Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[Michael]

Lambda-CDM - Confirmation Bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It seems to me that there are four basic "supernatural" (not naturally occurring on Earth) components to Lambda-CDM, virtually all of which have been *falsified* by satellite measurements from space over the past decade. The observation of confirmation bias over the past decade is simply astounding as it relates to Lambda-CDM.

Dark matter

In 2006, "dark matter" proponents claimed that lensing data supported the existence of an *exotic* form of matter. Their grandiose claims about the supposed existence of supernatural forms of matter were of course *entirely* dependent upon the *assumption* that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate in 2006, and therefore any "missing mass' was necessarily found in a *non baryonic* form of matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Since 2006 however, there have been five major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) Two years later in 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to an *underestimation* of stellar mass:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2008/title,21439,en.php

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by a factor of two.

2) They "discovered" a year later that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Ooops....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html

3) The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. Oooopsy......

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars.html

4) Two years after that, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) In 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

http://www.realclearscience.com/jou..._of_stars_may_be_outside_galaxies_108929.html

There's been at least *five* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as at least five major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.

Now if there was any doubt about their ordinary mass estimation problems, let's look at how they did in the lab with respect to exotic matter claims since 2006:

1) LHC *destroyed* every single "popular" brand of SUSY theory and we're left with whatever is sitting at the bottom of the barrel. In fact the whole thing has become a SUSY theory of the gaps claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

2) LUX experiments demonstrated that the mainstream poured tons of money down a hole in the ground and found exactly *zero* evidence of exotic matter as they erroneously *predicted*.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty

3) PandaX experiments also verified that the mainstream has a bad habit of pouring money down a hole and coming up empty:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/scp-fdm092814.php

4) They "tested" some other predictions related to electron roundness, and again they *falsified* every prediction they made:

http://www.seeker.com/perfect-elect...ersymmetry-1768164981.html#news.discovery.com

5) We can now add Xenon-100 results to the list of *failures* to detect "dark matter".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144842.htm

If the *numerous* revelations of *gross* baryonic mass underestimation in 2006 wasn't bad enough, they've already falsified every "popular" brand of exotic matter that they put forth since 2006. In at least ten different ways, they've either *destroyed* their own claims about the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006, or they falsified every so called 'prediction" that they ever made about exotic matter in the lab.

Dark Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

The entire basis of their 'dark energy' claims is based upon the *presumption* that all SN1A events act as "standard candles' and occur pretty much exactly the same way, every single time. Since their original claims however, several studies have since undermined their claim that SN1A events are all the same, and are really 'standard candles' as they *assumed*:

1) Major studies done as far back as 2011 cast serious doubt on their dubious claim about 'standard candles' that apparently aren't standard after all:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzercepheids20110112.html

2) A more recent study verifies that standard candles aren't really 'standard' after all as well:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/uoa-aun041015.php

3) The only "test" that I'm aware of to look for dark energy in the lab was also a complete bust:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144719.htm

That's what Hamilton, Müller and his team did. They dropped cesium atoms above an inch-diameter aluminum sphere and used sensitive lasers to measure the forces on the atoms as they were in free fall for about 10 to 20 milliseconds. They detected no force other than Earth's gravity, which rules out chameleon-induced forces a million times weaker than gravity. This eliminates a large range of possible energies for the particle.

Translation: They found nothing useful in the lab from their dark energy "predictions".

Note that dark energy makes up almost 70 percent of their entire theory, meaning that the *vast* majority of their theory rests upon a now *falsified* premise, and it's actual "predictive" value is zero!

Inflation

Inflation theory was all the rage again last year when the mainstream made *ridiculous* and grandiose claims about having 5+ sigma confidence that the polarized light patterns they observed were caused by inflation and gravity waves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

Guth even make claims about it being Nobel Prize worthy work. They called it the "smoking gun" for inflation.

