Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[Larniavc]

And yet others seem to agree with that commentary such as the video I linked.

Evidence please.

 

[stevevw]

Of course the video supports your confirmation bias where the correctness of the video is unimportant to you but presents an anti-mainstream view despite being riddled with errors.

Here are a few.

(1) The requirement for the earth being in the centre.
Wrong the author doesn’t understand the concept of metric expansion.
The centre can be any point in the observable universe not just the earth, as every point is moving away from every other point.

(2) Expansion of the universe results in a Doppler redshift.
Wrong the expansion of the universe results in cosmological redshift.
Cosmological redshift is due to the Hubble flow of a galaxy and is always along the line of sight of the observer; for Doppler redshift the motion is through space time and usually includes a transverse component or in many cases a Doppler blueshift such as the Andromeda galaxy.

(3) Galaxies, clusters and people should be expanding.
Wrong the reason why galaxies, clusters and people are not expanding is that each exists in gravitationally bound system.

(4) Redshift should cause the “perfect” blackbody spectrum of the CMB to smear.
Wrong the cosmological redshift of the CMB causes the blackbody spectrum to shift to the right along the wavelength axis and a reduction in the peak wavelength which defines the temperature of the CMB.
The blackbody remains “perfect”.

(5) The CMB is local at around 200 million light years according to the paper.
Wrong as I explained in my previous post the foreground is essentially a template and is not the CMB at local scales.
Evidently the author is blissfully unaware the CMB is optically opaque and if it is local then our observable universe is reduced from a radius of 46.5 billion light years down to 200 million light years.
This means the maximum redshift for any object can be no more than z ≈ 0.02.

In summarizing the video is complete utter nonsense.

Enough is enough I am not going to repeat myself about the absence of microwave redshifted galaxies.

This all about confirmation bias as an exercise for intelligent design and all you have achieved is to thoroughly contradict yourself by supporting a crank video which states the observable universe is only 200 million light years across and z ≈ 0.02 is the limit, while simultaneously accepting high redshift data of galaxies where z > 11 as evidence the BB is wrong without considering the galaxy formation process as being suspect.

Theres a lot of unfounded assumptions in what you say including the cosmological principle itself. I think that was Flemmings and the other scientists point that the model itself may be wrong, the assumptions may be out. The anomelies in the BB and CMB are only part of many anomelies that are pointing to the standard model being wrong and as Sabine said she believes the cosmological principle should go and that a complete paradigm shift will happen in the near future based on the data itself. I tend to agree.

Besides how it is bias on my part to support theism when all the scientists I have linked are atheists. They are just disagreeing based on good science. In fact Flemming was just repeating what was in the paper he referred to. I also included the video from theorectical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder which says the same thing and I have followed her and she is pretty unbiased in her analysis.

Here are some more scientists saying the same thing and its not as if the anomelies with the BB theory and the reading of the CMB map are not well known within mainstream science.

A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations
[2305.00268] A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars

A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars

We study the large-scale anisotropy of the Universe by measuring the dipole in the angular distribution of a flux-limited, all-sky sample of 1.36 million quasars observed by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). This sample is derived from the new CatWISE2020 catalog, which contains...

arxiv.org

The Local Hole: a galaxy under-density covering 90% of sky to ~200 Mpc

The Local Hole: a galaxy under-density covering 90% of sky to ~200 Mpc

We investigate the `Local Hole', an anomalous under-density in the local galaxy environment, by extending our previous galaxy $K-$band number-redshift and number-magnitude counts to $\approx 90\%$ of the sky. Our redshift samples are taken from the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) and the 2M++...

arxiv.org

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

Observations reveal a `bulk flow' in the local Universe which is faster and extends to much larger scales than is expected around a typical observer in the standard $Λ$CDM cosmology. This is expected to result in a scale-dependent dipolar modulation of the acceleration of the expansion rate...

arxiv.org

Are Echoes of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?

Are Echoes of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?

The structure could be the imprint of our local interstellar neighborhood.

www.space.com

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct

It has frequently been asserted that the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson is proof of the validity of the Hot Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe. In reality this is not the case because the expansion of the Universe at the time of the...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
https://public.websites.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

The Earth is mediocre, but not in the way you might think (the food is too bland, pop music is soulless, architecture is boring, etc.). In the cosmological sense, our planet does not enjoy a special vantage point in the universe.

www.space.com

 

[stevevw]

Evidence please.

Just linked it now in my most recent post.

