LCDM grossly violates the conservation of energy laws, whereas GR theory by itself doesn't necessarily do so. It all depends on how one tries to use/abuse GR theory.
Dark energy for instance isn't a "requirement" of GR theory, rather it's an ad-hoc "add-on" within the LCDM model. It grossly violates the conservation of energy laws because "supposedly" dark energy remains at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Essentially new/more "dark energy" must be constantly created and must "fill in" the new "space" caused by "space expansion" (another optional element of GR).
The concept of "space expansion" is also another of those optional elements of GR that isn't 'required', but is added to LCDM, and it also violates the conservation of energy laws, whereas the movement of objects in GR isn't necessarily a violation of conservation laws.
As we saw from the last thread, LCDM proponents not only require inflation to supposedly 'explain' expansion, but the LCDM model also requires some kind of supernatural event to take place to allow 'space' to expand between objects of mass which are so densely packed together. It requires supernatural processes to keep the whole thing from imploding instantly.
What good is a cosmology theory that violates laws of physics, and that can't really "explain" anything from the very first second of the events in question? It's made worse by the fact that 95 percent of the LCDM model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance to start with.
I really don't understand the absurd fascination with a cosmology model that violates known laws of physics and which creates more problems than it solves from the first second of creation.
Even Alfven's "bang" theory was far more preferable to the LCDM model since the universe didn't need to start with an object that is condensed to fit within it's own event horizon in Alfven's model. IMO LCDM is just a goofy and ridiculous model from start to finish, and it creates more problems/questions than it actually solves.
Dark energy for instance isn't a "requirement" of GR theory, rather it's an ad-hoc "add-on" within the LCDM model. It grossly violates the conservation of energy laws because "supposedly" dark energy remains at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Essentially new/more "dark energy" must be constantly created and must "fill in" the new "space" caused by "space expansion" (another optional element of GR).
The concept of "space expansion" is also another of those optional elements of GR that isn't 'required', but is added to LCDM, and it also violates the conservation of energy laws, whereas the movement of objects in GR isn't necessarily a violation of conservation laws.
As we saw from the last thread, LCDM proponents not only require inflation to supposedly 'explain' expansion, but the LCDM model also requires some kind of supernatural event to take place to allow 'space' to expand between objects of mass which are so densely packed together. It requires supernatural processes to keep the whole thing from imploding instantly.
What good is a cosmology theory that violates laws of physics, and that can't really "explain" anything from the very first second of the events in question? It's made worse by the fact that 95 percent of the LCDM model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance to start with.
I really don't understand the absurd fascination with a cosmology model that violates known laws of physics and which creates more problems than it solves from the first second of creation.
Even Alfven's "bang" theory was far more preferable to the LCDM model since the universe didn't need to start with an object that is condensed to fit within it's own event horizon in Alfven's model. IMO LCDM is just a goofy and ridiculous model from start to finish, and it creates more problems/questions than it actually solves.