There is no such thing as a scientific test in astronomy, just "constraints".

[Michael Mozina]

It's become rather apparent that there is really no such thing as a real scientific 'test' in the field of astronomy because null results are never used to falsify anything. All that null results are ever used for in astronomy is to "constrain" the big bang model in some way. Consider the history of the expansion model for a moment, and recent so called "tests" of that model.

When redshift was first observed by Edwin Hubble in the 1920's, our technologies were still pretty limited. We had no real idea at that time of how many galaxies might exist, or how large the visible universe might be. Edwin Hubble proposed two possible explanations for redshift, expansion (due to moving objects) and "tired light" scenarios, neither of which actually violated any known laws of physics. As more and more distant galaxies were found however, Edwin Hubble eventually abandoned his belief in expansion, and opted instead to embrace the tired light explanation for redshift.

https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs ... ress-85962

None of Hubble's beliefs about the possible causes of redshift sat very well with astronomers however because George Lemaitre's model of expansion allowed for "faster than light speed expansion" by introducing a new metaphysical concept called "space expansion" into GR theory. Even Einstein originally rejected the idea of 'space expansion' as "abominable physics", but he was later forced to admit that it was a valid mathematical addition to GR. There was however an abominable physics problem with that space expansion idea, namely that it violates the conservation of energy laws. Did that "failed test" of this idea stop astronomers from embracing metaphysics? Of course not! They simply threw away physics and physical laws and embraced metaphysical mumbo-jumbo instead. To cover up their misdeeds, they then conveniently rewrote (and misrepresented) Hubble's redshift discovery and his legacy to suit themselves.

This however created a couple of new problem with respect to the elemental composition of known 'space", and in terms of the seemingly homogeneous layout of matter. As far as astronomers could tell the universe was mostly composed of hydrogen and helium, with only trace amounts of heavier elements. An ordinary "bang" process would simply not produce a universe that jived with that elemental composition. Secondly, an "explosive" bang would tend to result in a non-homogeneous layout of matter. Was the homogeneous layout of matter "test" used to falsify the bang option? Of course not. Alan Guth came along and invented a brand new metaphysical construct to "save the day", and "inflation' was born. Of course his original version of inflation was shown to be flawed, but again, that failure wasn't used to "falsify" his idea, it was only used to "modify' it to fit their needs.

The elemental composition problem was also not used to falsify the expansion interpretation of redshift either. Instead astronomers created a *third* metaphysical construct to deal with that serious problem. It was already known at the time from our measurement of galaxy cluster rotation patterns that our mass estimates were *way* off. To kill two birds with a single stone, instead of going back to the drawing board with respect to galaxy mass estimates and the actual cause of redshift, astronomers decided to redefine the term "dark matter" to include a whole new metaphysical type of matter, one which didn't interact with EM radiation, and which would allow them to "fudge the numbers" with respect to elemental compositions and nucleosynthesis.

So basically, in order to salvage the "expansion" interpretation of redshift, astronomers had to literally make up three new metaphysical ad hoc elements and throw out known conservation of energy laws of physics to boot.

About 20 years ago the expansion model failed yet another major 'test' of one of it's key scientific predictions. The expansion interpretation of redshift predicted that the universe should be 'slowing down" over time due to the force/curvature of gravity, a consistently "attractive" feature of nature. Instead of gravity causing the expansion process to slow down over time as the expansion model "predicted", SN1A "tests" of that prediction failed to produce the desired outcome. In fact the early SN1A evidence "seemed" (less certain these days) to suggest that instead of the rate of expansion slowing down over time, that data suggested that if redshift were caused by expansion, the expansion process would have to "speed up" over time.

In any other ordinary area of science and physics, that very important "failed test" of the expansion interpretation of redshift would have been used to falsify the expansion interpretation of redshift, and scientists would have gone back to the drawing board and taken a closer look at Hubble's *preferred* (at the end of his career) explanation for redshift, and tired light models would have been reconsidered as the more probable cause of photon redshift over distance. But noooooo!

From a scientific perspective it was already *bad enough* that one has to toss out conservation of energy laws to embrace 'space expansion" to start with. That ordinarily would have precluded that "explanation" from further consideration in any *other* (besides astronomy) branch of physics. Only in astronomy would such a ridiculous concept have been allowed to become popular in the first place.

But instead of astronomers abandoning that dodgy redshift idea after the failed SN1A "test" of the expansion concept, they opted instead to "double down" on their gross violation of the conservation of energy laws, and they came up with yet another ad-hoc metaphysical construct which *also* violates the conservation of energy laws only so they could salvage the big bang concept and protect their professional reputations. In order to salvage the expansion explanation of the redshift phenomenon, astronomers literally invented four new metaphysical processes and entities and abandoned empirical physics entirely.

About 15 years ago when I first got involved in this debate, I was assured in no uncertain terms that the LHC or one of the other upcoming dark matter experiments would certainly find evidence of the existence of exotic forms of matter and/or energy. Instead, LHC and every other "test" of the exotic matter claim returned null results. Those "failed tests" however were/are never used to "falsify" their claim of the existence of exotic matter. Rather all those null results were simply used to place so called "constraints" upon their exotic matter models. WIMP space has been so badly "constrained" over the years that it's now finally starting to lose traction to Axion and other ad-hoc models of exotic matter.

Over the past decade the LCMD model has failed numerous predictive "test" about the early universe. As our technologies have improved, instead of finding evidence of galaxy evolution over time as the LCMD model "predicts", we're finding *massive* and *mature* galaxies at the highest redshifts that we can observe. Galaxies in the distant universe are *far* more massive and "mature' than predicted by the expansion model. Quasars are more massive than predicted.

https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs ... ress-85962
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... erse-space

In the last few years, the LCMD model has also failed another crucial test. The Hubble constant as predicted by SN1A data is now in 5+ sigma conflict with the Planck data. The expansion model of cosmological redshift has failed "test' after "test", after "test" after "test".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... g-mystery/

At no time over the past 90 years has any failed so called "test" of the expansion model ever been used to actually falsify the expansion model. Such failures have all been used to either justify the invention of new metaphysical constructs, or they've been used to 'constrain" the model in some way. There is no such thing as a real scientific "test" of the expansion model. It's failed all scientific tests from the start. It has failed to be consistent with the known laws of physics since it was first invented. It's failed the conservation of energy law "tests" *twice*, in two different ways. It's failed every exotic matter "test" to date, to the tune of *tens of billions* of dollars worth of so called "tests". It's failed to predict what we observe in the distant universe too.

When astronomers claim that the LCDM passes various "tests", they are intentionally misrepresenting the historical facts. The LCDM model has *never* passed any important tests, nor has any expansion model of redshift ever had any real 'predictive" value either. All such claims are simply false. There is no such thing as a real scientific test of the expansion model of cosmology. The only thing "null' or failed tests are used for is to *invent* (out of whole cloth) yet another metaphysical ad-hoc construct, or to "constrain" the model in some way. No failed test is ever used to actual "falsify" the expansion model, so it's a scientifically bankrupt "testing" process, and that has been the case in astronomy for over 90 years.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.newsweek.com/massive-invisi ... es-1453007

Sorry, I had the wrong link for the massive galaxies article.

Case in point by the way:

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-n ... -particle/

The data give better constraints than next-generation ground-based experiments can hope to achieve, highlighting the power of astronomy in testing subatomic physics.

Don't worry, it's never a "failed test" (in this case of axion-like-particles), it's just another "constraint".