 

[stevevw]

@sjastro's post #372 gave five or so valid, scientifically well known, reasons which demonstrate why your video presenter doesn't understand what he's talking about. You can verify @sjastro's points from other qualified astrophysicist commentator sites.
I know enough about astrophysics to know a consistent argument, from a completely ill-informed bogus one.

So, just as a matter of interest, how would you propose to choose between the two viewpoints for yourself? What process would you choose for seeing the forest through all the trees in a situation like this?
I, as a small example of just one, feel quite comfortable with my choices in arriving at my conclusion on this one .. how 'bout yourself?

I could give you 10 scientifically (some well known and some scientists don't want to know but nonetheless validated) that demonstrate the video is correct. I linked some of those reasons above #382.
.
That the assumption about the cosmological principle is unjustified based on the current data. That more and more evidence seems to be showing as Flemming said that the CMB map is a localized reading and not a universe wide one as evidenced by the links posted in my previous post and most important because Sabine says so lol.

There are others like problems with Dark matter and energy, Inflation theory, the Hubble tension, the S8 Tension, the Horizon problem, the Great Wall, the Giant Arc, the Local Hole ect. But most of all its unfalsifiable which doesn't make good science and in fact to maintain the status of the current standard model it has been complicated to the point it creates more problems and unanswered questions rather than converging on a simple and explanatory theory.

 

[stevevw]

Upon reflection, I too, am left puzzled about which parts of the current model she thinks might change in any revised model, in order to address the physical dimensions of those new structures(?) I'd say, like the rest of us, she has no idea .. so why not just come out and say that?

She does and so does Flemming. They just report the latest findings that seem to contradict the standard model and don't claim any solution. Just more questions and unknowns. Actaully Sabine does mention the 'MOND' hypothesis as a possible alternative but she doesn't say its correct only that it helps explains some of the issues the Concordent model has problems with. But then it raises some problems itself.

One is tempted to conclude her motives for producing that video might be to satisfy her sponsors(?)


PS: I'm wondering if there are, as yet, missing observations, from incomplete whole sky surveys?

Isn't it ironic. There has been a number of times where some have used Sabines analysis because they say its good and independent to support against non standard ideas but when due to that same independent alaysis supports stuff that contradicts the standard model her credibility is suddenly questioned. Typical ad hominem fallacy. So now we have Sabine added to the Crack pot list. Lets see how many other prominent scientists are added in order to prop up the status quo.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Isn't it ironic. There has been a number of times where some have used Sabines analysis because they say its good and independent to support against non standard ideas but when due to that same independent alaysis supports stuff that contradicts the standard model her credibility is suddenly questioned. Typical ad hominem fallacy. So now we have Sabine added to the Crack pot list. Lets see how many other prominent scientists are added in order to prop up the status quo.

No one said any such thing. Flemming is a crank. That the second part of his video covered the same material as Hossenfelder, doesn't make him right (or her wrong). I stopped watching his video at the mid-point before he got to that material because the first part was just WRONG. If he can't characterize basic properties of the standard cosmology, why should anyone care what he says about complications to it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Theres a lot of unfounded assumptions in what you say including the cosmological principle itself. I think that was Flemmings and the other scientists point that the model itself may be wrong, the assumptions may be out.

Referring to Flemming as a scientist is an insult to actual scientists. He is a crank who writes in crank "journals" and makes tons of gross errors.

The anomelies in the BB and CMB are only part of many anomelies that are pointing to the standard model being wrong and as Sabine said she believes the cosmological principle should go and that a complete paradigm shift will happen in the near future based on the data itself. I tend to agree.

If the cosmological principle can only be applied at much larger scale it complicates analysis of observational data and will certainly alter some parameters, but it isn't a "complete paradigm shift". As I noted above, the blocking of distant galaxies by our Galaxy will complicate the measuring of variations in the parameters across the sky. (The assumption that things are identical in every direction will be broken.) None of this will alter the nature of cosmological redshift, the expansion of the universe, or that everywhere in the Universe the distant Universe will be expanding away from all observers and increase with distance. These are all gross errors Flemming makes.

Besides how it is bias on my part to support theism when all the scientists I have linked are atheists.

Nobody said anything about this regarding a religious position, nor do we care.

They are just disagreeing based on good science. In fact Flemming was just repeating what was in the paper he referred to.

Flemming is an unreliable narrator. There is no point getting a summary of a recent result from someone who gets the background grossly wrong.

I also included the video from theorectical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder which says the same thing and I have followed her and she is pretty unbiased in her analysis.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as unbiased. From her other videos she clearly likes things that poke holes into LambdaCDM.

Here are some more scientists saying the same thing and its not as if the anomelies with the BB theory and the reading of the CMB map are not well known within mainstream science.

