The LCDM model fails yet *another* observational 'test'.

[Michael]

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-yardstick-fresh-evidence-physics.html

Explaining a Vexing Discrepancy

Riess outlined a few possible explanations for the mismatch, all related to the 95 percent of the universe that is shrouded in darkness. One possibility is that dark energy, already known to be accelerating the cosmos, may be shoving galaxies away from each other with even greater - or growing - strength. This means that the acceleration itself might not have a constant value in the universe but changes over time in the universe. Riess shared a Nobel Prize for the 1998 discovery of the accelerating universe.

Another idea is that the universe contains a new subatomic particle that travels close to the speed of light. Such speedy particles are collectively called "dark radiation" and include previously known particles like neutrinos, which are created in nuclear reactions and radioactive decays. Unlike a normal neutrino, which interacts by a subatomic force, this new particle would be affected only by gravity and is dubbed a "sterile neutrino."

So basically, since astronomers *assume* that redshift is caused by metaphysics rather than empirical physics, there's now about a 10 percent discrepancy between the expansion rate as it is calculated based on Planck data, and the metaphysical expansion rate as it is calculated by Hubble data, and the error rate of the later calculation has been reduced to about 2.5 percent. This means that there's only about 1 in 5000 chance that this isn't a "real" problem.

The first proposed "fix" for this problem is to claim that dark energy isn't just remaining constant during expansion, which is bad enough in terms of energy conservation, but rather to claim that 'dark energy' is "growing stronger" over time/distance/volume increases due to expansion.

The second proposed "fix" to this metaphysical kludge is to add yet *another* metaphysical fudge factor called "dark radiation" to the calculations, bringing the total number of invisible metaphysical fudge factors up to *five*, and relegating ordinary matter/energy to something *less* than it's currently measly 5 percent figure. Note also that the proposed 'sterile neutrino' fix has already been blown out of the water by the Ice Cube data:

IceCube telescope in Antarctica rules out sterile neutrinos

The third proposed 'fix' suggested in the article would be to modify the metaphysical properties of the fudge factor known as "dark matter" in spite of the fact that dark matter has already failed 10's of billions of dollars worth of lab "tests" to date, and failed many other observational "tests" including another one earlier this month.

These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not

What a metaphysical mess and a complete kludge! LCDM fails virtually every conceivable "test" on the books, yet astronomers are constantly trying to "save" it from what 'should be' a natural scientific death.

The *other* possibility of course which is *not* discussed in that article is that redshift is simply caused by *already empirically identified* processes in plasma like inelastic scattering, and none of the observed redshift is related to metaphysical nonsense.

Oy Vey. The LCDM model is falling apart of the metaphysical seams at this point. It's failed two major observational "tests" of it's claims in the past month alone, and it's failed *billions* of dollars with of lab tests over the past decade.

LCDM is unfalsifiable dogmatic nonsense. It's like a bad metaphysical smell in physics that just won't go away.

 

[Michael]

Make that *three* failed tests of LCDM this month alone.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html

The team originally tuned their instrument to look later in cosmic time, but in 2015 decided to extend their search. "As soon as we switched our system to this lower range, we started seeing things that we felt might be a real signature," Rogers says. "We see this dip most strongly at about 78 megahertz, and that frequency corresponds to roughly 180 million years after the Big Bang," Rogers says. "In terms of a direct detection of a signal from the hydrogen gas itself, this has got to be the earliest."

The study also revealed that gas in the universe was probably much colder than expected (less than half the expected temperature). This suggests that either astrophysicists' theoretical efforts have overlooked something significant or that this may be the first evidence of non-standard physics: Specifically, that baryons (normal matter) may have interacted with dark matter and slowly lost energy to dark matter in the early universe, a concept that was originally proposed by Rennan Barkana of Tel Aviv University.

So, at a 180 million years after the supposed 'Big Bang' the gas in the universe is already less than half of it's "predicted" temperature, yet somehow, as if by pure magic, we're supposed to believe that the CMB today is *exactly* the right temperature according to LCMD "predictions"? Oy Vey. That's three major fails of the LCMD model in the month of February 2018 alone.

First LCDM proponents tell us that "dark matter" is presumed to be "dark" because it doesn't interact with light (heat) or ordinary matter which is how the LCDM model exactly matches the temperature and power spectrum of the CMB today, but yet we're also supposed to believe that dark matter *does* interact with ordinary matter to "cool off" the early universe, without having any adverse effect on the temperature or the power spectrum of the CMB today? Make up your minds already!

This particular rationalization is a three for one ad hoc "miracle" modification. Somehow another set of unexplained miracles take place along the line so that even though dark matter isn't really dark as "predicted", and the universe is less than half the right temperature at 180 million years, the temperature and power spectrum of the CMB today is *exactly* the right fit today. We miraculously have a perfect CMB fit today, even though the temperature of the early universe was less than half it's predicted value at 180 million years after the bang. Wow. Just wow.

What a convoluted metaphysical mess. The LCDM cosmology model is the single most 'ad hoc' cosmology theory ever invented! It's certainly failed far more "tests" than it's ever 'passed', including three major failures this month alone. Gah! What a piece of metaphysical junk.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Improved Hubble yardstick gives fresh evidence for new physics in the universe is a more accurate measurement using galaxies that the universe is expanding.
An improved measurement of the Hubble constant supports the LCDM model ! The authors have a new method to make parallax measurements more reliable.

That the universe is expanding has overwhelming evidence:
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The real question is why does the Plank CMB data being fitted to cosmological models give a universe that is expanding at a slightly and now definitely different rate than measurements of galaxies? The opinion of Riess (an observational astronomer who was one of the authors of the 1998 paper that discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) is new physics changing the cosmological measurement. The opinion of cosmologists is something wrong with the cosmic distance ladder (e.g. the accuracy of parallax measurements) changing the galaxy-based measurement. They may all be right - the universe could be expanding at a rate that is halfway between the existing values.

Unlocking the secrets of the universe

Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.Then, for the next 50-100 million years, gravity slowly pulled the densest regions of gas together until ultimately the gas collapsed in some places to form the first stars.

What were those first stars like and when did they form? How did they affect the rest of the universe? These are questions astronomers and astrophysicists have long pondered.

Now, after 12 years of experimental effort, a team of scientists, led by ASU School of Earth and Space Exploration astronomer Judd Bowman, has detected the fingerprints of the earliest stars in the universe. Using radio signals, the detection provides the first evidence for the oldest ancestors in our cosmic family tree, born by a mere 180 million years after the universe began.

Evidence for the formation of the earliest stars supports the LCDM model !

ETA: There was one unexpected result.

The study also revealed that gas in the universe was probably much colder than expected (less than half the expected temperature). This suggests that either astrophysicists' theoretical efforts have overlooked something significant or that this may be the first evidence of non-standard physics: Specifically, that baryons (normal matter) may have interacted with dark matter and slowly lost energy to dark matter in the early universe, a concept that was originally proposed by Rennan Barkana of Tel Aviv University.

But astrophysics have their doubts about the accuracy of measurement. Read Dark Matter and the Earliest Stars by Sean Carroll and the comments.

These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not is the fact that while dark matter matches a lot of observational evidence, there are problems with the complex interactions between and within galaxies. This is a well known issue. Satellite galaxies in simulations should be distributed randomly so that an orderly arrangement would be rare (1 case I a thousand) but the Milky Way, Andromeda and now Centaurus A galaxies have them in rotating disk-shaped planes. Either we have the unlikely event of 3 outliers or we need to find a credible physical mechanism to make these distributions common or a small possibility that there are satellite galaxies that we have not detected. There is also the possibility of "non-standard" dark matter, e.g. self-interacting that is not in the "standard cosmological simulations" looked at in the paper.

A statistical fluke, lack of observational data, problem with our knowledge of galaxy interactions or dark matter being more unusual is not automatically a failure of the LCDM model.

 

[Michael]

Improved Hubble yardstick gives fresh evidence for new physics in the universe is a more accurate measurement using galaxies that the universe is expanding.
An improved measurement of the Hubble constant supports the LCDM model ! The authors have a new method to make parallax measurements more reliable.

