Cosmic Dawn III

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.
BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Cosmic Dawn III

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:25 am

Below is an article boasting about yet another … biggest ever simulation … called Cosmic Dawn III (CoDaIII) … of the evolution of the early universe …

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/uni ... s-galaxies

And what sort of result did they get? Well, according to the above link, roughly 100 million years after the Big Bang, “the gases” “started to “clump together” and the period of reionization continued until about 700 million years after the BB. That’s it. That’s all they say.

Here’s a paper they put out in 2020 about CoDaII, the previous version of their model: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.11192.pdf . I notice right away that there’s not a single mention of “plasma”, “electromagnetism”, “electromagnetic” or “electric” in the paper. That’s because the physics that this simulation models does NOT include electromagnetic effects on plasmas, the modeling of electric current and the generation of magnetic fields from them. What could go wrong?

And here’s a paper published in August of 2022 about the CoDaIII model and the results mentioned in the sciencenews article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.05869.pdf. It also does not mention any of the terms mentioned above. Obviously, the physics of plasma cosmology has still not been incorporated into the modeling so, again, what could go wrong? Maybe that's why the only understandable results included in the paper are the same ones mentioned in the sciencenews article.

This article (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... rst-light/) about the simulation states that the code incorporates “a realistic model of galaxy formation with a new algorithm that tracks how light interacts with gas, along with a model for cosmic dust”. That's awfully vague. And it claims “We are able to take basic physics equations and governing theoretical models to simulate what happened in the early universe.”

These *scientists* apparently have no clue. They are like blind men studying an elephant because they’re only using half the relevant physics (one of their senses), ignoring the most powerful, long range force in the universe, while incorporating an invisible gnome ... dark matter ... into their model ... all paid for by the federal government after forceably taking money from YOU. What a waste of YOUR money and hard work to earn it.

Mark Vogelsberger, a study co-author at MIT, is quoted in the above article saying “Either our Thesan simulations and model will agree with what JWST finds, which would confirm our picture of the universe, or there will be a significant disagreement showing that our understanding of the early universe is wrong.” I suspect that is why the article’s description of the results are so vague regarding when the model says the first stars appear, when the first galaxies appear, and when the galaxies become organized into spirals (if their model is even capable of doing that). That’s because doing so would reveal HUGE discrepancies between their results and JWST reality … and show their “understanding of the early universe IS WRONG”. Just saying …

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests