More Problems? More Gnomes? More Money?

[BeAChooser]

Here’s an example of mainstream scientists not being able to see beyond the end of their noses.

Just look at this admission of how little they know after nearly a century of research costing scores of billions of dollars …

https://www.space.com/einstein-theory-o ... hing-wrong

Something is wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity

… snip …

Our new study, published in Nature Astronomy, has now tested Einstein's theory on the largest of scales. ... snip ... the results hint that the theory of general relativity may need to be tweaked on this scale.

... snip ...

Quantum theory predicts that empty space, the vacuum, is packed with energy.

... snip ...

However, the amount of vacuum energy, or dark energy as it has been called, necessary to explain the acceleration is many orders of magnitude smaller than what quantum theory predicts.

Hence the big question, dubbed “the old cosmological constant problem”, is whether the vacuum energy actually gravitates – exerting a gravitational force and changing the expansion of the universe.

If yes, then why is its gravity so much weaker than predicted? If the vacuum does not gravitate at all, what is causing the cosmic acceleration?

We don’t know what dark energy is, but we need to assume it exists in order to explain the universe's expansion. Similarly, we also need to assume there is a type of invisible matter presence, dubbed dark matter, to explain how galaxies and clusters evolved to be the way we observe them today.

These assumptions are baked into scientists’ standard cosmological theory, called the lambda cold dark matter (LCDM) model – suggesting there is 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter and 5% ordinary matter in the cosmos. And this model has been remarkably successful in fitting all the data collected by cosmologists over the past 20 years.

Just like Ptolemy’s model fit the data?

But the fact that most of the universe is made up of dark forces and substances, taking odd values that don’t make sense, has prompted many physicists to wonder if Einstein’s theory of gravity needs modification to describe the entire universe.

A fact? No. You just admitted those are ASSUMPTIONS. It's also not a fact that the mainstream's models have been "remarkably successful in fitting all the data collected by cosmologists over the past 20 years". And mind you folks, this is an article in a major mainstream astronomy magazine. Look at how loose they play with the truth and facts.

And not one of them can look beyond the end of their nose and say themselves … gee, to make this theory seem to work, we sure have invented a lot of “dark forces” and things with “values that don’t make sense” … so maybe it's time we question whether fixing it isn’t just a matter of tweaking the theory yet again? Read on, and you'll see that's not to be ...

A new twist appeared a few years ago when it became apparent that different ways of measuring the rate of cosmic expansion, dubbed the Hubble constant, give different answers – a problem known as the Hubble tension.

The disagreement, or tension, is between two values of the Hubble constant. One is the number predicted by the LCDM cosmological model, which has been developed to match the light left over from the Big Bang (the cosmic microwave background radiation). The other is the expansion rate measured by observing exploding stars known as supernovas in distant galaxies.

Many theoretical ideas have been proposed for ways of modifying LCDM to explain the Hubble tension.

But no-one in the mainstream has been willing to go back and question the foundational ASSUMPTIONS of their model, which might also account for the so-called “tension” (such an innocuous word … much better than using the word PANIC!). So what did they do instead?

Together with a team of cosmologists, we put the basic laws of general relativity to test. We also explored whether modifying Einstein's theory could help resolve some of the open problems of cosmology, such as the Hubble tension.

Why of course ... they conducted more research, paid for by you, on how to tweak their model. And …

We found interesting hints of a possible mismatch with Einstein’s prediction, albeit with rather low statistical significance. This means that there is nevertheless a possibility that gravity works differently on large scales, and that the theory of general relativity may need to be tweaked.

Even the slightest hint is success keeps them going. But they admit the solution is going to require more than just a tweak this time ...

Our study also found that it is very difficult to solve the Hubble tension problem by only changing the theory of gravity. The full solution would probably require a new ingredient in the cosmological model, present before the time when protons and electrons first combined to form hydrogen just after the Big Bang, such as a special form of dark matter, an early type of dark energy or primordial magnetic fields.

Ah yes … more gnomes are needed.

Or, perhaps, there’s a yet unknown systematic error in the data.

And what causes systematic errors IN DATA? Again, there are none so blind as the members of a cult.

That said, our study has demonstrated that it is possible to test the validity of general relativity over cosmological distances using observational data. While we haven’t yet solved the Hubble problem, we will have a lot more data from new probes in a few years.

And like always, they end by promising to find the answer ... as long we keep sending then money. But I say *Why should we? What's in it for us? What's the value of this research, other than to keep you astrophysicists employed in jobs that produce a very comfortable, self-important existence?*.

We've got much bigger problems to solve right now and all the time in the world to ask the questions you are asking ... IF WE SURVIVE THE CURRENT PROBLEMS. And it's doubtful we will ... if you believe WOKE NASA. They recently published a study (https://www.ancient-code.com/wp-content ... 5-main.pdf) suggesting that there aren't any alien civilizations out there because they all collapsed due to inequality in the use of resources (see what I mean about them being WOKE?).

If that's what the mainstream believes, then obviously other civilizations don't offer the solution. Building bigger telescopes to observe them is going to be a waste of money and time. And looking for answers at the edges of the universe is also a waste of those precious resources. No ... we need to look inward for an answer. Reconsider OUR ASSUMPTIONS. Not keep throwing money at astrophysics to look for more gnomes. Just saying ...