The "problem" however is that your two "methods" don't match each other and even dark energy isn't enough to make up the difference.

That the universe is expanding has overwhelming evidence:
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

You simply sweep all your problems under the rug, and you handwave at all the known empirical causes of photon redshift.

The real question is why does the Plank CMB data being fitted to cosmological models give a universe that is expanding at a slightly and now definitely different rate than measurements of galaxies?

Bingo. Give the man a cookie. The reason they produce different rates is because redshift isn't related to expansion in the first place.

The opinion of Riess (an observational astronomer who was one of the authors of the 1998 paper that discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) is new physics changing the cosmological measurement.

So you already need four forms of "new" (unseen in the lab) forms of physics and that's apparently not enough, whereas *one* known cause of photon redshift (inelastic scattering or new tired light) works just fine.

The opinion of cosmologists is something wrong with the cosmic distance ladder (e.g. the accuracy of parallax measurements) changing the galaxy-based measurement. They may all be right - the universe could be expanding at a rate that is halfway between the existing values.

Or it could just be that Fritz Zwicky was right all along and tired light is the real cause of redshift.

Unlocking the secrets of the universe

Evidence for the formation of the earliest stars supports the LCDM model !

ETA: There was one unexpected result.

There's *always* an unexpected result, and this one a *doozie* too. Somehow you missed the temperature of the early universe by a factor of 2, and yet you still expect me to believe the universe today has the "predicted" temperature of BB theory. Why?

But astrophysics have their doubts about the accuracy of measurement. Read Dark Matter and the Earliest Stars by Sean Carroll and the comments.

Ya, and I have my doubts about the accuracy of your LCDM model.

These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not is the fact

Yep, your computer models failed again, that's a fact.

that while dark matter matches a lot of observational evidence,

What observational evidence. You don't have any remaining observational evidence to support exotic matter claims because your baryonic mass estimate techniques were shown to be riddled with numerous flaws.

there are problems with the complex interactions between and within galaxies.

Yep, your computer models failed *again*!

This is a well known issue. Satellite galaxies in simulations should be distributed randomly so that an orderly arrangement would be rare (1 case I a thousand) but the Milky Way, Andromeda and now Centaurus A galaxies have them in rotating disk-shaped planes. Either we have the unlikely event of 3 outliers or we need to find a credible physical mechanism to make these distributions common or a small possibility that there are satellite galaxies that we have not detected. There is also the possibility of "non-standard" dark matter, e.g. self-interacting that is not in the "standard cosmological simulations" looked at in the paper.

Translation: It's well known that your computer models are a dismal failure. That's exactly why I reject them.

A statistical fluke, lack of observational data, problem with our knowledge of galaxy interactions or dark matter being more unusual is not automatically a failure of the LCDM model.

It's not automatically something that should be swept under the rug either, which you always do. It's not like these are the *only* problems with your models.

First Image of Cosmic Web Revealed by Deep-Space 'Flashlight'

The researchers estimated that more than 10 times the amount of normal diffuse gas exists in the nebula than predicted.

"We think there may be more gas contained in the small, dense clumps within the cosmic web than is seen in our models," Cantalupo said. "These observations are challenging our understanding of intergalactic gas and giving us a new laboratory to test and refine our models."

Your computer models underestimated the normal matter in those threads by a factor of 10! That's a whole order of magnitude! LCDM fails far more 'tests' than it passes! In fact the "dark matter" hypothesis has failed billions of dollars worth of "tests", all of which you simply sweep under the rug.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The "problem" however is that your two "methods" don't match each...

Well Duh - that is what I wrote ! The universe is expanding but we do not know which of 2 values is the correct rate of expansion. It is delusional to conclude that the rate is zero because there is overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe : What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.
As explained to you many times, inelastic scattering is wavelength dependent (produces both red and blue shift) but cosmological redshift is not wavelength dependent.

Inelastic scattering is seen in the interaction between an electron and a photon. When a high-energy photon collides with a free electron and transfers energy, the process is called Compton scattering. Furthermore, when an electron with relativistic energy collides with an infrared or visible photon, the electron gives energy to the photon. This process is called inverse Compton scattering.