A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations
[2305.00268] A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars

A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars

We study the large-scale anisotropy of the Universe by measuring the dipole in the angular distribution of a flux-limited, all-sky sample of 1.36 million quasars observed by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). This sample is derived from the new CatWISE2020 catalog, which contains...

arxiv.org

The Local Hole: a galaxy under-density covering 90% of sky to ~200 Mpc

The Local Hole: a galaxy under-density covering 90% of sky to ~200 Mpc

We investigate the `Local Hole', an anomalous under-density in the local galaxy environment, by extending our previous galaxy $K-$band number-redshift and number-magnitude counts to $\approx 90\%$ of the sky. Our redshift samples are taken from the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) and the 2M++...

arxiv.org

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

Observations reveal a `bulk flow' in the local Universe which is faster and extends to much larger scales than is expected around a typical observer in the standard $Λ$CDM cosmology. This is expected to result in a scale-dependent dipolar modulation of the acceleration of the expansion rate...

arxiv.org

Are Echoes of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?

Are Echoes of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?

The structure could be the imprint of our local interstellar neighborhood.

www.space.com

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct

It has frequently been asserted that the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson is proof of the validity of the Hot Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe. In reality this is not the case because the expansion of the Universe at the time of the...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

WARNING: This item comes from the proceedings of a conference full of "alt-cosmologists" and some cranks. The author only seems to do cranky stuff. His argument about thermodynamics doesn't track.

Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
https://public.websites.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

The Earth is mediocre, but not in the way you might think (the food is too bland, pop music is soulless, architecture is boring, etc.). In the cosmological sense, our planet does not enjoy a special vantage point in the universe.

www.space.com

 

[sjastro]

Theres a lot of unfounded assumptions in what you say including the cosmological principle itself. I think that was Flemmings and the other scientists point that the model itself may be wrong, the assumptions may be out. The anomelies in the BB and CMB are only part of many anomelies that are pointing to the standard model being wrong and as Sabine said she believes the cosmological principle should go and that a complete paradigm shift will happen in the near future based on the data itself. I tend to agree.

Besides how it is bias on my part to support theism when all the scientists I have linked are atheists. They are just disagreeing based on good science. In fact Flemming was just repeating what was in the paper he referred to. I also included the video from theorectical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder which says the same thing and I have followed her and she is pretty unbiased in her analysis.

Here are some more scientists saying the same thing and its not as if the anomelies with the BB theory and the reading of the CMB map are not well known within mainstream science.

A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations
[2305.00268] A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars

A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars

We study the large-scale anisotropy of the Universe by measuring the dipole in the angular distribution of a flux-limited, all-sky sample of 1.36 million quasars observed by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). This sample is derived from the new CatWISE2020 catalog, which contains...

arxiv.org

The Local Hole: a galaxy under-density covering 90% of sky to ~200 Mpc

The Local Hole: a galaxy under-density covering 90% of sky to ~200 Mpc

We investigate the `Local Hole', an anomalous under-density in the local galaxy environment, by extending our previous galaxy $K-$band number-redshift and number-magnitude counts to $\approx 90\%$ of the sky. Our redshift samples are taken from the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) and the 2M++...

arxiv.org

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

Observations reveal a `bulk flow' in the local Universe which is faster and extends to much larger scales than is expected around a typical observer in the standard $Λ$CDM cosmology. This is expected to result in a scale-dependent dipolar modulation of the acceleration of the expansion rate...

arxiv.org

Are Echoes of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?

Are Echoes of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?

The structure could be the imprint of our local interstellar neighborhood.

www.space.com

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct

It has frequently been asserted that the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson is proof of the validity of the Hot Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe. In reality this is not the case because the expansion of the Universe at the time of the...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
https://public.websites.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

The Earth is mediocre, but not in the way you might think (the food is too bland, pop music is soulless, architecture is boring, etc.). In the cosmological sense, our planet does not enjoy a special vantage point in the universe.

www.space.com

Your post is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy at work.
When I critiqued Fleming’s model did make it the BB model any better?
Of course it didn’t as the two are mutually exclusive.

You are in no position of claiming I am making assumptions when it is obvious you do not to comprehend the reasons I gave why Fleming’s model is wrong which has resulted in employing this fallacy by linking various mainstream and fringe sources as if the model is automatically supported.
To avoid this fallacious argument, you need to show how these links are addressed in Fleming’s model but since you don’t comprehend the science this is not possible.
Since the observable universe in Fleming’s model is only 200 million light years in radius, none of your links are even relevant.

