Nonetheless, LCDM is regarded as mainstream science because it is investigated by following science's well-known operational process.
The word "nonetheless" is a tacit admission that Lerner is correct in his criticism of LCDM. *NO* other area of physics or "science" requires *four* supernatural constructs to make it work. Note that not one of those four supernatural constructs in LCDM shows up in a single useful consumer product, nor do any of them have a use outside of *one* specific, and otherwise *useless* cosmology theory.
That process alone, is what distinguishes science ... and not your particular dislike of it pursuing its testable concepts.
We "tested" your CDM claims at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon100, AMDx, CresstII, and electron roundness "tests" as well, and guess what? Your *predictions* about CDM turned out to be completely *useless* in the lab.
At least Birkeland's cathode terella actually works as advertised when it's plugged in.
How can you test for the not-yet-known events which 'occur in space', in a terrestrial lab which is incapable of replicating the conditions already known to occur in space?
We can heat plasma up to *billions* of degrees here on Earth. Exactly what "conditions" are you concerned about? I'll grant you that we will have to scale up gravity, and or scale up the energy exchanges in spacetime, but those are just *scaling* issues related to *known* and *demonstrated* physics.
Theory is used by mainstream as the guide for researching these aspects .. but as usual both yourself and Eric, disallow such guiding theory ... which shows you are not following the scientific process.
Eric simply rightly points out that no other area of science requires a menagerie of invisible junk to explain anything. In fact I would argue that 95 percent of Lambda-CDM is still "unexplained", and represent nothing more than placeholder terms for pure human ignorance. LCDM is so far out in left field compared to any other area of "science", it's in a supernatural class by itself.
With a simple switch to EU/PC theory, cosmology theory immediately falls in line with every other branch of "science" and every other area of physics, including the standard particle physics model that has passed every "test" to date.
The ridiculously brain-dead idea
Here's where you ventured into the personal attack zone. Yawn.
that the unknowns of the Cosmos MUST reveal themselves in terrestrial labs, which we know are incapable of reproducing the extremes necessary to constrain such experiments, is the issue which distinguishes this as being distinct from science. And then you claim you don't have a problem with what (you think) 'science' is, eh?
All other areas of "science" are lab testable. Why should LCDM get a free pass? We can't even "lab test" "space expansion" in controlled experimentation on Earth, and that's just the *first* supernatural construct. The one really "lab testable" part of LCDM is CMD, and that's been a *complete disaster* in the lab, with mathematical models biting the dust every week or two, and new experiments reporting *nothing*, over and over and over and over and over again. We've now spent billions of dollars on the CDM boondoggle snipe hunt and we found exactly nothing. LCDM has no real "predictive" value whatsoever. Almost every single bit of it has been *postdicted* to get a mathematical fit to a previously known observation.
... or reveals the not-yet-known .. which is how science makes use of these models COMBINED WITH the empirical evidence. Of course, EU/PC/Michael's 'science' denies the utility of theoretical models .. (which of course, automatically distinguishes it from being science)
You simply could not be more wrong. Those 2006 lensing studies *should* have made you toss out your original baryonic mass estimates and start all over again coming up with new mass estimates. Instead you *assumed* that your baryonic mass estimates were "perfect" to the last percent or two, and you quite literally made up "fudge factor gap filler" to describe the shear ignorance that was really related to your pitiful mass estimates. Over the course of the following decade, you folks then when on a billion dollar spending spree in search of your mythical, magical invisible matter fudge factor.
Over the course of that same decade, we found out that in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find "proof" of dark matter, you *actually* just grossly underestimated the amount of light ever galaxy emits due to all the "scattering" that you underestimated. We also found out that you *massively* underestimated the number of whole stars in various galaxies, somewhere between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star in question. We also found out in 2012 where all those "missing baryons" were sitting, namely *surrounding* every single galaxy in the form of *hot plasma*, not supernatural forms of matter. Every single shred of evidence has demonstrated that there never was any "proof of dark matter", just proof of *pitifully flawed* baryonic mass estimates. That has been demonstrated over and over and over again, both in the lab, and based on stellar count studies done since 2006.
So 'observations from space' are also excluded from your idea of 'science' too? That rules out all of Astronomy and Astrophysics too, eh?
You guys simply handwave away any "observations from space" that you don't like, just like the "observation" that you've been miscounting entire stars in those stellar mass estimates. You simply ignore those 'observations' when it suits you.
You've also ignored the observation from space that "standard candles" aren't really as standard as first claimed. You've ignored the observation of hemispheric variation in the background radiation that Guth *never* predicted with *his* brand of supernatural inflation. I'm sure someone will postdict a new fit of course.....
Well, seeing as math is used by science as its testable model, and it doesn't appear in a lab, using it to demonstrate any science to you would be pointless .. and yet you now use it to glorify an individual's 'word'. Frankly, Alfven is just another of history's human scientists as far as I'm concerned .. and he's not around to defend his personal opinions in the light of modern evidence.. so who cares?