 

[Michael]

Well Duh - that is what I wrote ! The universe is expanding but we do not know which of 2 values is the correct rate of expansion.

Your model *failed* another test RC. You don't even know if *either* figure is right. It's more likely that reshift is related to *known and demonstrated* causes rather than your "made up" hypothetical causes.

It is delusional to conclude that the rate is zero because there is overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe : What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

It is delusional to ignore all your failed "tests" and to ignore the *other* possibility that Hubble himself wrote about, namely "tired light" as the possible cause of redshift.

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.

It's a lie that it cannot Mr. "no neutrino". You almost never tell the truth.

As explained to you many times, inelastic scattering is wavelength dependent (produces both red and blue shift) but cosmological redshift is not wavelength dependent.

As I've explained to you many times you can't demonstrate that every wavelength is redshifted the same from radio waves to gamma rays and blueshift doesn't happen in 2.7K plasma! You're just making that blueshift stuff up, just like you made up that "no neutrino" nonsense, and just like you made up that BS about Dungey and your claim that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Anyone who understands English and arithmetic can read that Crawford's paper is obviously invalid.
26 February 2018: The paper by Crawford purposely removed the variation in the width of light curves by fitting them to a template light curve with an average width.
But it does not end there!
14 March 2018: Crawford's "debunking" of SALT2 is not by looking at time dilation and is also invalid.

14 March 2018: Crawford's paper is ignorant of what the light curve time dilation papers actually did (no SALT2 calibration before 2005, multiple "characterization" methods used in a 2001 paper).

19 January 2018: At Cosmoquest, Crawford's paper is falsified by independent measurement of time dilation in type 1a supernova aging.
This is that the time dilation of light curves is also measured in the changes in the spectra emitted by type 1a supernova.

 

[Michael]

14 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CDM failed this test because the model does not predict the Hubble constant !

It failed because it's *assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up. Different methods of trying to supposedly 'measure' a rate of expansion come up differently in different models because the real cause of redshift has nothing to do with expansion in the first place.

The Lambda-CDM model includes that the universe is expanding with no statement of how fast it is expanding because of the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding.

There is no "empirical evidence" that the universe is expanding. There is only overwhelming evidence that redshift is occurring, but there are man possible *subjective interpretations* of why that redshift is occurring.

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.

You're only lying to yourself:

https://qedradiation.scienceblog.co...st-supports-the-death-of-the-big-bang-theory/
Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe

Crawford's paper simply puts another nail in the coffin of a purely *metaphysical* interpretation of the redshift phenomenon.

 

[Michael]

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-galactic-bulge-emissions-due-dark.html

Over the past several years, a consensus of sorts has emerged among astrophysicists to explain the large gamma ray emissions from the center of the Milky Way—they are likely due to dark matter particles (WIMPs) bumping into each other or with regular matter, it was theorized. But in this new effort, the researchers report evidence of another source, casting doubt on dark matter as the likely cause of the emissions.

The researchers have been studying data from the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which has been in orbit for the past decade. They were able to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactions.

So much for WIMP annihilation being the cause of gamma rays near the core of our galaxy.

Your LCDM models fails about an average of 1 to 2 so called 'tests' a month.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It failed because it's *assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up.

14 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CDM failed this test because the model does not predict the Hubble constant !

20 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CMB model has "*assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up".
There are no assumptions - there are observations and tested laws of physics.
We measure the redshift of galaxies. The tested in labs here on Earth Doppler shift says that the best explanation for the redshifts is the velocity of the galaxies.
We measure the distance of galaxies. We plot redshift (velocities) against distance to get a linear relationship between the measurements (Hubble's law). We see that an expanding universe gives a linear relationship between redshift and distance. This is only one of the many lines of evidence that lead to the expanding universe part of the Lambda-CMB model.

An expanding universe just states that there will be a linear relationship between redshift and distance. That is all. It is observsions that give a value for the slope of the line. That has varied quite a bit as more data has been gathered. It started as between ~50 and ~100. Now we have it down to ~69 or ~73 depending on which of 2 ways of measuring is correct.