To overcome your lack of comprehension your solution is to reduce the science to simplistic word games and if Fleming and Hossenfelder share the same terminology they must have same ideas.
This is an absurd assumption to make as Hossenfelder makes it perfectly clear in this video, space-time expansion is a metric expansion which is at loggerheads with Fleming's comments on Doppler redshift, expanding galaxies and people.

When it comes to confirmation bias, you selectively look for links at the exclusion of everything else to create the impression the BB is on its last legs which requires a paradigm change based on intelligent design.
Even if your links are based on the works of “atheist scientists” another point you don’t seem to understand which I made in my first post in this thread, science is agnostic when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God which is an unfalsifiable idea.

 

[SelfSim]

I could give you 10 scientifically (some well known and some scientists don't want to know but nonetheless validated) that demonstrate the video is correct. I linked some of those reasons above #382.

The thing is though, one has to read those papers through the eye of searching for the fundamental Physics any arguments are based upon. Frequently, these fundamentals are missing. Unfortunately there's no short-cuts in acquiring this perspective, other than years of education in Physics.

The Cosmological Principle (Homogeneity/Isotropy) is intrinsically intertwined (for evidentiary reasons) in the Lamda CDM model, often in subtle ways. Often single researchers are, themselves, not aware of some of the pitfalls themselves. The honest ones admit that in their conclusions and put their questions 'out there', as a sanity check. The more one understands Astrophysics, the more doubt there is in any conclusions formed .. its a huge field of endeavour with gazillions of human-hours of enormously deep thinking wrapped up in it.

That the assumption about the cosmological principle is unjustified based on the current data. That more and more evidence seems to be showing as Flemming said that the CMB map is a localized reading and not a universe wide one as evidenced by the links posted in my previous post and most important because Sabine says so lol.

Its not just a matter of outright dismissing the cosmological principle because of a few anomalies .. it takes a lot of direct evidence to do that .. and there isn't sufficient that has been properly confined to that specific target. I think that's probably the boundary line defining 'anomalies', from say 'a body of concrete evidence', come to think of it.

There are others like problems with Dark matter and energy, Inflation theory, the Hubble tension, the S8 Tension, the Horizon problem, the Great Wall, the Giant Arc, the Local Hole ect. But most of all its unfalsifiable which doesn't make good science and in fact to maintain the status of the current standard model it has been complicated to the point it creates more problems and unanswered questions rather than converging on a simple and explanatory theory.

Cosmology has been driven by the abundance of data (and theoretical) evidence beyond the child-like innocence of philosophical Popperian principles like falsification of hypotheses. Popper didn't like it .. but so what? .. he was just a philosopher.
The Lamda CDM model isn't just an hypothesis .. its a guiding principle built on Physics.

 

[Kylie]

I think it does matter because time itself needs to be understood and explained within the current standard model. Its an unresolved problem for associated with entropy, the low entropy state of the beginning of our universe which is associated with the arrow of time.

An interesting problem has come up with the new discoveries from the JWST is that galaxies are far to big and numerous soon after the big bang. So this is causing scientists to wonder whether the standard model need adjusting or even completely revised. Possible implications are that the beginning of our universe happened much longer ago or even some are saying that the universe may be infinite having no boundary and the same in all directions.

So the idea of time itself, the concept humans have created may need rethinking. I mean there are other reasons like with ideas such as Multiverses where our universe is one of many. So scientists may want to know what was before our universe in developing those theories. I think its an open question and we should not force any particular concept of time or space for that matter.

Yeah, you're still talking about a time before there was time.

You can't have a TIME before there was time if time did not exist.

It's like asking what is further north than the north pole.

 

[Kylie]

So defeating illogic, I can give you a very long list of actual renowned physicists who disagree With you,

Okay, please do so. Please give me a list of all the physicists who claimed that time was around before time existed. Please make sure you quote them making this claim, and provide a link to where they made such a quote.

My question is why do you disagree with such a long and esteemed list of names??

A list which you have not provided (and which I doubt you will ever provide.)

did gravity precede matter, or did matter precede Gravity?

I'm not talking about gravity or matter, I'm talking about time.

Can gravity exist without time?

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about time.

So did time prexist gravity and matter.

I'm not talking about gravity or matter, I'm talking about time.

Has gravity always Been what we observe, or has it changed? Is it the same everywhere anyway?

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about time.

Did speed of light prexist light? Has that always been the same?

I'm not talking about the speed of light, I'm talking about time.

 

[sjastro]

The problem being exhibited in this thread is this sort of mentality.

