Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
Finally the time (and energy) to answer. It's been a long time so I'll prune away the parts I don't feel is important.Our conversation is getting rather lengthy my friend.I will have to pick and choose what to respond to as I get time, probably one idea at a time. If I miss something that you feel is important, let me know.
I don't know. Since I've studied basic mechanics only in physics.How exactly could we ever hope to falsify Lambda-CDM theory?
I'll try to break this down the best I can.Since there is no 'laboratory data' to work with related to inflation, dark energy or dark matter, there is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics. The mainstream for instance asserts that *all* inelastic scattering events must produce a significant photon deflection based apparently on a few laboratory tests related to *Compton* (and only Compton) scattering, and one published astronomy paper written in 1929. Since there is some *ancient/limited* laboratory data to 'latch on to', it's possible to at least 'argue against' some specific *physical* idea. In the case of the mainstream, they use that small laboratory data set, and apparently only one published astronomy paper, to argue against "inelastic scattering" as the real 'cause' of photon redshift. I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.
If they can also start shifting the goal posts at will related to the "made up properties" that they can assign to the their invisible 'sky gods', the religion becomes completely unfalsifiable! The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.
Claims:
- There is no 'laboratory data' to work with related to inflation, dark energy or dark matter.
- There is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics.
- The mainstream for instance asserts that *all* inelastic scattering events must produce a significant photon deflection based apparently on a few laboratory tests related to *Compton* (and only Compton) scattering, and one published astronomy paper written in 1929.
- In the case of the mainstream, they use that small laboratory data set, and apparently only one published astronomy paper, to argue against "inelastic scattering" as the real 'cause' of photon redshift.
- I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.
- The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.
- There is no 'laboratory data' to work with related to inflation, dark energy or dark matter.
- There is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics.
- The mainstream for instance asserts that *all* inelastic scattering events must produce a significant photon deflection based apparently on a few laboratory tests related to *Compton* (and only Compton) scattering, and one published astronomy paper written in 1929.
- In the case of the mainstream, they use that small laboratory data set, and apparently only one published astronomy paper, to argue against "inelastic scattering" as the real 'cause' of photon redshift.
- I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.
- The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.
If the math is ever changing, aren't they actually falsifying possible models?How then can we ever hope to falsify or even argue against such a theory? The whole thing is a religious 'creation mythology' that comes with ever changing math.
By changing their models they've thrown out older theories/possibilities, so apparently you only have to look at those examples.How can such a theory ever be falsified. You tell me.
Upvote
0