Then we spend the next 90 odd years looking for alternative explanations for the body of evidence for an expanding universe.
Could it be the Steady State model? The CMB, especially its increase in temperature with distance, says no.
Could it be tired light? Even its proposer (Zwicky) pointed out the first obvious flaw - it means that images of distant galaxies should be blurred by light scattering and astronomers have not found this.
Could it be inelastic scattering? That causes both red and blue shift and blurred images of distant galaxies! That is why any person who knows physics immediately discards inelastic scattering as a cause of any red shift for all measured frequencies.
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.

20 March 2018: It is a lie that there is no empirical evidence that the universe is expanding.
That is a lie because I linked to the overwhelming empirical evidence that the universe is expanding.

The Lambda-CDM model includes that the universe is expanding with no statement of how fast it is expanding because of the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding.

However, from your posts years ago at ISF, this may be the ignorant changing of empirical to mean "results of experiments in labs here on Earth" which leads to the idiocy that stars (not found in labs) do not exist! I hope not.

20 March 2018: The ignorance of citing a crank article rather then scientific literature.
There are maybe hundreds of internet cranks churning out ignorant, deluded or even lying physics. The article and paper start with an obvious small lie by omission of most of the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding. The first is a crank "QED Induced Redshift in Cosmic Dust" fantasy.
Then we have a tired light theory from Paul Marmet and Grote Reber published in 1989 and not in an astronomy journal!

 

[Michael]

14 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CDM failed this test because the model does not predict the Hubble constant !

20 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CMB model has "*assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up".
There are no assumptions - there are observations and tested laws of physics.

You almost never tell the truth as it relates to astronomy. You pretty much make stuff up as you go. There are no empirically "tested" methods to support *any* of your bogus claims, starting with your *assumption* of "space expansion" as a supposed "cause" of redshift. No such thing *ever* happens in controlled experimentation. The whole LCDM model is make-believe and made up, starting with all of your bait and switch routines.

We measure the redshift of galaxies.

That's one of the few things you said in this post that is actually true.

The tested in labs here on Earth Doppler shift says that the best explanation for the redshifts is the velocity of the galaxies.

That is *false*. Doppler shift is related to *moving objects* not 'space expansion'. That is your first blatant "bait and switch' routine. Moving objects (your bait) are experimentally testable processes and they've been tested and shown to be a "real empirical cause" of photon redshift. Your "switch" routine to space expansion is not experimentally testable, and it has *not* been shown to be an actually empirical cause of photon redshift. You "make-believe" that they are equivalent processes, but that is simply an equivocation fallacy run amuck. There is no such thing as "space expansion". You folks just made it up! That's your first metaphysical kludge.

We measure the distance of galaxies. We plot redshift (velocities) against distance to get a linear relationship between the measurements (Hubble's law).

Boloney. You're not claiming that galaxies are moving away from each other as Doppler shift woudl require. You're claiming that metaphysically undefined magical "space" does a magical expansion trick between galaxies superclusters. More bait and switch nonsense to stuff in pure magic into a math formula.

We see that an expanding universe gives a linear relationship between redshift and distance.

But your "expansion' isn't an expansion of moving objects, it's a magic trick.

This is only one of the many lines of evidence that lead to the expanding universe part of the Lambda-CMB model.

False. That's not "evidence" of space expansion, that is a blatant bait and switch routine, and a blatant equivocation fallacy. Magic space expansion isn't supported by Doppler shift.

An expanding universe just states that there will be a linear relationship between redshift and distance. That is all.

But that's not 'all' you did! You cheated. You slipped in a magic trick in place of actual empirical lab tested physics and you failed to mention your equivocation fallacy, so it's a dishonest bait and switch routine!

It is observsions that give a value for the slope of the line.

That value of that supposed "slope line" demonstrates that your supposedly "cause" of photon redshift is invalid because it would require faster than light speed expansion. Hubble suggested *two* different explanations of that redshift/distance relationship, and your explanation doesn't work within the laws of physics. He also discussed "tired light" explanations, and lo and behold we find that photons do indeed lose some momentum as they pass through a dusty plasma medium. Chen even demonstrated that the number of free electrons has a direct effect on the amount of redshift he observed in his experiments.