Quantum electrodynamics is the most successful scientific model known and it to has its fair share of anomalies but you don't throw out the model unless the replacement is able to address the anomalies without introducing new ones.

There is nothing to replace the λ-CDM model as Fleming's model is best described as an exercise in crank behavior which explains nothing and is contradicted by any observation of an object or event which is over 200 million light years distant.

Recently a paper came out proposing the BB occurred 26.7 billion years ago and not the accepted value of 13.8 billion years.
This older age not only eliminates the galaxy formation problems but makes the Hubble tension redundant.
By postulating the redshift z is a combination of cosmological redshift and tired light the age of the universe could be extended.

Unfortunately a new set of problems arise such as globular clusters.

​

This is an image of the globular M92 taken by Adam Block from the University of Arizona (kudos to Adam for his assistance in the past).
Globular clusters are even older than the oldest high z galaxies imaged by JWST, the age of M92 within error limits is a whopping 13.8 billion years.
Globular clusters are essentially dead objects, they were rapidly depleted of gas and dust to form new stars and since M92 formed quickly after the BB its age must be nearly doubled in the revised age of the universe.
This leads to a serious problem, note the star streamers towards the edge of the globular, these are high velocity stars being ejected as the cluster is being pulled apart by gravity as it orbits our Milky Way galaxy.
M92 is losing stars at a steady rate, the globular should now be totally disrupted if it is twice as old.
The other issue are the stars themselves, the stars are Population II type and theoretically should not exist far beyond 13 billion years.

Tired light also present problems which is the inelastic scattering of photons resulting in energy loss and an increase in wavelength.
This is contradicted by the evidence of polarized CMB photons which is a signature for elastic Thomson scattering where photons do not lose energy and are not redshifted.
They are only cosmological redshifted.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, you're still talking about a time before there was time.
You can't have a TIME before there was time if time did not exist.

The point was that the idea of time before time itself is questionable. Its a human made concept.

It's like asking what is further north than the north pole.

Thats not a good analogy. We can ask what is north of the north pole which may be outter space or a particular galaxy and then ask what is north of that and keep going to infinity.

The same with what humans think time is or was created. The BB says that time was created in the BB and yet we know there was something before the BB which may show something else and this may lead to an infinite regress as well. So theres a lot to investigate. Otherwise we would not bother if we thought time itself was created in the BB.

 

[stevevw]

The thing is though, one has to read those papers through the eye of searching for the fundamental Physics any arguments are based upon. Frequently, these fundamentals are missing. Unfortunately there's no short-cuts in acquiring this perspective, other than years of education in Physics.

The findings are just the data, what the experiment or test finds based on the same methodology that has found results supporting the standard model. They just test the assumption of standard model against to see if it stands up.

The Cosmological Principle (Homogeneity/Isotropy) is intrinsically intertwined (for evidentiary reasons) in the Lamda CDM model, often in subtle ways. Often single researchers are, themselves, not aware of some of the pitfalls themselves. The honest ones admit that in their conclusions and put their questions 'out there', as a sanity check. The more one understands Astrophysics, the more doubt there is in any conclusions formed .. its a huge field of endeavour with gazillions of human-hours of enormously deep thinking wrapped up in it.

That is exactly what the researchers did. They did not make any conclusions though for example Sabine mentions the it would make sense for the cosmological principle to go in the light of these findings. But they just highlight the anomelies to show that the standard model has some deep problems that need addressing and then pose the questions.

Its not just a matter of outright dismissing the cosmological principle because of a few anomalies .. it takes a lot of direct evidence to do that .. and there isn't sufficient that has been properly confined to that specific target. I think that's probably the boundary line defining 'anomalies', from say 'a body of concrete evidence', come to think of it.

The problem is the anomelies keep mounting. Some are major and would require at the very least a revising of the assumptions made. As Sabine mentions the discovery of the universe expanding at faster rates which was given a Nobel prise was based on a faulty assumption that the cosmological principle is valid on shorter distances down to 100 mpc which is an unjustified assumption. This assumption was inferred for example in the analysis of supernovae data on which the existence of dark energy was inferred.

As she mentions a recent paper Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration showed that if one analysis the supernovae data correctly without assuming the cosmological principle holds on two short distances then the evidence for dark matter disappears. That paper has been entirely ignored by other scientists. Sabine gives a commentary on this new paper here.

Dark Energy might not exist after all

Cosmology has been driven by the abundance of data (and theoretical) evidence beyond the child-like innocence of philosophical Popperian principles like falsification of hypotheses. Popper didn't like it .. but so what? .. he was just a philosopher.
The Lamda CDM model isn't just an hypothesis .. its a guiding principle built on Physics.