He cared, and I still care, and anyone who appreciates empirical physics should care. His work is being *abused* by the mainstream to this very day. Alfven called magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience", and he made it obsolete with his double layer paper and circuit theory. The maintream constantly puts the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and they can't understand why it doesn' work, and why the corona is hot. Birkeland built a working model where he put the *electric horse* in front of the magnetic cart, and guess what he "predicted" was the heat source of the plasma around the sun? The mainstream is still struggling with 'explanations' that have already been *lab demonstrated* over 100 years ago. That's why you *should* care.
Ahh .. deifying Hubble now as well, eh? Again, who cares about personal opinions he had prior to subsequent discoveries?
So it's fine by you that the mainstream abuses MHD theory with pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory, and it's fine by you that the mainstream simply *lies* when it claims things like "Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding"? Give me a break! Where is the concept of truth in advertising in the field of cosmology?
Well, that would only be because you say so ... and you aren't doing any science, so who cares? (I don't care .. why should I?)
Because it actually works in the lab, and it's based on pure empirical physics like every other branch of physics, that's why.
Well as I recall at our last encounter, you demonstrated a major, rather bizarre brain-blockage about reconnection in a vacuum. You ran away from that discussion, too .. so your glorification of Alfven's frozen-in-time opinions is meaningless as far as real science is concerned.
LOL! I'm sorry, but that's simply laughable. MR theory *requires* the transfer of magnetic field energy into *particle acceleration*. There's a *necessary requirement* to transfer magnetic field energy into particle energy in the plasma physics process that is known as "magnetic reconnection". Your dynamic duo (Clinger and RC) at ISF were yammering on about reconnection in a vacuum because they had read a total of *zero* textbooks on MHD theory. They then concocted up some lame website that claimed that plasma particle acceleration was an *entirely optional* process in "magnetic reconnection" theory! That's pure nonsense, and it's still pure nonsense. Without particle acceleration, there is a zero transfer rate of energy from the magnetic field into particle movement, therefore *zero* amount of "magnetic reconnection" is going on. The only thing going on in Clinger's lame website is *magnetic flux in a vacuum*. For crying out loud, your superheroes can't even figure out the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the charged particle acceleration process that is known as "magnetic reconnection" in plasma! Oy Vey. They've run and run and run from that conversation, and they've even banned me to stop me from talking about it.
'This is the word of lord Alfven', eh? Hilarious!
What's hilarious is the fact that 95 percent of LCDM claims amount to placeholder terms for human ignorance and the mainstream's mathematical models used to describe the behaviors of plasma are pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. You're abusing his work on a daily basis, and you're even flippant about it. You can't even describe the movements of plasma without MHD theory because you folks *refuse* to embrace circuit theory. Effectively 100 percent of your so called "knowledge" is either a placeholder term for ignorance, or pure pseudoscience. That's the hilarious part. There's literally no "knowledge" at all going on in astronomy today. It's 100 percent pure rubbish.
Once again, Alfven's models of plasma behaviours, described in the semantics of mathematics, (which of course originate from outside of 'the lab'), must be ruled out by your descriptions of what you refer to as 'science', yes?
Nope. Alfven used circuit theory both in the lab, and also as it relates to events in space. At no time did he have to deviate from anything that couldn't be demonstrated in a lab, or simply scaled from something we can do in a lab.
You have handed me multiple tired light, scattering, etc papers, which, when considered together as an explanation for cosmological redsift, totally contradict each other.
Like various inflation models don't contradict each other and "predict" different outcomes? Please. We *know* that there are *multiple* types of inelastic scattering that can and do cause photons redshift when light propagates through plasma. Without experimenting further, we simply cannot be sure *which* models are a "best fit" yet, both in the lab, and in space. So what if there's contradiction in EU/PC theory? There are *many* brands of inflation, and different models of "cold dark matter". So what if they are contradictory? Should we falsify LCDM on the same grounds?
This was pointed out to you several years ago but you continue to ignore it.
Of course I ignored it, just like you would ignore it if I tried to rule out CDM theory based on the fact it has contradictory models, and no lab evidence to support any of them. Why should I play by a different set of rules than you play by?
Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle used for guidance when all things are equal.
You're right. In fact, even if we count tired light as 1 unknown in EU/PC theory, it's still 4 to 1 against your claim, so it's not really even a fair fight. You lose *big* time right off the bat. You're not even in the ballpark with *four* supernatural fudge factors, two or three of which defy laboratory testing *ever*.
The consensus view is that are not, in this case. This is in spite of yours (and Lerner's) delusions, caused by personal denials of the evidence.
The only one in denial of the evidence are the LCDM proponents:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850
You can now add the CresstII NULL results to the long and growing list of "evidence" that you can't handle or deal with.