That has varied quite a bit as more data has been gathered. It started as between ~50 and ~100. Now we have it down to ~69 or ~73 depending on which of 2 ways of measuring is correct.

Bah humbug. Redshift is not related to expansion because that explanation defies the laws of physics, and it ignores the *known and demonstrated* behaviors of light passing through a plasma medium.

Then we spend the next 90 odd years looking for alternative explanations for the body of evidence for an expanding universe.

They've been around that long too, starting with the tired light proposal offered by Fritz Zwicky.

Could it be the Steady State model? The CMB, especially its increase in temperature with distance, says no.

False. Another of you pure nonsense claims. The universe must have a baseline temperature that is greater than zero due to all the stars it possesses and the kinetic energy of light, not to mention neutrinos, etc.

Could it be tired light?

Yes!

Even its proposer (Zwicky) pointed out the first obvious flaw - it means that images of distant galaxies should be blurred by light scattering and astronomers have not found this.

False again. Show us a z>10 galaxy that isn't blurred RC. You packed two false statements into one sentence too because Zwicky offered a way to explain it *without* blurring.

Could it be inelastic scattering?

Yes.

That causes both red and blue shift and blurred images of distant galaxies!

Distant galaxies *are* blurred, and only redshift will occur in such a cold medium as spacetime. You just made up the whole blueshift nonsense which wouldn't even be applicable in the colder regions of space.

That is why any person who knows physics immediately discards inelastic scattering as a cause of any red shift for all measured frequencies.

You don't even "know physics" to start with as your MR nonsense so clearly demonstrates, and you immediately made a *huge* mistake by ignoring a *known and demonstrated phenomenon in plasma, namely that photons lose momentum to the medium.

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.

No, it's a lie that it cannot explain cosmological redshift, and many authors have offered them. Marmot's model isn't even dependent on ordinary scattering, nor was Zwicky's solution.

20 March 2018: It is a lie that there is no empirical evidence that the universe is expanding.
That is a lie because I linked to the overwhelming empirical evidence that the universe is expanding.

No, you've linked to overwhelming empirical evidence that photon lose momentum to a plasma medium, and you erroneously left out that important physical process in plasma.

However, from your posts years ago at ISF, this may be the ignorant changing of empirical to mean "results of experiments in labs here on Earth" which leads to the idiocy that stars (not found in labs) do not exist! I hope not.

It's ridiculousy to simply ignore known and demonstrated effects of light traveling through a plasma, and it's idiocy to ignore the *known empirical causes* of redshift in favor of pure *metaphysical nonsense*.

20 March 2018: The ignorance of citing a crank article rather then scientific literature.

More lame name calling since you have no valid empirical leg to stand on.

There are maybe hundreds of internet cranks churning out ignorant, deluded or even lying physics.

Yep, starting with you and every LCDM proponent and supporting publication on the planet. That's why you've wasted *billions* on dark matter experiments and found exactly nothing to support your erroneous claims.

The article and paper start with an obvious small lie by omission of most of the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding. The first is a crank "QED Induced Redshift in Cosmic Dust" fantasy.

Your "space expansion" claim is the cosmic faerie dust.

Then we have a tired light theory from Paul Marmet and Grote Reber published in 1989 and not in an astronomy journal!

Marmet pointed out yet *another* important *known physical process* that you left out of your formulas, hence your need for magical space expansion nonsense.

You folks just make-believe with metaphysics. You don't do real physics.[/quote][/quote]

 

[RealityCheck01]

... The whole LCDM model is make-believe and made up, starting with all of your bait and switch routines.

21 March 2018: A "LCDM model is make-believe..." lie when the LCDM model is a scientific model based on working laws of physics with empirical evidence to support it
Lambda-CDM model

The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:

• the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
• the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
• the abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium
• the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae

The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe

21 March 2018: A ""bait and switch" lie about Hubble's law where the best explanation for measured redshift is the velocity of the galaxies (Doppler shift).
This is not the only explanation as I emphasized later in the post.

