More observations that defy Big Bang theory predictions

[Michael]

Primordial beasts: 39 ancient, massive, invisible galaxies that defy theories of early universe discovered

Dozens of massive "invisible" galaxies from the early universe have been discovered by scientists. These "primordial beasts," which cannot be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope, defy current models of the universe, with no major theories accounting for such a rich population of dark, star-forming massive galaxies.

There is simply no high redshift evidence that galaxies "evolved" from a bang. It seems like every new high redshift observation pokes huge holes in the big bang theory of cosmology. The oldest galaxies we can observe are *monstrous* in size, and defy BB predictions.

A mysterious monster galaxy that defies theories of the universe has been mapped by scientists

The mystery galaxy—named COSMOS-AzTEC-1—is 12.4 billion light years away and is known as a submillimetre-bright galaxy. These are some of the brightest in the universe and are known for forming stars at an extremely fast rate. They were first discovered just over a decade ago and since then have baffled scientists—according to our models of galaxy formation, they shouldn't exist.

But they do.....

 

[ruthiesea]

This is what scientists are always hoping the will find: something that allows them to expand their knowledge, to modify the their thinking and theories to match the new observations and empirical data, to challenge accepted science, and to give them a chance to say, “We don’t know. This is why science is so effective in studying the universe, G-d’s creation. This why G-d gave us minds capable of learning and of reach logical, scientific conclusions.

Isaac Asimov said, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'”

Moses ben Maimon said, “You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination.”

 

[Michael]

This is what scientists are always hoping the will find: something that allows them to expand their knowledge, to modify the their thinking and theories to match the new observations and empirical data, to challenge accepted science, and to give them a chance to say, “We don’t know. This is why science is so effective in studying the universe, G-d’s creation. This why G-d gave us minds capable of learning and of reach logical, scientific conclusions.

Isaac Asimov said, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'”

Moses ben Maimon said, “You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination.”

I have no problem studying astronomy and physics, I simply lack belief in expansion as the cause of photon redshift, and big bang theory. Nothing observed at high redshift even remotely resembles the predictions of BB theory. Galaxies are far more massive and "mature" than that model predicts.

It's fine to have new discoveries, but when nothing matches with your model, it's time to toss the model. Unfortunately the BB model simply get more ducttape and superglue every single time it fails it's key predictions.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is simply no high redshift evidence that galaxies "evolved" from a bang. It seems like every new high redshift observation pokes huge holes in the big bang theory of cosmology. The oldest galaxies we can observe are *monstrous* in size, and defy BB predictions.

The other day I was driving to work and the local weather center said the rain would be moving into the area in about 12 hours along with a cold front but that there was no rain in the metro area yet. I was driving through downtown and the expressway was nearly at a standstill due to a downpour that was flooding the roads. You couldn't see the car in front of you.

So we can expect predictions of what the cosmos looked like millions of years ago, to be even less accurate than that.

 

[Michael]

The other day I was driving to work and the local weather center said the rain would be moving into the area in about 12 hours along with a cold front but that there was no rain in the metro area yet. I was driving through downtown and the expressway was nearly at a standstill due to a downpour that was flooding the roads. You couldn't see the car in front of you.

So we can expect predictions of what the cosmos looked like millions of years ago, to be even less accurate than that.

The problem from my perspective is that there's no logical way to falsify the BB model. Nothing about that particular cosmology model has shown to be been successfully predictive at higher redshifts or in the lab.

In fact every new observation seems to baffle it's proponents and each new observation seems to require modification of the model to deal with every new "discovery", sometimes *massive* modification, like dark energy.

Worse still, it's entirely inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics, and it effectively violates the conservation of energy laws of physics.

I just don't seen anything "good" about it. It's akin to predicting "invisible (dark) rain" in the forecast, but the rain doesn't interact with the Earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem from my perspective is that there's no logical way to falsify the BB model. Nothing about that particular cosmology model has shown to be been successfully predictive at higher redshifts or in the lab.

That's not true. 1000's of predictions have been confirmed. And you are right. The model cannot be falsified because the model is composed of all current observations.
And yes, it must be modified to comply with any new information.

And
If you create a better model to fit the data, you will win a nobel prize.
So
produce your model and make ChristianForums famous. Be a hero!
Create a "Sudden Creation about 10,000 ya" model and make us proud.

 

[Michael]

That's not true. 1000's of predictions have been confirmed.