Of course the *entire* claims was based upon their "assumption' that they could rule out other very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns, and that 'assumption' fell completely apart by the time the paper passed the peer review process. Despite all the outrageous hype, it turns out that *ordinary dust* around out own galaxy is the likely culprit, not inflation:

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html

That leaves inflation's only claim to fame it's '"prediction' of homogenous layout of matter, and even *that* claim has been blown out of the water by Planck's revelation of a hemispheric variations in the CMB and "cold spots'.

http://sci.esa.int/planck/51559-hem...cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

There's really *nothing left standing* of Lambda-CDM after the revelations of the past decade. The whole thing was based upon *now falsified* premises, none of which the mainstream has come to terms with. They're simply in denial at this point.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Lambda-CDM - Confirmation Bias

An unsupported assertion about confirmation bias and ignorance about the word "supernatural" is not a promising beginning !

Dark matter

A list of fantasies about news articles and gravitation lensing is not scientific evidence, Michael.
In 2006, the existence of dark matter was supported by strong evidence. The evidence includes indirect evidence (e.g. computer simulations of large scale structure) that dark matter is non-baryonic. The first of several observations of colliding galaxy clusters mapped out dark matter separating from baryonic matter and is direct evidence that dark matter is non-baryonic.

Universe shines twice as bright (2008)
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount (2009)
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky (2010)
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas (2012)
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies (2014)
Now cite the scientific literature applying these discoveries to the gravitational lensing to the mapping of matter in any situation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

1) LHC *destroyed* every single "popular" brand of SUSY theory and we're left with whatever is sitting at the bottom of the barrel.

The universe will not bow down to your demands to be simple or that dark matter doe what you want it to do, Michael .
Rational people do not deny the strong evidence for the existence of dark matter or that dark matter need not be detectable in current experiments here on Earth.

1. LHC did not detect the particles in the simplest version of SUSY.
   That does not invalidate the evidence that dark matter exists.
2. Several direct detection of dark matter interacting with matter did not detect the dark matter candidates that they were deigned to detect.
   That does not invalidate the evidence that dark matter exists.
3. SUSY being false does not invalidate the evidence that dark matter exists.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Dark Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

The entire basis of their 'dark energy' claims ...

Maybe you should read what you link to, Michael?
Dark energy has several lines of evidence as stated in your link with different "bases": Dark Energy: Evidence of existence
One line of evidence was the 1998 discovery was that the expansion of the universe was accelerating through as you note SN1A events.
There have been discoveries that improve the usage of SN1A as standard candles. Nothing in the news articles or press releases states that dark energy does not exist.
Cosmology Standard Candle not so Standard After All (2011) is about Cepheids, not SN1A!

Accelerating universe? Not so fast (2015) is a possible reduction in dark energy. This is the 2015 paper THE CHANGING FRACTIONS OF TYPE IA SUPERNOVA NUV–OPTICAL SUBCLASSES WITH REDSHIFT

Experiment attempts to snare a dark energy 'chameleon' (2015) was trying to detect one kind of hypothetical dark energy particle.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Inflation ...

A "*ridiculous* and grandiose" bit about the invalid BICEP2 results.
Actually detecting the gravitational waves that may have been created in the inflationary period of the universe would be a Nobel Prize wining discovery. Ruling out gravitational waves being created in the inflationary period of the universe would be almost as important since it would give us an insight into the inflationary period.
Then ignorance of inflation pops up, Michael!

• The Planck team invalidated the BICEP2 results because they could rule out more of the "very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns"! That is what you linked to states: Evidence for Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust
  N.B. Planck ruled out most but not all of the BICEP2 signal.
• Inflations "claim to fame" is plural:
  Inflation explains the measured flatness of the universe.
  Inflation explains why the Universe appears statistically homogeneous and isotropic.
  Inflation explains why we do not detect monopoles.
  Inflation predicts the one part in 100,000 inhomogeneities we observe.
  Inflation predicts the spectral index.
  Inflation predicts that it could generate gravitational waves.
• The CMB is not matter, homogeneous or not.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Maybe the title of the thread should be "Pure Speculation and Some Ignorance of the Lambda-CDM model Run Amuck" ?