20 March 2018: A delusion that cosmological redshift can be detected in the lab.
From memory, the same delusion is addressed elsewhere.
21 March 2018: A repeated delusion that space expansion be "experimentally testable".
A delusion that becomes a lie if you are denying that the universe ruins experiments that we can observe and see the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding.

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.

14 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CDM failed this test because the model does not predict the Hubble constant !

20 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CMB model has "*assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up".

20 March 2018: It is a lie that there is no empirical evidence that the universe is expanding.

20 March 2018: The ignorance of citing a crank article rather then scientific literature.[/QUOTE]

 

[Michael]

21 March 2018: A ""bait and switch" lie about Hubble's law where the best explanation for measured redshift is the velocity of the galaxies (Doppler shift).

Doppler shift does *not* support your 'space expansion' claims. That's a pure bait and switch device. Doppler shift is caused by *moving objects*, not space expansion.

20 March 2018: A delusion that cosmological redshift can be detected in the lab.

Your delusion is that "space expansion" is even the real cause of cosmological redshift in the first place. Space expansion is a myth.

21 March 2018: A repeated delusion that space expansion be "experimentally testable".

Space is expansion is a myth, but the cause of photon redshift is experimentally testable in a lab.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

A delusion that becomes a lie if you are denying that the universe ruins experiments that we can observe and see the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding.

Not only is there not 'overwhelming' evidence that the universe is expanding, they're no evidence at all that it's expanding. All there is evidence for is "photon redshift", but space expansion has never been shown to be a real cause of photon redshift in the first place.

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.

You never tell the truth.
Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory - a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light., viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1105.0010

14 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CDM failed this test because the model does not predict the Hubble constant !

Your model predicts *two different* numbers, and they don't match.
To measure the universe's expansion, we might need new physics

Apparently you now need *yet another* ad hoc entity to patch up the difference.

20 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CMB model has "*assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up".

Your denial routine is getting old.

 

[RealityCheck01]

4 November 2012: A repeated (thus the date) lie that a crank PDF is about cosmological redshift as he has known for 6 years!

I link to the fact that inelastic scattering produces both blue and red shifts and so cannot explain cosmological redshift.
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that inelastic scattering can explain cosmological redshift.
And get a lie about a crank PDF!
4 April 2018: A lie that an Ashmore tired light PDF is about inelastic scattering.

14 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CDM failed this test because the model does not predict the Hubble constant !

20 March 2018: It is a lie that the Lambda-CMB model has "*assumptions* about the cause or redshift don't add up" (there are observations and tested laws of physics).

20 March 2018: It is a lie that there is no empirical evidence that the universe is expanding (I have cited it many times and anyone can find it).

20 March 2018: The ignorance of citing a crank article rather than scientific literature.

21 March 2018: A "LCDM model is make-believe..." lie when the LCDM model is a scientific model based on working laws of physics with empirical evidence to support it

21 March 2018: A ""bait and switch" lie about Hubble's law where the best explanation for measured redshift is the velocity of the galaxies (Doppler shift). This is not the only explanation as I emphasized later in the post.

21 March 2018: A repeated delusion that space expansion be "experimentally testable".

 

[RealityCheck01]

Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory - a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light., viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1105.0010

A link to the viXra PDF upload site rather than peer reviewed published papers. What is worse this is Lyndon Ashmore crackpottery from 6 years ago!
4 November 2012: A repeated (thus the date) and irrelevant lie that a crank PDF is about cosmological redshift as he has known for 6 years!
Nov 4, 2012

I ignore your obsession with Ashmore because he took the ridiculous step of applying a laboratory result in a plasma that does not exist in nature (except maybe at the center of stars) and applied it to a plasma that was 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 thinner!

The real science is a paper by C.S.Chen et al. “Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas”. Optik 120 (2009) 473-478

Even a mainstream Big Bang skeptic thinks Ashmore's conclusion is dubious.
Tests and problems of the standard model in Cosmology

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.