It's real "predictions" have all be shown to be false. For instance, the whole reason we ended up with 'dark energy' is because the original expansion model failed to correctly predict redshift observations of SN1A events.

Instead of revisiting the whole "redshift is caused by expansion" concept (which should have been done), the original assumption as to the cause of redshift was "assumed" to be true, and 70 percent of an unheard of substance was simply added to the model. Now the high redshift observations show mature/massive objects that defy the whole evolutionary concept so "dark matter" is being given new and unheard of 'properties' to try to overcome that problem. The original assumption of a bang is *never* questioned or allowed to be falsified, and the model has become a series of "postdictions" designed to fit the data. Even the concept of it making "predictions" is highly dubious as the dark energy fiasco clearly demonstrates.

And you are right. The model cannot be falsified because the model is composed of all current observations.

It's constantly being modified to fit each new "surprise", but at a cost. A full ninety five percent of the model amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance which are incompatible with the standard particle physics model.

And yes, it must be modified to comply with any new information.

Only because it has little or no "predictive" value to begin with.

And
If you create a better model to fit the data, you will win a nobel prize.
So
produce your model and make ChristianForums famous. Be a hero!
Create a "Sudden Creation about 10,000 ya" model and make us proud.

It's already been done IMO, specifically in the form of a plasma cosmology. I came *way* late to the party for any Nobels I'm afraid.

 

[Michael]

Lab-based dark energy experiment narrows search options for elusive force | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Now, researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Nottingham have tested the possibility that this fifth force is acting on single atoms, and found no evidence for it in their most recent experiment.

This could rule out popular theories of dark energy that modify the theory of gravity, and leaves fewer places to search for the elusive fifth force.

This is yet another example of a recent lab experiment that failed to find evidence of new forms of matter/energy. How is it possible to completely falsify a claim that has no empirical support in terms of cause/effect justification in the first place?

 

[Smithi]

It's already been done IMO, specifically in the form of a plasma cosmology. I came *way* late to the party for any Nobels I'm afraid.

Nope. Plasma cosmology is pure woo and predicts nothing correctly. Nor does it have an iota of evidence, nor even a scientifically valid mechanism.

 

[Smithi]

Lab-based dark energy experiment narrows search options for elusive force | Imperial News | Imperial College London



This is yet another example of a recent lab experiment that failed to find evidence of new forms of matter/energy. How is it possible to completely falsify a claim that has no empirical support in terms of cause/effect justification in the first place?

This is not a test of LCDM. It is looking at predictions of MOND. As is obvious even from the article.

 

[Michael]

Nope. Plasma cosmology is pure woo and predicts nothing correctly. Nor does it have an iota of evidence, nor even a scientifically valid mechanism.

That's obviously false:

UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2.0003v2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0-i45gxOsIyokXK3Z-Fhz_

 

[Michael]

This is not a test of LCDM. It is looking at predictions of MOND. As is obvious even from the article.

Even MOND concepts tend fall under the umbrella of the "big bang" model.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Thread cleaned up
1. Address the content to the post and not the CF member.
2. Do not flame other viewpoints. Abusive language like Pseudoscience, woo, crank, 'handwaving' etc are not acceptable.
MOD HAT OFF

 

[Smithi]

So, let's look at one of Michael's favoured tired light papers, by a Lyndon Ashmore;

I linked this elsewhere for Michael. It is from an author that Michael seems to like, as he showed that one tired light model passes the Alcock-Paczyński test. Even though it is ruled out by other observations!

Tests and problems of the standard model in Cosmology
Lopez-Corredoira, M.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08720.pdf

I'll even quote the relevant passage. Again;

2.4 Anomalous redshift in the laboratory and in the solar system

There are not many experiments that try to measure anomalous (neither Doppler nor gravitational) redshifts in the laboratory. One of these called my attention: Chen et al.[69] reported the observation of line shift increase with plasma electron densities: roughly ∆λ(nm) ∼ Ne(10^18cm−3) for the HgI line with λ= 435.83 nm. The dependence is also influenced by the temperature. This is justified by the authors by the difference in the atomic energy levels for higher electron density, leading to a longer wavelength. The Hg atomic levels embedded in a density environment are influenced by the free electron density.The electronic fields generated from free electrons compressed inside an atom screen the Coulomb potential of the atomic nucleus. The nuclear forces on the bound electrons are then diminished, while the repulsion of free to bound electrons is enhanced, so that the energy levels outside the nucleus are raised and the intervals of excited energy level [.............] are diminished. Previous studies also pointed out this kind of redshifts [70]. My impression is that this emission redshift affects only to some lines and not the spectrum as a whole; in principle one would anticipate a dependence on wavelength. Moreover, it is not shown here that this can explain the absorption of a photon and its emission with redshift (like cosmological redshift), as Ashmore [30] thinks.

