DeiRenDopa said:
And this question demonstrates that LCDM cosmological models are "woo" how, exactly?
It has *ZERO* actual "predictive" capabilities. It's all been postdicted and cobbled together in a purely ad hoc manner based on metaphysical pigs and pretty red math. It's numerology with lots of "published papers" on the topic.
But it surely has "
*ZERO* actual "predictive" capabilities"
only if you completely disregard the math and the quantification, right?
I may be seriously misunderstanding you here MM, but it seems to me that you have just declared all of physics, since at least the time of Galileo and Newton, to be "woo".
Please set me straight.
I'm having great difficulty following your logic, MM; perhaps you could take a little time to define what, exactly, you mean by "woo"?
Woo is stuff that doesn't show up in the lab, like your dead inflation deity.
And like
[OIII], electron degenerate matter, nuclear degenerate matter,
Mozplasma, Mozodes, Mozeparation, Mozcharges, Mozwind, ... ?
And neutrinos, from ~1930 to 1957?
Or helium between its detection in the solar spectrum and discovery here on Earth? Or nebulium?
Woo is stuff that fails to useful or meaningful in terms of actual physics, like your "dark energy" stuff that never does anything useful and can't be measured by humans directly.
Like neutrinos, from ~1930 to 1957?
Or positrons, from Dirac to PET scanners?
Or quarks?
Or helium?
It's evidently shy around objects bound by gravity. Woo is stuff that never actually appears when put to the empirical test, like that mythical brand of exotic dark matter that just got falsified (again).
So, I presume you can cite a paper - preferably by an astrophysicist - which predicted the properties of CDM that have not been detected (so far) by XENON?
If not, how could the XENON results possibly "falsify" CDM?!?
I must say that you seem to be continuing to use perfectly good, standard terms in highly idiosyncratic ways; why?
What's it going to take to get you to admit that inflation was an ad hoc creation?
What's woo about "
ad hoc creations"?
I accept that you have a view of the nature of science (or perhaps just physics) that is radically different from that of (all?) scientists, possibly since the time of Newton, but using "
ad hoc creations" as a criterion for deciding something is scientific woo immediately makes your very own solar "model" woo, doesn't it? I mean, what could possibly be more ad hoc than
the Mozode and Mozplasma?
What's it going to take to get you to admit that 'dark energy' is "gap filler'
Nothing; it's a placeholder term, with several different meanings.
to support an otherwise falsified theory?
We're back to a fundamental, possibly irreconcilable, difference in views of the nature of science.
Perhaps it would be more productive, given this dramatically different set of views, to concentrate on the inconsistencies of your own view? For example, "
What's it going to take to get you to admit that 'Mozplasma' is "gap filler' to support an otherwise falsified model?"
What's it going to take to get you to wake up to electricity in space?
Meaningless question; there are thousands of papers on "
electricity in space"
It seems to me that inflation, DE and DM are "strawmen" by design.
No doubt (it does seem so to you); however you seem to having enormous difficulty in explaining why you think this, in terms of ideas that are logical and consistent, especially when examined in light of your very own solar "model"!
Does logic and consistency count for naught in your worldview (this is a serious question)?
They are not "real". They don't have any physical effect here and now on anything here and now. You can't demonstrate that any of your three metaphysical friends actually exist or ever existed in nature based on controlled experimentation here on Earth. Instead you point at the sky and claim "my metaphysical friend of choice did it" and toss in some math. It's pointless woo with pretty math, just like numerology. Like numerology it actually has no real predictive capabilities as those two glaring failures this week alone can and do demonstrate.
And yet, and yet ...
If we choose
Mozplasma, the Mozode, Mozeparation, Mozwind, Mozcharge, and Moztronium as things "they" refer to, the exact same thing applies, doesn't it?
So why is it OK for you to accept the reality of Moztronium (to pick just one example), but reject the reality of CDM?
Your 'gap' now where you can evidently stuff back in those dark matter elves is something like 80 protons massive. Don't you think we would have noticed something that massive before now?
I'm sorry, but mainstream theory isn't just predicted on *one* type of "woo", but upon three different forms of woo that are all "no shows" in the lab. What else can it be except "woo", when only 4% of the whole theory is based on actual empirical physics?
Well, you can pretty much guess what I'm going to write now, can't you?
The MM solar "model" isn't just predicated on *one* type of "woo", but upon *at least six* different forms of woo that are all "no shows" in the lab. What else can it be except "woo", when 0% of the whole "model" is based on actual empirical physics?
! You are merely continuing your delusion that dark energy is the actual cause of the acceleration. It is not. The acutual cause is still to be determined, e.g.