 

[Michael]

An unsupported assertion about confirmation bias and ignorance about the word "supernatural" is not a promising beginning !

It's not an "unsupported" assertion since I cited *numerous* examples that related to dark matter claims, dark energy claims, and inflation claims. Whatever "evidence" you don't like, you simply sweep right under the rug!

Your "dark" stuff is "supernatural" by definition. If you had a "natural" substitute you wouldn't have needed to invent an invisible *supernatural* option to start with!

A list of fantasies

There you go again with loaded language galore while you fantasize about invisible dark sky entities galore!

about news articles and gravitation lensing is not scientific evidence, Michael.

Eh? You have no idea what "scientific evidence' even looks like in terms of presenting published works to support one's statements. This is easy to demonstrate: Where's the "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" published paper to support your erroneous claims RC?

In 2006, the existence of dark matter was supported by strong evidence.

There was no "strong" evidence of "dark matter". There was only "strong evidence" that those pitifully flawed baryonic mass estimates used in 2006 weren't worth the paper they were printed on. We have since found *ample* evidence that your baryonic mass estimation techniques were a joke in 2006, and we've since falsified all your "mathematical predictions" related to dark matter in the lab!

The evidence includes indirect evidence (e.g. computer simulations of large scale structure) that dark matter is non-baryonic.

Your larger scale lensing simulations would work with ordinary matter for the most part, and any computer models that cannot work with ordinary matter should simply be ignored.

The first of several observations of colliding galaxy clusters mapped out dark matter separating from baryonic matter and is direct evidence that dark matter is non-baryonic.

Boloney. That would only be true if you could demonstrate for a fact that the baryonic mass "guestimates" were right to begin with. We have since found *ample* evidence that they were utterly worthless.

Universe shines twice as bright (2008)
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount (2009)
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky (2010)
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas (2012)
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies (2014)
Now cite the scientific literature applying these discoveries to the gravitational lensing to the mapping of matter in any situation.

I have no need or desire to do that. You won't even provide a single published reference that claims that "actual" electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, so why should I do anything for you RC? You're a one man circular feedback loop, and you *refuse* to back up any of your erroneous statements with published papers.

 

[Michael]

The universe will not bow down to your demands to be simple or that dark matter doe what you want it to do, Michael .

Apparently it doesn't bow down to your dogma demands, that's the real problem. Everywhere you "predicted" something mathematically, it turned out to be *useless*. So much for it's predictive usefulness as a theory.

We also know now that the whole basis of the claim of "dark matter" was flawed. The baryonic mass estimates of galaxies in 2006 were a joke! They were *seriously* flawed in at least 5 different ways.

Rational people

Rational people don't run around claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma or that magnetic reconnection is plasma optional process without ever sitting down and reading an actual textbook on MHD theory. What would you know about "rational people" RC?

do not deny the strong evidence for the existence of dark matter

What "strong" evidence? That lensing evidence? It's a total joke! There were five serious flaws in those baryonic mass estimates RC.

or that dark matter need not be detectable in current experiments here on Earth.

It's more impotent on Earth in the lab than an average supernatural concept of "God". At least humans report having a relationship with something they call God, whereas no subatomic particle ever claimed that "dark matter did it"!

LHC did not detect the particles in the simplest version of SUSY.

Yep, your mathematical "predictions" were falsified right and left. So much for their usefulness at making any real world *accurate* predictions.

That does not invalidate the evidence that dark matter exists.

There never was an evidence that dark matter exists, only evidence that your baryonic mass estimates in 2006 were a joke, and evidence of outrageous amounts of confirmation bias ever since!

Several direct detection of dark matter interacting with matter did not detect the dark matter candidates that they were deigned to detect.