Well as time goes on we will see. The more conflicts and anomelies the more it comes into question. The problem with abundance of data depends on the assumptions made so of ourse you can tweak the data to fit the assumption.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As she mentions a recent paper Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration showed that if one analysis the supernovae data correctly without assuming the cosmological principle holds on two short distances then the evidence for dark matter disappears. That paper has been entirely ignored by other scientists. Sabine gives a commentary on this new paper here.

entirely ignored? Really? It has 150 citation in 5 years.

Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

 

[stevevw]

Referring to Flemming as a scientist is an insult to actual scientists. He is a crank who writes in crank "journals" and makes tons of gross errors.


If the cosmological principle can only be applied at much larger scale it complicates analysis of observational data and will certainly alter some parameters, but it isn't a "complete paradigm shift". As I noted above, the blocking of distant galaxies by our Galaxy will complicate the measuring of variations in the parameters across the sky. (The assumption that things are identical in every direction will be broken.) None of this will alter the nature of cosmological redshift, the expansion of the universe, or that everywhere in the Universe the distant Universe will be expanding away from all observers and increase with distance. These are all gross errors Flemming makes.

Nobody said anything about this regarding a religious position, nor do we care.

Flemming is an unreliable narrator. There is no point getting a summary of a recent result from someone who gets the background grossly wrong.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as unbiased. From her other videos she clearly likes things that poke holes into LambdaCDM.



WARNING: This item comes from the proceedings of a conference full of "alt-cosmologists" and some cranks. The author only seems to do cranky stuff. His argument about thermodynamics doesn't track.

 

[stevevw]

Referring to Flemming as a scientist is an insult to actual scientists. He is a crank who writes in crank "journals" and makes tons of gross errors.

I disagree. He made a couple of unsupported claims but the majority of what he said is consistent with what others say in those links such as the remarkable similarities in the dipoles between the local universe and the CMB map. Attacks on his credibility don't change that fact.

I think he is talking about the earth in the middle is about the measurement problem. Because of the assumption of the cosmological principle it sort of assumes the earth or at least our solar system is in the centre to make the cosmological principle work in the light that the new paper and others he is referring to seem to support that the earth or our local universe may well be at the centre according to the tests done.

If the cosmological principle can only be applied at much larger scale it complicates analysis of observational data and will certainly alter some parameters, but it isn't a "complete paradigm shift". As I noted above, the blocking of distant galaxies by our Galaxy will complicate the measuring of variations in the parameters across the sky. (The assumption that things are identical in every direction will be broken.) None of this will alter the nature of cosmological redshift, the expansion of the universe, or that everywhere in the Universe the distant Universe will be expanding away from all observers and increase with distance. These are all gross errors Flemming makes.

Well Sabine and the papers linked come to a similar finding. As Sabine said referring to the paper that when the cosmological principle is not assumed it removes the need for dark energy. The Nobel price given for the increasingly expanded universe was based on an unjustified assumption so this brings that finding into question which is what the current model is based on.

I agree though its not so simple. But I think there have been some major anomelies with the BB and dark matter and energy so its a shaky foundation to be making predictions on.

Flemming is an unreliable narrator. There is no point getting a summary of a recent result from someone who gets the background grossly wrong.

OK fair enough I won't refer to him. But I think its unfair that you then cast out the rest of what he said which was also backed up by others. If he's a crank on those other points he highlighted then so are all the others and I think thats a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as unbiased. From her other videos she clearly likes things that poke holes into LambdaCDM.

No thats the point of Sabine she has a lot of videos with mixed findings. I think she likes keeping up with current science and actually dispelling stuff that is not supported by the science. She actually breaks it down, explains things and often leaves the conclusion up in the air.

But I think this whole idea of trying to discredit the source is a fallacy anyway. First it was Flemming, now its Sabine and I am sure people will keep trying to undermine every source when they don't like the facts. But the content they talk about is based on the science, the testing and data.

WARNING: This item comes from the proceedings of a conference full of "alt-cosmologists" and some cranks. The author only seems to do cranky stuff. His argument about thermodynamics doesn't track.

Like I said I won't refer to him as an independent source not because he is not correct on some of the science he referred to which has been supported by others besides himself. But because his record lacks credibility. But that doesn't apply to Sabine and the other physicists in the papers I linked.

For example Sabine Hossenfelder is a well established theorectical physicist with over 80 papers. Subir Sarkar who she refers to in the paper is Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics at Oxford. While Diego Lambas who Flemming referred to has over 9,500 citations. So if we are basing it on the credibility of the source then I think we can say it passes the test lol.

