The LCDM model is 95% magic and it's *still* self conflicted

[Michael Mozina]

One would think that if any cosmology model mathematically relied almost exclusively on mythical, metaphysical invisible entities that the model would *at least* be internally consistent. The LCMD model however is anything *but* internally consistent.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronom ... -20201217/

“It would be incredibly exciting if there was new physics,” Freedman said. “I have a secret in my heart that I hope there is, that there’s a discovery to be made there. But we want to make sure we’re right. There’s work to do before we can say so unequivocally.”

Even with the addition of 95 percent "metaphysical fudge factor" the LCMD model *remains* (to this very day), a complete disaster in terms of internal consistency. It's falling apart at the seams, and nobody has a clue how "fix" it.

It's proponents are talking about adding even more "new physics" to their already *disastrous* scientific model in some futile attempt to save it from outright falsification. They did exactly the same thing 20 years ago when the expansion interpretation of redshift *failed* to correctly predict a "slowing down" of the expansion process due to the effects of gravity. Instead of reconsidering the actual cause of photon redshift, they simply "cheated" scientifically by literally "making up" a whole new form of "dark energy", which grossly *violates* the conservation of energy laws. It required the addition of 70 percent "dark energy magic" to the model to even get their expansion model to come anywhere close to fitting the redshift data sets.

Now, two decades later, they *still* have internal inconsistencies which cannot be "explained", and which are not explained by their metaphysical Frankenstein of a model. 95 percent magic, and it's *still* internally inconsistent! Sheesh. What a piece of scientific junk!

In any other *empirical* model in science, it would be time to go back to the drawing board and revisit the whole concept of redshift and the causes (plural) of photon redshift. We know from experiments with plasma in the lab that plasma redshift occurs "naturally". It's a documented phenomenon in plasma which is *not* accounted for in expansion models, not even a tiny bit. Instead of embracing empirical results from the lab, LCDM proponents seem intent on adding yet *another* metaphysical kludge to try to salvage their metaphysical interpretation of redshift.

This is just sad to watch now. The expansion interpretation of redshift is not "science". It's *dogma* which cannot ever be falsified. It can never fail, even if it means adding 70 percent fudge factor, and *in spite* of being internally inconsistent. No other area of "science" operates like this. Dogma isn't "science" and the expansion model isn't "science". It's metaphysical nonsense on a stick!

[nick c]

The expansion interpretation of redshift is not "science". It's *dogma* which cannot ever be falsified.

If the physical connections between high and low redshift objects (Halton Arp) are real and not chance alignments then it has already been falsified.

[Michael Mozina]

The expansion interpretation of redshift is not "science". It's *dogma* which cannot ever be falsified.

If the physical connections between high and low redshift objects (Halton Arp) are real and not chance alignments then it has already been falsified.

It's also been falsified a second time by the fact that their model *remains (to this day) internally self conflicted*. Not only does dark energy violate the conservation of energy laws of physics, it doesn't even *work right* in terms of providing a *consistent* Hubble constant. The LCDM model is a complete piece of metaphysical junk. It has *zero* scientific or practical (in the lab) value.

[jacmac]

Michael Mozina

The expansion interpretation of redshift is not "science". It's *dogma* which cannot ever be falsified.

nick c

If the physical connections between high and low redshift objects (Halton Arp) are real and not chance alignments then it has already been falsified.

from an astronomy book I read years ago:
A group of astronomers speaking to Halton Arp at an astronomy conference..... one said,
(Paraphrasing) "You may have some anomalous data, but we have a theory that explains everything.
We are sticking with our theory."

They don't care.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina

The expansion interpretation of redshift is not "science". It's *dogma* which cannot ever be falsified.

nick c

If the physical connections between high and low redshift objects (Halton Arp) are real and not chance alignments then it has already been falsified.

from an astronomy book I read years ago:
A group of astronomers speaking to Halton Arp at an astronomy conference..... one said,
(Paraphrasing) "You may have some anomalous data, but we have a theory that explains everything.
We are sticking with our theory."

They don't care.

The irony is that the LCDM model doesn't actually "explain" anything, let alone 'everything'. Where does dark energy come from? They don't know. How does it retain a constant pressure/density throughout expansion? No clue. Dark matter - they can't explain anything about it, and all their "popular" mathematical models bit the dust. Between them they make up 95 percent of the their model and they can't "explain" anything about them. They certainly can't "explain" why the distant universe likes *identical* to the local universe, in direct conflict with their claims. Most of the rest of their math is based on "pseudoscience' according to the Nobel Prize winning author of the MHD theory, and *none* of it is even useful in simulating something as simple as a *sustained* planetary aurora in a real laboratory experiment. Astronomers cannot actually "explain" anything. All they can do is repeat the same falsified metaphysical dogma, over and over and over again, and ban anyone and everyone who asks too many questions, or who prefers empirical physical alternatives to their metaphysical kludge of a model.