Is Lambda-CDM even falsifiable?

[Michael Mozina]

The events of the past decade really has me wondering if it's even possible to falsify Lambda-CDM in a human lifetime. The past decade has really not been kind to Lambda-CDM, either for the Lambda half of their claim, or for the CDM part of the claim.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

We can also add the CresstII results to that lengthy list of failed attempts to locate exotic forms of matter in the lab.

Over the past decade (maybe two in the case of LHC), we've spent billions of dollars on countless "experiments" in particle physics and come up with exactly zero supporting evidence for exotic extensions to the standard particle physics model. Furthermore, and more damaging IMO is the fact that we now have overwhelming evidence that the baryonic mass estimates that were used in the now infamous 2006 (cry wolf) "dark matter" paper were horrendously flawed in many different ways. It has since been shown that they underestimated the number of entire stars in various galaxies in those colliding clusters by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

Since they first proclaimed that "dark energy did it", we've since discovered that their original "assumption" that all SN1A events are exactly the same "standard candles" was also false, throwing doubt upon the whole concept of dark energy. We now have evidence that SN1A events come in *at least* two distinct flavors/duration(s), and who knows how much actual variation they may experience. However you try to sugar coat it, dark energy theory is founded upon a now falsified premise.

In terms of mass/energy claims of Lambda-CDM, 95 percent of it is based upon assumption quicksand, and the assumptions have already been shown to be riddled with serious scientific flaws.

A couple years ago we had the Bicep2 fiasco. That paper had the whiff of pure desperation to attempt to lend scientific credibility to inflation, just to deflect the topics of conversation away from dark energy and dark matter problems. That whole ridiculous claim blew up in their face in mere months, yet how many "scientists" signed their names that ridiculous paper? Guth even publicly claimed it was Nobel prize worthy material! Sheesh!

Inflation is a mathematical meme that was invented by Guth in the 1970's, and it is falsified by the Planck revelations of hemispheric variation at the largest scales, something Guth *never* predicted! Nothing about current cosmology theory is supported by any remaining credible evidence, not one single aspect of it.

This month we have a new "cry wolf" LIGO claim about finding gravity waves after being in operation for about 2 whole weeks with their new upgraded gear, and apparently without any attempt whatsoever to filter out, or account for ionosphere/magnetosphere "chirps" which occur regularly in the Earth's atmosphere at these exact same frequencies, and apparently without attempting to verify their claim using various other instruments.

As much as I am personally open to the potential for the discovery of gravity waves, that particular LIGO paper absolutely reeks of scientific sloppiness and panic level desperation. After all the negative revelations of the past decade, the mainstream seems to be desperate to claim victory about something, anything, and this claim of discovering gravity waves seems to be their last hope of salvation. Unfortunately however, their complete lack of any effort to filter out ionosphere-magnetosphere signals, and their lack of any visual confirmation in other instruments simply does not warrant a claim of "discovery" as it relates to gravity waves. I'd personally love to witness the discovery of gravity waves, but not like this, not with "bad sloppy science".

I'm wondering at this point if it's even possible to falsify Lambda-CDM in any logical manner. The Lambda/dark energy half of the claim has been shown to have been based upon the false assumption that all SN1A events are the same, and their unfailing faith in their belief that all photon are magically capable of weaving and dodging their way around every temperature and EM field gradient in the universe to arrive at Earth without a shred of inelastic scattering. The CDM side of their claim has been falsified in the lab in numerous ways over the past decade, and their missing mass was actually caused by all their stellar and plasma underestimates in 2006.

Are we in the EU/PC community simply being unrealistically optimistic to expect to see real empirical change in the industry known as "astronomy" in our lifetimes? Birkeland never lived to see it. In fact, Birkeland knew more about solar physics, and Earth's atmospheric physics in his lifetime than any living human being today. We have some fancier mathematical models thanks to Alfven, Bruce, Dungey, Peratt, etc, but overall Birkeland understood the actual physics a lot better IMO because he studied it in the lab for years. To this very day, in the 21st century, the mainstream still hasn't figured out the heat source of the corona, even though Birkeland understood and explained that it was caused by the flow of current.

Over the past decade, thanks to Planck, LHC, LUX, PandaX, CresstII, AMDx, and further stellar count and SN1A studies, the mainstream has compiled quite a long and extensive list of falsified pretty little mathematical models that were all shot dead by experimental/observational results. They've revealed to the world that their galaxy mass estimates used in 2006 weren't worth the paper they were printed on in 2006. They've demonstrated to themselves that SN1A events are not all alike. They've demonstrated with Planck data that there are hemispheric variations at the largest scales that *defy* Guth's claims about homogeneity. In every conceivable way, they've shot their own theory dead a dozen different ways, yet they still put their faith in it, day after day, year after year of their lives. Why? Will that bizarre behavior ever change?

[Michael Mozina]

It sure feels like there is a pregnant pause in astronomy today, combined with some actual trepidation. There is a tangible difference between the "hope" that the mainstream had in 2006, and the "desperation" that we're witnessing in 2016.

In 2006 they had just come out with their landmark study of galaxy cluster collisions, and they claimed that they had "proof" (yes they actually used that word too) of "dark matter". They also had high hopes that they could verify this idea in the lab, via LHC and various other "experiments/tests" of their claims. There was a feeling back then of "We're sure we're going to validate this claim in the lab".

A decade of revelations later, we've since learned that they simply horrifically botched the stellar mass estimates in 2006, and not a single "prediction" related to lab results was correct.

In 2006, they still "assumed" that SN1A events were all "standard candles". We've since found out that they aren't actually "standard" as first presumed. Over the past decade, inflation theory took a big hit in Planck data revelations of hemispheric variations, defying Guth's original "predictions". There's really nothing left standing related to LCDM theory in 2016. Even still, there is this "pregnant pause" where nobody really seems to know what to do about any of it.

They can't change any of their baryonic mass estimates without messing up their other claims related to nucleosynthesis, so their they sit, in pure denial of all the stellar mass estimation problems in that 2006 lensing study.

In spite of the revelations of SN1A events not being as "standard" as they claimed, they can't change the dark energy percentages either without flat out admitting that it could be any number between 70 percent of their mass/energy and *zero*.

They can't dump inflation theory and have any credibility either, so they basically sit their in pure denial of all of the important *falsifications* of their various claims, and BICEP2 was an absolute disaster.

As far as I can tell, there really is no viable way to falsify any of their claims about their "invisible" universe as the last LIGO "discovery" paper demonstrates. Even if there is no visual verification of their claim at all, there's always some "excuse" for it.

I must say however there is a "feeling" going on that seems to be quite different than there was a decade ago. The various claims have certainly lost a lot of their luster over the past decade, and I'm sensing a palpable fear factor going on these days.

[orrery]

Sure it is, its been falsified a thousand times. The true question is whether or not its "believers" are rational.

[BeAChooser]

Are we in the EU/PC community simply being unrealistically optimistic to expect to see real empirical change in the industry known as "astronomy" in our lifetimes?

Yes, I'm afraid we are because mainstream "astronomy" has assumed all the characteristics of a religious cult.

It's no longer science but belief that provides the overriding motivation in most of it's investigators.

It's the same thing in Global Warming.