Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - 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/archiv ... 439,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 ... 90819.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/scitech/2010/12/ ... ion-stars/
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) Last year 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/journal ... 08929.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/new ... s-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/ ... 092814.php
4) They "tested" some other predictions related to electron roundness, and again they *falsified* every prediction they made:
http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect ... 131219.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 nine 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/spitz ... 10112.html
2) A more recent study verifies that standard candles aren't really 'standard' after all as well:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 041015.php
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!
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-infla ... -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-hemisph ... ackground/
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.
I think this also brings up a good question with respect to EU/PC theory, particularly since it's in it's infancy at the moment and there are multiple viewpoints and multiple theories to choose from within EU/PC theory. How are *we* as a community going to avoid the same problem of confirmation bias with respect to various 'electric' solar models to choose from, and with respect to various ideas put forth within the framework of EU/PC theory?