Nevertheless I don't want to dwell on this too much. I am not trying to say there is any clear answer or model but that its developing and that the current model though well supported has some big problems that go deep which need to be determined. If some of these anomelies do stand up then there is something fundemental missing.

Some say its just an adjustment and some say there has been many adjustments and perhaps too many for it to be good science. Others say we are heading for a paradigm shift based on the findings. And its not just is cosmology but physics generally. It reminds me a bit like the biology and evolution debate where some are also saying a paradigm shift is needed to overcome the anomelies.

 

[Kylie]

The point was that the idea of time before time itself is questionable. Its a human made concept.

No, time is a measurement. The idea of minutes and seconds may be invented by Humans, but the concept of time is just as real as the concept of distance is.

Thats not a good analogy. We can ask what is north of the north pole which may be outter space or a particular galaxy and then ask what is north of that and keep going to infinity.

That's increasing in altitude, not going further north.

The same with what humans think time is or was created. The BB says that time was created in the BB and yet we know there was something before the BB which may show something else and this may lead to an infinite regress as well. So theres a lot to investigate. Otherwise we would not bother if we thought time itself was created in the BB.

I'm not aware of any legitimate scientist who claims that time existed before the Big Bang.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree.

Cool, but that just makes you wrong too.

He made a couple of unsupported claims but the majority of what he said is consistent with what others say in those links such as the remarkable similarities in the dipoles between the local universe and the CMB map.

Not unsupported claims so much as blatant errors. Even if he wasn't a crank his credibility as a science communicator would have been completely busted before he even got to discussing the paper on anisotropy. Anyone with a modest understanding of cosmology (for example someone who'd just taken a freshman survey course) would have stopped watching after a few of those major errors. (@sjastro detailed them for you, so I will not go over them for you again.

Attacks on his credibility don't change that fact.

As a "scientist" he has no credibility to attack. He writes crank physics articles for a crank journal, which I wouldn't have known unless you linked them. So, thanks?

I think he is talking about the earth in the middle is about the measurement problem.

The Earth is not in the middle and it is not a measurement problem. The Universe is expanding and expanding everywhere. Even with anisotropy in the density and expansion rate, more distant galaxies would *still* be more redshifted at larger distances in every direction and from every place in the Universe.

Because of the assumption of the cosmological principle it sort of assumes the earth or at least our solar system is in the centre to make the cosmological principle work in the light that the new paper and others he is referring to seem to support that the earth or our local universe may well be at the centre according to the tests done.

No it doesn't. Not about how the expansion works, and also not about how these new results and analyses work. (Well at least the ones from actual cosmologists.) If the Earth is in a local underdensity or there is a massive structure "nearby" altering expansion a small bit locally does not change the overall properties of expansion, but it might change some of the parameters derived somewhat. This is particularly a problem if the observations are only made in a limited set of directions (such as only in the part of the Northern sky not obscured by the Milky Way.). I would gladly discuss those things with you, but you have latched on to persons promoting fantasy physics and until you give up the guy with his own (laughable) alternative to standard particle physics there isn't any real hope of a reasoned conversation.

Well Sabine and the papers linked come to a similar finding. As Sabine said referring to the paper that when the cosmological principle is not assumed it removes the need for dark energy. The Nobel price given for the increasingly expanded universe was based on an unjustified assumption so this brings that finding into question which is what the current model is based on.

Even if that paper is correct and the dark energy effect is just a consequence of local anisotropy in the expansion the cosmological principle would still apply just at a larger scale (which we are already seeing evidence of just from the detection of large structures) and the "expanding away from every observer" thing would also still apply.

I agree though its not so simple. But I think there have been some major anomelies with the BB and dark matter and energy so its a shaky foundation to be making predictions on.

See post #392 on anomalies.

OK fair enough I won't refer to him. But I think its unfair that you then cast out the rest of what he said which was also backed up by others. If he's a crank on those other points he highlighted then so are all the others and I think thats a bit of a stretch.

Stick to actual scientists. The video from Hossenfelder covered the same material. I cast him out an unreliable narrator. I don't know what points he made when discussing the anisotropy paper from Sarkar's group because I stopped watching him because he was so unreliable.

No thats the point of Sabine she has a lot of videos with mixed findings. I think she likes keeping up with current science and actually dispelling stuff that is not supported by the science. She actually breaks it down, explains things and often leaves the conclusion up in the air.

Generally I think her videos are good in content and explanations, I just have some concerns that she *wants* things about standard cosmology to be wrong so her choices in presenting those results on YouTube may imply bigger issues with standard things and more confidence in novel challenges. (At least she didn't fall for that "double age" paper that got a lot of traction from legit science communicators.)

