It's a long post but essentially I'll refer this to 'lab vs non-lab'.
If you feel that there's something that I should address specifically in this post, please let me know as I wouldn't want to miss it.
The key point I was trying to make in that post is that Lambda-CDM is unfalsifiable. As david demonstrated with that structure in space, he was unwilling to ever reconsider his hypothesis. He knew that eventually someone would come up with a paper to refute it. I did too. They didn't actually *disprove* the first paper mind you, they simply demonstrated the technique *might* produce erroneous results. It's a draw at best case.
The hemispheric blowout they're having in the Planck data set is another perfect example. David did *not* question his metaphysical dogma, he *added more metaphysics* to save the dogma. The BB dogma cannot be logically falsified in any way. As long as it's acceptable to whip up ad hoc constructs on an as needed basis, there's no way to falsify the core belief, namely that redshift is all related to expansion and acceleration and none of it is related to inelastic scattering or signal broadening in plasma.
Pretty much the whole foundation of BB theory began by *ignoring* Hubble and *pretending* he didn't talk about two solutions to redshift. That specific dogma cannot be falsified because any test that fails is covered up and "explained away' by yet a new ad hoc construct.
Upvote
0