Bolding and underlining is mine.

So here is a scientist, with decidedly non-mainstream leanings, telling us that Ben M was correct on ISF when criticising Ashmore's 'model';

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Why is there so much crackpot physics?

 

[Smithi]

That's obviously false:

UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj2__yOpa_kAhWGup4KHRbhAaUQFjAQegQIBhAC&url=https://emmind.net/scien/cosm/Files/(299)%201312.0003v2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0-i45gxOsIyokXK3Z-Fhz_

So, Let's start with the first link in this post. This is a paper by Lerner, et al. We can have a read through it, but there isn't a lot of point, as the model is horrendous. Once again, this was destroyed by Ben M on ISF, in a thread in which Lerner was a participant. He studiously ignored Ben's posts on the errors in his model, and the equation he uses to describe it. The whole thread is only 6 pages, and is here;

Evidence against concordance cosmology - International Skeptics Forum

To better follow the the arguments by Ben in the last couple or three pages, here is the relevant passage from the paper Michael linked above;

By contrast, in a static (non expanding) Universe, where the redshift is due to some physical process other than expansion (e.g., light-aging), the SB is expected to dim only by a factor (1 + z), or be strictly constant when AB magnitudes are used.

Bolding mine to show Lerner's erroneous equation.

OK, so what is wrong with that equation? It is saying that the light will lose energy (i.e its frequency will change) as 1/(1 + z). So, a photon starting at d = 1, z = 1 will have 1/(1 + 1) = 1/2, or 50% of its initial energy, by the time it gets to d = 0.
Therefore, a photon starting at d = 2, z = 2 will have 1/(1 + 2) = 1/3 or 33% of its original energy by the time it gets to d = 0.

So let's plug in a value. 12 eV works well.
In the first example the photon arrives at d = 0 with an energy of 6 eV.
In the second example, it arrives with an energy of 4 eV.

But here is the problem with Lerner's wonky maths; that photon from d = 2 had to pass d = 1 on its way to d = 0. So, 2d - 1d = 1d. Ergo, it should have lost half of its energy by d= 1. That leaves it with 6 eV. Now it still has to get from d = 1 to d = 0. That means it should lose half its energy from d = 1.
So, it gets here with 3 eV. But Lerner's 'maths' has it getting here with 4 eV! Both of these things cannot be true. So, what has gone wrong? Lerner's trivially false maths has gone wrong.

Credit to Ben M, in particular, for the above. I changed the example somewhat, just for clarity. I hope!

 

[Smithi]

That's obviously false:

UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj2__yOpa_kAhWGup4KHRbhAaUQFjAQegQIBhAC&url=https://emmind.net/scien/cosm/Files/(299)%201312.0003v2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0-i45gxOsIyokXK3Z-Fhz_

Right, we might as well have a look at the second link Michael posted. This is a 'paper' by Paul Marmet (smh!). He had all sorts of nonsensical ideas, most of which were not published in peer reviewed journals. And pretty much all of which were trivially wrong. As is this one.

Tim Thompson, a former astrophysicist with JPL, sums it up concisely, here;

Why the Compton Effect does not cause Cosmological Redshift - Page 2

In short, Marmet's 'model' still gives us a wavelength dependent redshift. That kills his nonsense straight out of the box. Furthermore, the amount of molecular hydrogen he needs is many orders of magnitude more than what is seen.

Marmet makes many other schoolboy errors in his claims, but it really isn't worth wasting more time on such erroneous nonsense.

 

[Smithi]

So, that is Ashmore, Lerner & Marmet shown to be wrong. Trivially. Anybody else that Michael would like to throw into the mix while we're here? Brynjolfsson, perhaps? Again, trivially false.

 

[Michael]

So, let's look at one of Michael's favoured tired light papers, by a Lyndon Ashmore;

I linked this elsewhere for Michael. It is from an author that Michael seems to like, as he showed that one tired light model passes the Alcock-Paczyński test. Even though it is ruled out by other observations!

Static universe models are not ruled out by any other observations.