Several of your mathematical predictions went up in smoke. What's the point of making "predictions", watching them fail, only to ignore the outcome and running around claiming that your right anyway, here's a new mathematical "prediction" to try out!

That does not invalidate the evidence that dark matter exists.

There is no evidence that dark matter exists, there is only evidence that your baryonic mass estimates have been a complete and total joke!

SUSY being false does not invalidate the evidence that dark matter exists.

So essentially "dark matter" is more an "act of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), and no amount of failures to find it will ever dissuade you from looking for it. Yep, it's a religion alright, and a bad one at that because it *flies in the face* of the empirical evidence.

Wow, what a complete cop out of a response.

 

[Michael]

Maybe the title of the thread should be "Pure Speculation and Some Ignorance of the Lambda-CDM model Run Amuck" ?

Maybe you should try actually dealing with the scientific problems in your claims for a change.

 

[VirOptimus]

Lambda-CDM - Confirmation Bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It seems to me that there are four basic "supernatural" (not naturally occurring on Earth) components to Lambda-CDM, virtually all of which have been *falsified* by satellite measurements from space over the past decade. The observation of confirmation bias over the past decade is simply astounding as it relates to Lambda-CDM.

Dark matter

In 2006, "dark matter" proponents claimed that lensing data supported the existence of an *exotic* form of matter. Their grandiose claims about the supposed existence of supernatural forms of matter were of course *entirely* dependent upon the *assumption* that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate in 2006, and therefore any "missing mass' was necessarily found in a *non baryonic* form of matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Since 2006 however, there have been five major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) Two years later in 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to an *underestimation* of stellar mass:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2008/title,21439,en.php

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by a factor of two.

2) They "discovered" a year later that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Ooops....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html

3) The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. Oooopsy......

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars.html

4) Two years after that, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) In 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

http://www.realclearscience.com/jou..._of_stars_may_be_outside_galaxies_108929.html

There's been at least *five* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as at least five major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.

Now if there was any doubt about their ordinary mass estimation problems, let's look at how they did in the lab with respect to exotic matter claims since 2006:

1) LHC *destroyed* every single "popular" brand of SUSY theory and we're left with whatever is sitting at the bottom of the barrel. In fact the whole thing has become a SUSY theory of the gaps claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

2) LUX experiments demonstrated that the mainstream poured tons of money down a hole in the ground and found exactly *zero* evidence of exotic matter as they erroneously *predicted*.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty

3) PandaX experiments also verified that the mainstream has a bad habit of pouring money down a hole and coming up empty:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/scp-fdm092814.php

4) They "tested" some other predictions related to electron roundness, and again they *falsified* every prediction they made:

http://www.seeker.com/perfect-elect...ersymmetry-1768164981.html#news.discovery.com

5) We can now add Xenon-100 results to the list of *failures* to detect "dark matter".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144842.htm

If the *numerous* revelations of *gross* baryonic mass underestimation in 2006 wasn't bad enough, they've already falsified every "popular" brand of exotic matter that they put forth since 2006. In at least ten different ways, they've either *destroyed* their own claims about the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006, or they falsified every so called 'prediction" that they ever made about exotic matter in the lab.

Dark Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

The entire basis of their 'dark energy' claims is based upon the *presumption* that all SN1A events act as "standard candles' and occur pretty much exactly the same way, every single time. Since their original claims however, several studies have since undermined their claim that SN1A events are all the same, and are really 'standard candles' as they *assumed*:

1) Major studies done as far back as 2011 cast serious doubt on their dubious claim about 'standard candles' that apparently aren't standard after all:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzercepheids20110112.html

2) A more recent study verifies that standard candles aren't really 'standard' after all as well:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/uoa-aun041015.php

3) The only "test" that I'm aware of to look for dark energy in the lab was also a complete bust:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144719.htm



Translation: They found nothing useful in the lab from their dark energy "predictions".

Note that dark energy makes up almost 70 percent of their entire theory, meaning that the *vast* majority of their theory rests upon a now *falsified* premise, and it's actual "predictive" value is zero!

