Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?

[Michael]

Oh look, another NULL result that the mainstream will simply ignore. What good is their research program anyway? LCDM proponents have the worst case of confirmation bias in the universe.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-dark-axion-like-particles.html

We can add that negative finding to the ever growing, massive list of LCDM fails:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

 

[lesliedellow]

Time for a snooze.

 

[Michael]

Time for a snooze.

The field of astronomy has been in snooze mode for more than a decade while LCDM theory has failed "test" after "test" after countless "test", and the whole basis of their claims has rotted away at the core. It turns out that they were simply underestimating the number of entire stars in various galaxies in 2006 by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. So called SN1A "standard candles" aren't really "standard" after all as required in "dark energy" theory. In spite of Guth's "prediction" of a homogeneous layout of matter, Planck data sets show that there's a noticeable hemispheric variation in the background signal, and it's been shown that a "flat" universe is 10 to the 100th power *less* likely to occur with inflation than without it.

Worse yet, as BICEP2 demonstrated, the mainstream can't even tell the difference between the emission patterns from ordinary "dust" and evidence of inflation!

 

[lesliedellow]

The field of astronomy has been in snooze mode for more than a decade while LCDM theory has failed "test" after "test" after countless "test", and the whole basis of their claims has rotted away at the core. It turns out that they were simply underestimating the number of entire stars in various galaxies in 2006 by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. So called SN1A "standard candles" aren't really "standard" after all as required in "dark energy" theory. In spite of Guth's "prediction" of a homogeneous layout of matter, Planck data sets show that there's a noticeable hemispheric variation in the background signal, and it's been shown that a "flat" universe is 10 to the 100th power *less* likely to occur with inflation than without it.

Worse yet, as BICEP2 demonstrated, the mainstream can't even tell the difference between the emission patterns from ordinary "dust" and evidence of inflation!

You sound like a YEC who thinks that, in the highly unlike event of evolution being false, six day creation would automatically be true.

 

[Michael]

You sound like a YEC who thinks that, in the highly unlike event of evolution being false, six day creation would automatically be true.

On the contrary. There's so much evidence *against* LCDM (and YEC), there's simply nothing there to actually empirically support the concept. It's pure miracle on a stick theory.

EU/PC theory however is based entirely upon forms of matter and energy that exist right here on Earth, and it's enjoyed strong empirical support for over 100 years.

 

[lesliedellow]

EU/PC theory however is based entirely upon forms of matter and energy that exist right here on Earth, and it's enjoyed strong empirical support for over 100 years.

That's why nobody takes it seriously.

 

[Hoghead1]

You sound like a YEC who thinks that, in the highly unlike event of evolution being false, six day creation would automatically be true.

Right on, with that one. That's exactly what they think. It is stupid because they forget that the march of knowledge is always forward, not backward. Given the unlikely case were science would find some better alternative than evolution, they certainly would not take a step backward into the pre-evolutionary age. Once an idea is disregarded, it stays disregarded and on the self, But, like you said, they automatically assume that if they can prove evolution wrong, that automatically means creation-science is right.

 

[Michael]

Right on, with that one. That's exactly what they think.

Actually, nobody in the EU/PC community thinks that way. We're all well aware of the need to support our own ideas which is why many of us have actually gotten papers published. It's the same thing that motivates Peratt, Lerner, and that motivated Alfven.

It is stupid because they forget that the march of knowledge is always forward, not backward.

In terms of astronomy, the change patterns are typically *radical*. Astronomers used to put the Earth at the center of the universe. Then they claimed that we lived in an island universe. When things change in astronomy, the change is typically massive, radical, and nothing like the old model.

Given the unlikely case were science would find some better alternative than evolution, they certainly would not take a step backward into the pre-evolutionary age. Once an idea is disregarded, it stays disregarded and on the self, But, like you said, they automatically assume that if they can prove evolution wrong, that automatically means creation-science is right.

I don't know anyone within the EU/PC community that actually believes that the fact that LCDM is false automatically gives EU/PC theory a "free pass".

FYI, I also find the YEC comparison particular offensive since it's actually the LCDM proponents who require *multiple supernatural miracles* to get their belief systems to work right, not EU/PC proponents.

 

[Cute Tink]

Do not resort to personal attacks. Thanks.