Another day, another predictive failure for the LCDM model.....what a piece of cosmological junk

[Michael Mozina]

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-hubble-ea ... verse.html

New results from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope suggest the formation of the first stars and galaxies in the early Universe took place sooner than previously thought. A European team of astronomers have found no evidence of the first generation of stars, known as Population III stars, as far back as when the Universe was just 500 million years old.

Oooops, they didn't find the predicted abundance of early Population III stars where they are predicted to exist. Another truly *epic* predictive failure for the LCDM model.

There's literally nothing that the LCDM model actually "predicts" correctly. I'm so sick and tired of hearing astronomers falsely claim that the LCDM model makes "accurate predictions". Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single high redshift observation blows more massive holes in the LCDM model. Nothing about it works as "predicted".

Just think about this for a moment now. Not only does the LCDM model violate conservation of energy laws, it's *refuted* by observational evidence galore! Not only did it fail to correctly predict the existence of an abundance of Population III stars in the early universe, it failed to predict those massive and mature galaxies and quasars in the early universe too. It's still got a five plus sigma *self conflict* associated with the Hubble constant rate even *after* adding liberal doses of "dark energy" to save the otherwise falsified expansion model. There's more observational evidence to *refute* the LCDM model than there is to actually support it!

So what would you like to bet that the JWST will continue to find no evidence at all for an abundance of Population III stars at the limits of it's range, while finding evidence for massive and mature galaxies and quasars at the limits of it's detection range too?

[neilwilkes]

I'm not taking that bet, Michael.
I will see your JWST finding no evidence of pop 3 stars, and raise you a statement claiming that it somehow "proves Einstein was right"

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not taking that bet, Michael.
I will see your JWST finding no evidence of pop 3 stars, and raise you a statement claiming that it somehow "proves Einstein was right"

When you consider the implications of the various failures of the LCDM model over the past decade, it's actually rather amazing that it has any support at all. In just the last few years we've seen it *fail* at least four important high redshift "tests". It *failed* to correctly predict an excess abundance of Population III stars at high redshifts, a *key* prediction of stellar evolution over time. It *failed* to correctly predict the size and maturity of distant galaxies, failing another key prediction related to galaxy evolution over time. It failed to correctly predict those supermassive quasars too, failing another important "test" of a black hole evolution over time. It's still in five sigma self conflict with the Hubble constant as predicted by the Planck data too, in spite of a *massive* fudge factor addition of around 70 percent of the model just two decades ago. There's literally *nothing* that it correctly "predicts" at high redshift.

This is *in addition* to the fact that the LCDM model grossly violates the conservation of energy laws *twice* within the very same model.

There's really nothing predictively useful about an expansion model. It's been wrong far more times than it's actually been right. It's about the *least* predictively accurate model I can think of in fact.

We see *zero* evidence of stellar evolution over time. We see *zero* evidence of galaxy evolution over time. We see *zero* evidence of quasar evolution over time. The concept of a "bang" is simply not supported by the high redshift evidence no matter how "kind" one tries to be to the LCDM model. It's just a dismal failure at every level.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 140723.htm

For a black hole of this size to form this early in the universe, it would need to start as a 10,000 solar mass "seed" black hole about 100 million years after the Big Bang, rather than growing from a much smaller black hole formed by the collapse of a single star.

"How can the universe produce such a massive black hole so early in its history?" said Xiaohui Fan, Regents' professor and associate department head of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Arizona. "This discovery presents the biggest challenge yet for the theory of black hole formation and growth in the early universe."

According to mainstream theory, the first stars didn't form till about 100 million years after the the "bang", and their remnants would have only been a few hundred solar masses.

So now we need "black hole seeds" to explain the first quasars.

There's not one damn thing that the mainstream model actually *correctly* predicted, not one. Here we go again adding more special pleading to the model only to save the LCDM model from falsification. There's simply no way to falsify the mainstream model because the actual "predictions" are never used to falsify it, they're always wrong, and the mainstream is constantly moving the goal posts. In fact they have the goal posts in overdrive as it relates to distant quasars.

The mainstream cosmology model is a total predictive *disaster*. It's never going to survive the JWST program.