Inflation

Inflation theory was all the rage again last year when the mainstream made *ridiculous* and grandiose claims about having 5+ sigma confidence that the polarized light patterns they observed were caused by inflation and gravity waves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

Guth even make claims about it being Nobel Prize worthy work. They called it the "smoking gun" for inflation.

Of course the *entire* claims was based upon their "assumption' that they could rule out other very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns, and that 'assumption' fell completely apart by the time the paper passed the peer review process. Despite all the outrageous hype, it turns out that *ordinary dust* around out own galaxy is the likely culprit, not inflation:

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html

That leaves inflation's only claim to fame it's '"prediction' of homogenous layout of matter, and even *that* claim has been blown out of the water by Planck's revelation of a hemispheric variations in the CMB and "cold spots'.

http://sci.esa.int/planck/51559-hem...cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

There's really *nothing left standing* of Lambda-CDM after the revelations of the past decade. The whole thing was based upon *now falsified* premises, none of which the mainstream has come to terms with. They're simply in denial at this point.

Write a peer-reviewed article on the subject, until you do, not impressed and certainly not swayed in my understanding of physics.

 

[Michael]

A "*ridiculous* and grandiose" bit about the invalid BICEP2 results.

The "ridiculous" and "grandiose" problems started at the press conference *before* the paper even passed peer review and your so called "experts" were running around claiming 5+ sigma confidence only to watch that phony 5+ sigma claim literally turn to dust during the peer review process! The *press hype* was just absurd!

Actually detecting the gravitational waves that may have been created in the inflationary period of the universe would be a Nobel Prize wining discovery.

Lots of things that never happened *might* have been Nobel Prize winning discoveries RC. So what? That doesn't change the fact that your so called "experts" can't tell the difference between ordinary dust, from sigma 5 signs of inflation. So much for their "expertise".

Ruling out gravitational waves being created in the inflationary period of the universe would be almost as important since it would give us an insight into the inflationary period.

You don't even have any tangible empirical evidence that polarized photons have anything at all to do with gravitational waves in the first place. You certainly can't replicate the process in the lab. The whole thing is an affirming the consequent fallacy that requires one to "rule out" every other potential cause of polarized photons in the universe.

The Planck team invalidated the BICEP2 results because they could rule out more of the "very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns"! That is what you linked to states: Evidence for Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust
N.B. Planck ruled out most but not all of the BICEP2 signal.

In other words, at least the vast majority of any polarized photon patterns from space come from *ordinary dust and plasma* around the galaxy, and nothing *substantial* can be said about inflation from those photons, in spite of all the public hype and hoopla.

Inflations "claim to fame" is plural:
Inflation explains the measured flatness of the universe.

What a ridiculous claim from the standpoint of mathematics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Criticisms

Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ... Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly – without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!"

It's ten to the 100th power *less* likely that we would get a "flat" universe *with* inflation than without it. You actually *created* a *huge* problem, you certainly didn't "solve" one!

Inflation[/COLOR][/U][/URL] explains why the Universe appears statistically homogeneous and isotropic.

Except Planck data showed that it's not homogeneous on the largest of scales, there are clear hemispheric difference that are *not* part of Guth's original 'predictions'. More evidence of confirmation bias run amuck.

Inflation[/COLOR][/U][/URL] explains why we do not detect monopoles.

The *lack* of something doesn't *require* an "explanation" anymore than evolutionary theory *needs* to explain the lack of unicorns on Earth. Give me a break.

Inflation predicts the one part in 100,000 inhomogeneities we observe.

Except for the holes and the hemispheric variations, but then again it was already *known* that the universe was pretty uniform *before* Guth "postdicted" a fit.

Inflation predicts the spectral index.

So does ordinary scattering in plasma as Eddington demonstrated himself.

Inflation predicts that it could generate gravitational waves.

It "could" generate invisible unicorns too.

