LCDM models is broken again......Cosmic anisotropy

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/aniso ... 08312.html

“Based on our cluster observations we may have found differences in how fast the Universe is expanding depending on which way we looked,” said Dr. Gerrit Schellenberger, an astronomer in the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

“This would contradict one of the most basic underlying assumptions we use in cosmology today.”

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A ... M/abstract

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03305v1

So, there's recent evidence to suggest that our little bubble of the universe is less dense than the average, and dark energy is probably a mathematical mirage, and now there's also evidence to suggest that the expansion process isn't uniform after all. The LCDM model is really just falling apart at the seams at this point. Between these two recent revelations, and the fact that distant galaxies and quasars are far more massive than "predicted" by the LCDM model, the LCDM is really starting to look pretty sad. There's not much that the LCDM actually "predicts" correctly. In fact it's almost batting 1000 in terms of *not* jiving with recent observations.

It seems like every month now there's another bombshell that blows more holes in the LCDM model of cosmology.

[Michael Mozina]

It's interesting to me that such a revelation would utterly destroy the "value" of inflation theory.

When Alan Guth first proposed the idea of inflation, Guth claimed that inflation supposedly "explained" three basic observations. Inflation supposedly explained why the universe was homogeneously distributed, it explained why the universe was flat, and it supposedly it explained why there were no monopoles to be found in nature.

Now, explaining the non-existence of monopoles is a lot like trying to "explain' the non-existence of unicorns. It was never a valid argument to begin with. A lack of monopoles requires no explanation, and the absence of monopoles no more supports inflation than it supports the story of Noah's Ark. It's a bit like claiming that unicorns never made it on to the Ark so that explains why there are no unicorns alive today.

Roger Penrose later demonstrated that it was 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a 'flat' universe would be generated with inflation rather than without it. Strike two.

Guth's last remaining justification for inflation was that it supposedly explained why the universe is relatively homogeneous and isotropic, yet now it seems from x-ray evidence that the universe is anisotrophic.

So at this point, every single one of the core justifications that Guth put forth to support his made-up inflation concept have been shown to be false. There is essentially nothing left to even logically or scientifically justify inflation.

It's bad enough that the LCDM model is self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, and the only known "fix" for it requires us to abandon the idea that our local area of the visible universe is roughly the same density as the rest of space, which ultimately undermines the need for dark energy entirely. Now however the evidence seems to *disfavor* the core assumptions which the LCDM is based on.

One has to eventually ask themselves if the LCDM model has any "predictive' value at all? It sure seems to fail far more "tests' than it has ever passed.

[crawler]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
I see that they have to have cold dark matter to differentiate from hot dark matter.
Unicorns were actually rhino's. Likewise me myself i reckon that if matter is made of bottled light (Jeans) then dark matter might be bottled neutrinos (Crawler).