Dark energy theory and Big Bunk theory fail again.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/192526/ ... ws-search/

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.

It's impossible to fathom how the Big Bogus Bang model could ever actually be falsified. It's failed so many lab tests over the past decade that I've lost count, and it's failed so many observational tests over that same period that I've also lost count.

https://www.newsweek.com/massive-invisi ... es-1453007

[Michael Mozina]

I can't help but beleive that astronomers today only care about protecting their ego, their pocketbook and their professional status, and they don't care one iota about "truth" or science. Nothing they espouse has *ever* worked in the lab, not ever.

[crawler]

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/192526/ ... ws-search/

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.

It's impossible to fathom how the Big Bogus Bang model could ever actually be falsified. It's failed so many lab tests over the past decade that I've lost count, and it's failed so many observational tests over that same period that I've also lost count.

https://www.newsweek.com/massive-invisi ... es-1453007

Their logic iz bizarre.
To detect any missing fifth force that apparently defies gravity they deduct the theoretical force of gravity due to the marbles & proov that that fifth force duznt exist.
So to test the shortcomings of the theory behind gravity they uze the theory behind gravity to deduct the theoretical affect of the theory behind gravity.
Bizarre logic.

Monty Python uzed the same kind of gravity logic to tell the difference tween a duck & a witch.

[Electrodynamic]

I have a theory, if the bigger and better our telescopes get and the further we are able to look the more we see then the evidence we know suggests there may be no beginning or end to the universe. I mean if the evidence suggests there is no beginning nor end then it suggests there is no beginning nor end no matter how we spin the narrative, it is what it is.

Hitchens Razor..."What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Richard Hitchens

[The Great Dog]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Richard Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens.

TGD

[Michael Mozina]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Richard Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens.

TGD

I think that's the key in a nutshell. There's no empirical evidence that "space expansion" is an actual cause of redshift. There's no empirical evidence that exotic forms of matter or energy exist either. Not a single key aspect of the LCDM model enjoys any empirical laboratory support. It's one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy stacked high, with one fallacy piled upon another.

The LCDM model is simply pathetic. It's a patch work of metaphysical kludges all rolled into a single metaphysical monstrosity which make up 95+ percent of the model. There's simply no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to show that it's absolutely useless when it comes to making real predictions. Everything about it is *postdicted*, not predicted.

Just look at how it got "dark energy". The whole "redshift is caused by expansion" concept "predicted" a *slowing* universe. When that pattern didn't work properly as "predicted", instead of just admitting that their interpretation of the cause of redshift was in error, they simply stuffed their model with 70 percent of another metaphysical kludge. The whole LCDM model is one gigantic epicycle fiasco all over again. Astronomers never learn from their past mistakes, they simply repeat their same mistakes in ever more complicated forms. They just slap some mathematical lipstick on their metaphysical pigs and away they go....claiming their metaphysical pig is a real "beauty pageant winner" because it's so mathematically elegant. Sheesh.

[Michael Mozina]

I have a theory, if the bigger and better our telescopes get and the further we are able to look the more we see then the evidence we know suggests there may be no beginning or end to the universe. I mean if the evidence suggests there is no beginning nor end then it suggests there is no beginning nor end no matter how we spin the narrative, it is what it is.

Hitchens Razor..."What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Richard Hitchens

If you noticed, the mainstream is panicking.

https://medium.com/swlh/new-study-sugge ... 3d359a8989

They're now trying to suggest that dark matter wasn't created *after* inflation like ordinary matter as they first asserted, but rather they are trying to claim that dark matter was created *during* the inflationary phase so they can use it to somehow explain away why the early universe has so many massive structures that simply aren't "predicted" by their current model.

Every single new observation at higher redshifts has blown huge holes in their galaxy evolutionary claims. There's simply no evidence to support that concept anymore. The further back in time we look, the more we observe a universe that looks exactly the way it looks today, with massive quasars and massive and mature galaxies for as far back in time as we can see.

[Electrodynamic]

The great dog

Christopher Hitchens.

Sweet Jesus I did it again, confusing Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, my apologies.
There should be no confusion and I think most would agree Christopher Hitchens was in a class of his own.

[Zyxzevn]

Cosmologists Debate How Fast the Universe Is Expanding

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cosmolog ... -20190808/

I think there is no debate, because there is no criticism of the presented numbers and processes.
Measurements of different phenomena give different values of "expansion".
This is counter what you can expect with an expanding universe.
This is totally in line with plasma-redshift, where the variations in plasma cause
the redshift and not some magic invisible dark energy.

If you look at the distribution of this "dark energy" it actually looks like clouds.
Exactly what you can expect from plasma redshift.

Then we have the problem of the background microwave radiation.
These numbers are essentially just made up.
The microwave radiation is a big mess and can be manipulated in so many ways.
The Plank data is a mix of many different measurements, and still uses the data that was
measured more than 50 years ago with failing equipment.
The question is not what the universe-age is that they calculated.
The question is why they were able to fool us into thinking that this made-up age was accurate.