Tests and problems of the standard model in Cosmology
Lopez-Corredoira, M.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08720.pdf

I'll even quote the relevant passage. Again;

Bolding and underlining is mine.

So here is a scientist, with decidedly non-mainstream leanings, telling us that Ben M was correct on ISF when criticising Ashmore's 'model';

All he actually states in that paragraph is that it is his "opinion" that it wouldn't work the way Ashmore believes (that it would generate wavelength dependent redshift), but one test is worth a thousand such opinions! He doesn't even provide any mathematical refutation to support such an "opinion", it's just his "opinion". There's no real support or test of that opinion provided in that paragraph.

Amusingly however, you glossed right over his other comments about Marmet's model:

According to Paul Marmet and Grote Reber (a co-initiator of radio astronomy), quantum mechanics indicates that a photon gives up a tiny amount of energy as it collides with an electron, but its trajectory does not change[28](appendix); this is called plasma redshift[29,30,31]. This mechanism also avoids blurring and scattering.

The only caveat he mentioned was that the plasma medium of spacetime would have to be more dense than mainstream theory "predicts", but since the mainstream model uses "dark matter" to account for most of the mass of the universe, that's not much of a caveat at all!

It's amusing that your own reference *supports* Marmet's model, even if the author is skeptical of Ashmore's interpretation of Chen's laboratory findings being compatible with his model. That's actually amusing. Note also that he's gives the opinion of Chen's laboratory work as potentially being wavelength dependent, he's not claiming that Ashmore's mathematical model is wavelength dependent.

You also glossed right over the fact that mainstream interpretation of redshift immediately runs into conflict with energy conservation laws, as though *that* isn't a problem. Most of us skeptics find that issue to be a *huge* problem with the mainstream model.

 

[Smithi]

Static universe models are not ruled out by any other observations.

Yes they are. time-dilation, CMB, variable speed of light (Marmet) junk maths (Lerner) wavelength independence. Pretty much every observation, in fact.

All he actually states in that paragraph is that it is his "opinion" that it wouldn't work the way Ashmore believes (that it would generate wavelength dependent redshift), but one test is worth a thousand such opinions! He doesn't even provide any mathematical refutation to support such an "opinion", it's just his "opinion". There's no real support or test of that opinion provided in that paragraph.

Wrong. As pointed out by Ben M, whom M L-C is agreeing with. The only person who disagrees is Ashmore.

Amusingly however, you glossed right over his other comments about Marmet's model:

Marmet's model is trivially falsified. As explained.

The only caveat he mentioned was that the plasma medium of spacetime would have to be more dense than mainstream theory "predicts", but since the mainstream model uses "dark matter" to account for most of the mass of the universe, that's not much of a caveat at all!

Wrong, It is easily ruled out. There is very little H2 detected or expected to be in the IGM. For good reasons. And his nonsense is still wavelength dependent. Marmet wrote utter nonsense. It is hardly worth the effort of going through.

It's amusing that your own reference *supports* Marmet's model, even if the author is skeptical of Ashmore's interpretation of Chen's laboratory findings being compatible with his model. That's actually amusing. Note also that he's gives the opinion of Chen's laboratory work as potentially being wavelength dependent, he's not claiming that Ashmore's mathematical model is wavelength dependent.

Wrong. There is most definitely a temperature and wavelength dependence, as pointed out by Ben and also M L-C. And the effect Chen is looking at is not applicable to sparse interstellar and intergalactic plasmas. Ashmore is just plain wrong.

You also glossed right over the fact that mainstream interpretation of redshift immediately runs into conflict with energy conservation laws, as though *that* isn't a problem. Most of us skeptics find that issue to be a *huge* problem with the mainstream model.

What conservation laws? Who has written this up? And where? Sounds like nonsense to me.

ETA: Ahhh, I see Michael's confusion! See this being explained by a real scientist;

Energy Is Not Conserved

 

[Michael]

FYI, it's worth watching Lerner's video presentation of a side by side comparison of a static universe model vs. an expansion model. Not only does the expansion model have to make a whole host of assumptions about the evolution of galaxies, those predictions don't even match the observations:

Even worse however, more recent higher redshift observations (see the link in the OP) show that galaxies in the very distance universe are *much much larger* than the expansion model predicts, demonstrating conclusively that those evolutionary assumptions are wrong in the first place!

So not only does the expansion model require numerous ad hoc assumptions, it *still* doesn't fit the data sets and still doesn't jive with direct observation of galaxies at high redshifts.