote:I found two YouTube videos by J Richard Gott that regurgitate many of the standard cosmology cheats pushes excuses & hand-waving (links below). The BB inflationary predictions match the measurements "exactly".
Even the claim that the LCDM model "predicts" anything is a flat out lie. It's a postdicted POS from start to finish. It's been the single most *unsuccessful* model of making real 'predictions" in the history of physics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmolog ... ive_value/

The only way the mainstream can sell that crap to the public is to simply lie about it. Hubble didn't "prove the universe is expanding", he personally rejected that interpretation of redshift. Doppler shifts isn't a justification for space expansion. The LCDM model has never made a real "prediction" either, it's all been a postdicted fit to known observation and when it fails to match observation, it's simply modified again and again, which is how we got "dark energy". Guth knew that the universe was homogeneous. He didn't 'predict" it with inflation, he *POSTDICTED A FIT* to a known observation. Even the claim that LCMD "predicts" anything, let alone "perfectly" is a blatant and bald faced lie.

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

Real predictions.....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue May 07, 2019 10:35 am

If you want to see what real "predictions' look like, take a gander a Bireland's lab work related to solar physics and planetary aurora. Going into the experimentation process he had some basic ideas about how things might work, but during the experiments he *learned* numerous things that he had never considered or thought about prior to firing up his lab experiments. Based on what he *learned* from real empirical physics, he correctly predicted that the sun emitted *both* types of charged particles, not just electrons. He predicted cathode rays, polar jets, current carrying filaments, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, and a host of other things that have since been confirmed by satellites in space.

Compare and contrast that with "dark energy". The original BB model "predicted" no such thing. The original expansion model simply 'predicted" that the rate of expansion was slowing down over time due to the effects of gravity. Only *after* the SN1A data came back, and it didn't jive with their original "predictions", did we get introduced to the concept of dark energy. That's not a "prediction". That's a ad hoc *postdicted fix* to a broken model that changed the model by a whopping 70 percent! To even claim that the LCDM model is "predictive" is entirely false and blatantly misleading.

Guth didn't "predict" homogeneity with inflation, nor did he "predict" that the universe was flat. These were *known* observations which Guth simply attempted to "explain" with his model. Multiple models of inflation have been designed to do different things, simply to make the model fit with never observations. Inflation is a completely postdicted concept.

Dark matter wasn't a "prediction" of the LCDM model either. That concept came from *observations* of galaxy and cluster rotation patterns that didn't match their mass estimates based on luminosity.

About the *only* aspect of the LCDM model that 'might' be considered to be a true "prediction' was the concept of "space expansion" which Lemaitre came up with while exploring mathematical solutions to GR. However, that concept requires the assumption that energy is not conserved in space, a blatant violation of the laws of physics. Einstein originally rejected that concept too, and only begrudgingly had to admit it was a valid mathematical solution to his equations.

So essentially the only real "prediction" of the LCDM model was also the first step down the metaphysical rabbit hole and it requires the laws of physics to be tossed out the window Every other critical aspect of the LCDM model is a postdicted fit to match various observations and was never actually "predicted' by anyone.

When astronomers talk about LCDM making "predictions", they're simply misrepresenting the historical facts. The current model wasn't "predicted" from first principles, it's been a postdicted kludge all along. Of course it *usually* matches what they know about today only because it's been postdicted all along to fit what we know. What it *doesn't do correctly* is actually make any *accurate* predictions from first principles related to Lemaitre's mathematical solutions to GR.

For instance, the actual "predictions" of the expansion model which relate to galaxy evolution have consistently been shown to be wrong, time and time and time again. When their model fails, they simply bury their collective heads in the sand with respect to *those* observations, and/or they modify the math to make it fit again. In recent years they've been forced to mostly just bury their heads in the sand over the galaxy evolution claims because they simply don't match and they have no idea how to fix it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -in-young/

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astrono ... ive-stars/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... tronomers/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery ... ifies.html

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ne ... ament.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... erse-space

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-keck-obse ... alaxy.html

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests