This quasar study is a *major* fail for the expansion interpretation of photon redshift.MotionTheory wrote:Sorry about being a bit unclear. LCDM failed because of given reason, i.e. their reason is incoherent. World need to come up with a logical coherent reason where 5th grader would understand easily.
neilwilkes wrote:Surely "LCDM ppl" - smart or otherwise - fail your criteria that the "Actual mechanism must physically be coherent and consistence. Of course, easy enough for a fifth grader to understand."
Or am I misreading/not understanding your point?
An average fifth grader can understand that photons simply transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium as they pass through that medium as Chen has verified in the lab. Such an explanation for photon redshift is pretty simple, it violates no conservation of energy laws, and it's internally consistent.
An expansion interpretation of redshift however requires LCDM proponents to use 'bait and switch' devices like Doppler shift to try to support 'space expansion" claims, but that simply causes the average person to think that objects are moving in and through space because Doppler shift only applies to moving objects. The misuse of the Doppler shift concept by the mainstream simply confuses the average person. The expansion interpretation of redshift also violates the conservation of energy laws which requires a gigantic rationalization and it's confusing as hell. The expansion interpretation of redshift is also internally inconsistent. Astronomers claim that "space" cannot expand in our solar system, our galaxy, or galaxy supercluster because of the concentration of mass/energy makes it impossible for "space" to do it's magic expansion trick. However, they also inconsistently claim that if you concentrate all the mass/energy of the whole universe into something smaller than a breadbox in terms of volume, space expansion miraculously causes the whole thing to expand. It's self conflicted nonsense and even a fifth grader is likely to ask them about it. They're also likely to ask them what dark energy is and the mainstream can't explain it. They can't easily explain inflation either. No fifth grader could ever really understand the LCMD model because even the 'professionals" don't actually understand it, which is why they're using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of it.
This quasar study is a big deal. It's a serious blow to the expansion interpretation of photon redshift. The first BB model failed to correctly predict the SN1A data, so it was modified dramatically by adding 'magic' energy, and a hell of a lot of it as well. Now the expansion model failed another quasar test at larger redshifts and dark energy can no longer simply be a constant as the current LCDM model 'predicted'. The properties of dark energy would have to be modified again to become a *variable* that actually becomes more dense as the volume continues to increase, which again defies the laws of physics even worse than claiming it retains a constant density as volume increases.
The mainstream will undoubtedly try to salvage their expansion interpretation of redshift by modifying the metaphysical properties of dark energy, but that's going to be tough to do, and take some time. That is because it has a direct effect on their baryonic acoustical oscillation claims related to the CMB, and it may also have some significant influence on their nucleosynthesis predictions as well. They have no clue at the moment how to begin to handle that data.
The "logical' and "rational' approach would be to go back to square one and revisit Edwin Hubble's *preferred* explanation for photon redshift, specifically the tired light concept. Hubble's preferred explanation for photon redshift is congruent with Chen's lab results. It's congruent with conservation laws of energy. It's capable of replacing three different forms of metaphysics found in the LCDM model, specifically inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy. It's also entirely internally consistent, unlike the space expansion claim.
The mainstream is too proud however to do the "right" thing or the logical thing because for decades now they've been lying to everyone by claiming that Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is expanding even though Hubble himself didn't believe them.
They'd have to "come clean" and admit that Hubble didn't claim to "prove" any such thing, and they've been lying their asses off for decades.
We'll therefore eventually see a modified big bang model that simply modifies the metaphysical properties of dark energy and they'll simply ignore the internal inconsistency of claiming that space expansion did it as well as the fact that the whole concept of space expansion is a gross violation of the conservation of energy laws of physics.