But I think this whole idea of trying to discredit the source is a fallacy anyway. First it was Flemming, now its Sabine and I am sure people will keep trying to undermine every source when they don't like the facts. But the content they talk about is based on the science, the testing and data.

First, Sabine Hossenfelder is not the source for those ideas or results. Here she is just a science communicator. Her area is black holes and quantum gravity. Flemming, on the other hand, does claim to have his own models for these things and (if she knew about him) Sabine would rip him apart.

Like I said I won't refer to him as an independent source not because he is not correct on some of the science he referred to which has been supported by others besides himself. But because his record lacks credibility. But that doesn't apply to Sabine and the other physicists in the papers I linked.

For example Sabine Hossenfelder is a well established theorectical physicist with over 80 papers.

So am I.

Subir Sarkar who she refers to in the paper is Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics at Oxford. While Diego Lambas who Flemming referred to has over 9,500 citations. So if we are basing it on the credibility of the source then I think we can say it passes the test lol.

Sarkar (who is the last author on the paper) is, as far as I can tell, a particle physicist with only a passing contact with cosmology all related to this anisotropy analysis.

Nevertheless I don't want to dwell on this too much. I am not trying to say there is any clear answer or model but that its developing and that the current model though well supported has some big problems that go deep which need to be determined. If some of these anomelies do stand up then there is something fundemental missing.

An adjustment related to changing the scale of cosmological principle (smooth mass distribution)? That's all I'm seeing now and while it does make the metric equations for the evolving Universe a bit messier, the consequences to the general facts don't seem that large.

Some say its just an adjustment and some say there has been many adjustments and perhaps too many for it to be good science.

One of the (150) citations to the paper from Colin et al. (Sarkar) that is this one that considers the kind of things I was thinking of as the next step -- actually extending the Lambda CDM model from the isotropic and uniform expansion of the FLRW spacetime to one with a simple asymmetry.

Testing spatial curvature and anisotropic expansion on top of the ΛCDM model

Not only does this expanded model (with the breaking of the isotropy condition) *not* eliminate the "Dark energy" in the form of a cosmological constant, but it doesn't even remove the so-called "Hubble tension".

Others say we are heading for a paradigm shift based on the findings. And its not just is cosmology but physics generally.

Is your expertise as great in the rest of cosmology as well?

It reminds me a bit like the biology and evolution debate where some are also saying a paradigm shift is needed to overcome the anomelies.

Don't get lost chasing anomalies.

 

[stevevw]

No, time is a measurement. The idea of minutes and seconds may be invented by Humans, but the concept of time is just as real as the concept of distance is.

But we know time is not physical, we can't put it in a test tube so its a created mental concept and not real. Time is fluid according to Einsteins theory of relativity and are effected by gravity and velocity and time is like space within 4 dimensions but what happens to time in QM which is said to be the basis for reality. According to some interpretations of QM we can time travel.

If we lived on another part of the planet on another planet then time would be completely different or if we were on Mt Everest compared to sea level time would be slightly quicker. To indigenous people there is no concept of time. The north pole has 24 time zones that meet, making time meaningless. At this point all of Earth’s time zones are present yet none of them are real rendering time meaningless.

So in the greater scheme of things which time is actually the real time.

The Illusion of Time: What's Real?

From philosophers to physicists, the nature of time has always inspired curiosity, and few answers — in this essay, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator and host of "Closer to Truth", explores several leading theories about time, it's place in space, and how it

www.space.com

That's increasing in altitude, not going further north.

Silly me yes the earth is round and due to its axis all lines on earth converge at the north pole and stop though there is a point higher than the north pole called . But then there is such a thing as the North Galactic Pole which is in the constellation Coma Berenices.

But like time the idea of north is arbitray and due to our particular location, axis and rotation. If we were on another planet it would be completely different, in a different direction. In fact the poles will occassionally flip every 10,000 yers or so.

Ask Ethan: Are "North" and "South" totally arbitrary on Earth?

Is there any good reason for assigning North and South the way we do, or could we have just as easily done the reverse?

bigthink.com

I'm not aware of any legitimate scientist who claims that time existed before the Big Bang.

Of course there is. For example the idea that our universe is but one of many rebirthed universes or that our universe in one of many in a multiverse. So before our universe began there were other universes which had beginnings before our universe and had time according to our understanding of time. So the idea of time existed before our time.

Before time there was something happening such as the singularity and inflation and we can hypothesize about what that may be as a real entity regardless of the concept of time.