What an epic fail of a list.

 

[Michael]

Write a peer-reviewed article on the subject, until you do, not impressed and certainly not swayed in my understanding of physics.

Why bother? I handed you at least a dozen peer reviewed papers to support my statements and I'll bet you didn't read even one of them.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why bother? I handed you at least a dozen peer reviewed papers to support my statements and I'll bet you didn't read even one of them.

I stand by my statement.

 

[Michael]

Maybe you should read what you link to, Michael?

I did, but I suspect that you did not.

Dark energy has several lines of evidence as stated in your link with different "bases":

Just as your dark matter claims all "assume" that your mass estimates were correct in order to "claim" there's a need for "dark matter", dark energy claims "assume" that SN1A events are all the same. We now know that they are *not* all the same and come in *at least* two different flavors, and maybe more. Your entire basis for claiming that "dark energy did it" was flawed from day one!

Accelerating universe? Not so fast (2015)

What little we *might* hope to "test" in the lab, we have "tested", and just like your dark matter claims, those "tests" showed that your "mathematical predictions" are useless at actually predicting anything in the lab.

Experiment attempts to snare a dark energy 'chameleon' (2015) was trying to detect one kind of hypothetical dark energy particle.

And again, another mathematical "prediction" bites the dust, but the confirmation bias continues unabated.

 

[Michael]

I stand by my statement.

Well, on second thought, you might be on to something actually. It might be worth rattling the mainstream cage a little by submitting a paper for publication, even if they decide not to print it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, on second thought, you might be on to something actually. It might be worth rattling the mainstream cage a little by submitting a paper for publication, even if they decide not to print it.

If you want to challange the accepted model, this is the way to go.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, on second thought, you might be on to something actually. It might be worth rattling the mainstream cage a little by submitting a paper for publication, even if they decide not to print it.

Go ahead and keep us informed on the results and citations.

And don't forget to start ranting about conspiracy-like practices when they decide that your paper isn't worthy of publication.

 

[Michael]

Go ahead and keep us informed on the results and citations.

And don't forget to start ranting about conspiracy-like practices when they decide that your paper isn't worthy of publication.

Well, in terms of citations that I'm likely to include in such a paper, this thread contains links to the work that I'd start with. If you have any suggestions, or complaints, speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, in terms of citations that I'm likely to include in such a paper, this thread contains links to the work that I'd start with. If you have any suggestions, or complaints, speak now or forever hold your peace.

I meant citations of the paper YOU would be submitting.

 

[Michael]

I meant citations of the paper YOU would be submitting.

There's a basic flaw in your logic, particularly as it relates to "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab). A comparison to the topic of God will demonstrate this point quite nicely:

You seem to "lack belief" in God, in *spite* of the fact that throughout human history, human beings have claimed to have been affected by something they call God, and have been writing about such experiences since the dawn of human civilization. In terms of "cause/effect" claims, you can 'suggest' there are other possible 'explanations' for these human writings, but according to the humans themselves, they've already identified a 'cause' for you.

In terms of photon redshift, Hubble himself came to believe that the photons lost momentum to the plasma medium on their way to Earth, and he embraced a static universe theory. This is backed up in the lab with evidence of numerous types of 'inelastic scattering' that can and do have a tangible effect on photons as they pass through the temperature and EM field gradients and the dust and plasmas of spacetime. It's not even as though there is only one type of inelastic scattering options to choose from, there are actually several, and several combo options to explore too.

A lot of the redshift could also be explained by moving objects rather than "space expansion".

Between both the concept of moving galaxies, and combinations of inelastic scattering sidekicks to choose from, there's no physical need for three of the four supernatural constructs of LCDM theory.

Now of course the mainstream today "pretends" that they know so much more than the scientist that discovered the photon redshift phenomenon in the first place, but what *empirical* evidence can they provide you with?

If empirical cause/effect claims don't matter to you in physics, why should they matter to you with respect to the topic of God?