[crawler]

Cosmologists Debate How Fast the Universe Is Expanding

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cosmolog ... -20190808/

I think there is no debate, because there is no criticism of the presented numbers and processes.
Measurements of different phenomena give different values of "expansion".
This is counter what you can expect with an expanding universe.
This is totally in line with plasma-redshift, where the variations in plasma cause
the redshift and not some magic invisible dark energy.

If you look at the distribution of this "dark energy" it actually looks like clouds.
Exactly what you can expect from plasma redshift.

Then we have the problem of the background microwave radiation.
These numbers are essentially just made up.
The microwave radiation is a big mess and can be manipulated in so many ways.
The Plank data is a mix of many different measurements, and still uses the data that was
measured more than 50 years ago with failing equipment.
The question is not what the universe-age is that they calculated.
The question is why they were able to fool us into thinking that this made-up age was accurate.

Thanx for that link. A wonderfull article. But i think the magazine is nonetheless an Einsteinology apologist.
I liked the comments. Especially by johnmerryman (& EmpiricalWarrior). He might not know it but his ideas are in accord with Conrad Ranzan's cosmic redshift ideas.

johnmerryman
I'm one of those still doubting the whole BBT. For one thing, it's not falsifiable. Every time there is a gap between prediction and observation, some enormous new force of nature is assumed and everything just gets that much more mathematically complex, but not necessarily mathematically logical. For instance, the original patch was when it was discovered the rate of redshift increases proportionally in all directions. Creating the effect that we appear to be at the center. So it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because "spacetime!" Which totally overlooks the basis for spacetime, that the speed of light is always measured as a Constant. If the light is being redshifted, because the universe is expanding, obviously its speed is not Constant to intergalactic space. Two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One based on its speed and the other based on its spectrum. Since this expansion is still relative to the speed, then the speed is the denominator and thus the real "ruler." So they should be looking for optical effects, as we are at the center of our point of view.
The assumption is that light can only be redshifted by recession, but a paper came across my feed, some years ago, pointing out that multi spectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster than the lower ones, but that would mean we are sampling a wave front and not individual photons, traveling billions of lightyears. Which raises some deeper issues, as to the irreducibility of photons.....

johnmerryman
I've followed it off and on for some decades. Yes, on the details, there is a scientific process. The point is about the big picture, where no alternative to BBT can be seriously considered.
For example, if redshift is an optical effect, then the curve in the rate of redshift, attributed to Dark Energy, would be explained by this effect compounding on itself and going parabolic, until it appears to recede at close to the speed of light, where all radiation is shifted off the visible part of the spectrum.
So the background radiation would be the solution to Olber's paradox; The light of infinite sources.
On the other end of the issue, if photons are simply the smallest measurable units and not irreducible, then the attraction attributed to dark matter might be wave collapse further out the energy spectrum and mass is more an effect of this contraction, then gravity is a property of mass.
Basically the curvature of space into galaxies is balanced by the expansion between them. "Omega=1" Then what Hubble actually discovered was Einsteins' Cosmological Constant. The opposite effect of gravity.
So if what we are looking at is more a cosmic convection cycle, with the expansion and contraction as two sides of the same dynamic, then this collapse would have to extend much further out the radiological spectrum, than just what is associated with mass.
While there might be a lot of points here you chose to disagree with, I certainly admit it is all speculation, so just explain how it can be argued that "space expands," when the only evidence is redshifted light. Given that implies it expands relative to light as the standard.
So if the speed of light is the standard, against which it expands, that would mean there is a more stable dimension, keeping the speed Constant.
Here are a couple of papers. The first about multi-spectrum light "packets" redshifting over distance;
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-...
The second on the "loading" theory of light;
https://fqxi.org/community/...

johnmerryman
I like pointing out, to much harrumphing, that epicycles, as modeling our view of the cosmos, were brilliant math, but crystalline spheres were lousy physics.
My current hope for a pin to pop the bubble is that the James Webb will find the cosmic background radiation to be light from ever further sources, redshifted off the visible spectrum, but then I had similar hopes for the Hubble.
I can see the explanations now;
5/22/22
Cosmologists Discover Edge of Universe is Mirrored
It has been found the cosmic background radiation, the leftover light from the Big Bang, has a fractal pattern, so it appears as many tiny sources, creating the illusion of an infinite universe....

johnmerryman
Don't forget particle physics and string theory. Future sociologists are going to have a field day with the degree to which theoretical physics has gone totally off into fantasyland.
Curved spacetime and expanding space are a modeling of energy radiating out and mass coalescing in. The fact these two balance out is already fully accepted by the cosmology community. "Omega=1." That this relationship is best described as a cosmic convection cycle is simply not considered.

Boltzmann's Brian.
If BICEP gets a null result for inflation and this tension between what H_o should be to get the CMB and the ladder method’s different H_o problem persists then are we ready to throw out the Big Bang theory? Do we need to fine tune more inflation epicycles and variable rates of dark matter?
There are a lot of old steady state theorists laughing at their confusion. I can only hope that the horizon, flatness and observational problems have finally caught up with the Big Bang theory. I cannot wait to see what theorists will do with all their free time if they do not need to work on understanding the Big Bang singularity. But I hope they just retire.

EmpiricalWarrior.
One of the all-time greatest cosmological discoveries, cosmic expansion implies that the universe has a finite age.
And therein lies just one of the many illogical consequences of ΛCDM. The statement that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old is a statement of universal simultaneity, either that or it is a meaningless statement. A universal simultaneity is a direct contradiction of Relativity Theory under which there can be no universal simultaneity!
At root, the "expanding universe" model rests on two early 20th century assumptions that are almost certainly wrong. The first assumption, implicit in Friedmann's GR solutions to a universal metric (now commonly called the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric) is that the cosmos constitutes a singular entity possessed of a universal frame - the metric. In itself this is contradictory of Relativity Theory which does not admit a universal frame.
The second assumption is, of course, that the redshift-distance relationship discovered by Hubble is a consequence of a recessional velocity of some sort. That assumption reinforces and doubles-down on the cosmos as unitary entity assumption. The resulting ΛCDM model is the modern day equivalent of Ptolemaic cosmology. Despite the fact that it can be massaged to agree with actual observations (by the injudicious use of free parameters), the model bears no resemblance to the cosmos we actually observe.
The big bang and inflation are an unobservable creation myth. Substantival space, time and/or spacetime are not empirically observable; they are relational concepts like temperature, that have no physical correlate. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter or dark energy, that combined supposedly comprise 95% of the ΛCDM "universe". Modern cosmology is an empirically-baseless, unscientific mess.
What is needed is not "new physics", just a new, realistic model of the cosmos we actually observe. Unfortunately, such a model is unlikely to spring forth anytime soon from the scientific academy. As long as the academic community remains mesmerized by the erroneous mathematicist belief, that mathematical models are more important than empirical evidence - most especially negative empirical evidence, the absurdities will continue to pile up - as unobservable, but oh-so exciting, "new physics".
Modern cosmology is deeply embedded in a new dark age, where a sacrosanct model holds sway over the evidence of our lying eyes. It ain't pretty if you care about science.

[Electrodynamic]

Crawler

Modern cosmology is deeply embedded in a new dark age, where a sacrosanct model holds sway over the evidence of our lying eyes. It ain't pretty if you care about science.

I would agree the Big Bang and dark energy theories have very big problems and seem to have come about through creationist thinking well known in the dark ages. It always reduces to circular reasoning leaving us wondering what created the creator?. It's a rabbit hole by any other name.

Likewise the alternative would seem to be just as mind boggling and how can we wrap our mind around an infinite universe that is and always was?. How exactly can something be infinite with respect to time and volume having no beginning or end?. It looks like another rabbit hole.

In my opinion creationism is off the table for obvious reasons such as the conservation of Energy and Mass however I also find it almost impossible to rationalize an infinite universe. I'm not sure mankind is going to find any real insight into these questions any time soon.

[crawler]

Crawler

Modern cosmology is deeply embedded in a new dark age, where a sacrosanct model holds sway over the evidence of our lying eyes. It ain't pretty if you care about science.

I would agree the Big Bang and dark energy theories have very big problems and seem to have come about through creationist thinking well known in the dark ages. It always reduces to circular reasoning leaving us wondering what created the creator?. It's a rabbit hole by any other name.

Likewise the alternative would seem to be just as mind boggling and how can we wrap our mind around an infinite universe that is and always was?. How exactly can something be infinite with respect to time and volume having no beginning or end?. It looks like another rabbit hole.

In my opinion creationism is off the table for obvious reasons such as the conservation of Energy and Mass however I also find it almost impossible to rationalize an infinite universe. I'm not sure mankind is going to find any real insight into these questions any time soon.

Yes an infinite perpetual universe is boggling. A bigbang is boggling. There karnt be anything tween. But u might hav both. I dont think that there are any other options. But there are many possibilities within an IPU & within a BBU. Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe (DSSU) made of cosmic cells is one.

[neilwilkes]

BB and LCDM are about as real as Anthropogenic Global Warming & CO2 causing "climate change".
All have one thing in common - they are nonsensical and do not stand up to the actual empirical evidence.

[crawler]

BB and LCDM are about as real as Anthropogenic Global Warming & CO2 causing "climate change".
All have one thing in common - they are nonsensical and do not stand up to the actual empirical evidence.

Neil. Even if so, the logik of our situation iz that AGW might be real, that shood be enuff for u to krapp your pants.

[neilwilkes]

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/192526/ ... ws-search/

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.

It's impossible to fathom how the Big Bogus Bang model could ever actually be falsified. It's failed so many lab tests over the past decade that I've lost count, and it's failed so many observational tests over that same period that I've also lost count.

https://www.newsweek.com/massive-invisi ... es-1453007

Don't forget the so-called "Methusela" star either even though mainstream would very much like you to.
https://www.space.com/20112-oldest-know ... verse.html
It's apparently older than the universe, according to the LCDM Big Bang model. Even if you accept the inevitable tweaking to it's age it still comes in at 14 billion years and that is simply too old for the whole model - QED. Again.
(repeat ad nauseam)