The opening post...
After reading through the plasma cosmology thread today, I'm curious how mainstream Lambda theory would hold up to the same level of scrutiny? What exactly does Lambda-CDM theory "predict" without the use of unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities?
For instance, what empirical evidence supports the idea of inflation? No other known vector or scalar field found in nature will retain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. The presumed homogeneous layout of matter used to be inflation's primary claim to fame, yet recent observations of "dark flows" would suggest that matter is not homogeneously distributed as "predicted" by inflation. What empirical evidence from controlled experiments demonstrates that inflation even exists in nature?
Dark energy? What is that? How do I get some? What controlled empirical test demonstrates it has any effect on nature?
What about all the so called "properties" of dark matter? How do we verify or falsify these ideas?
In what tangible and demonstrateable way is Lambda-CDM theory any "better" than any other cosmology theory?
... was addressed in its entirety by sol invictus in post number four...
First, there is nothing in Lambda-CDM that is unfalsifiable or unverifiable.
Second, plasma cosmology (at least as presented in that thread) is simply wrong. It is ruled out by, for example, the existence of the sun.
I think the best way to think about scientific theories is as follows. You have some box of data you've collected. You want to find a theory that accounts for that data. All theories have some parameters which can be adjusted. So you adjust those parameters until the fit to the data is as good as possible - you can think of that as taking some data out of the box and using it to define the theory. Whatever data is left in the box is a "prediction" (note that the temporal order of when the data was collected versus when the theory was defined is totally irrelevant here - the theory is either right or wrong, and the detailed activities of scientists are obviously not relevant to nature).
For example, when Newton discovered his law of gravitation, he needed to fix maybe 6 or 7 parameters (initial positions and velocities) per orbiting body, plus the gravitational constant. Once he had done that accurately, he could predict eclipses, or when Jupiter would pass through some constellation, or whatever. More and more accurate data was collected, and it continued to be explained almost perfectly by his theory. His theory was extremely well supported - using maybe 50 numbers, he could predict (or "explain" if you prefer) tens of thousands more - all the future and past observations other than the ones used to fix those numbers. It was only when observation got very precise that a few problems emerged, which were solved by Einstein's GR.
Contrast that to the preceding theory of an earth-centered universe. The better the data got, the mode epicycles (parameters) had to be added. So nearly all the data in the box was needed to define the theory, leaving very little to test it with. That's the hallmark of a wrong theory.
By this standard Lambda-CDM is incredibly successful as a scientific theory. It predicts (at least some of) the results of every new observation we make. It contains maybe 30 parameters (of which perhaps 3 or 4 have to do with dark energy and dark matter), and yet it can account for and predict just about every cosmological observation ever made, of which there are probably millions. Yes, there are some problems, and often surprises - but they are all on the edge of statistical significance, so they do not constitute a serious challenge (the dark flows observation falls in that category), or they are simply aspects of the theory that had not been properly worked out or understood until data made it clear more work was needed.
... over a year and a half ago!
Since then this thread has accumulated over 4000 posts, the bulk of which are Michael's failed efforts to criticize contemporary cosmology pretty much exclusively using tantrums, lies, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance. Several rational, highly knowledgeable people have patiently and thoroughly explained how Michael's criticisms have been unsupported, or as often as not, simple lies and logical fallacies.
Another large portion of Michael's posts have been his failed effort to offer an alternative explanation for the effects that are consistently explained by the current dark matter/dark energy theories. Those efforts have been framed mostly on his incessant, arrogant, and untruthful demands that a couple of his dead heroes had it all figured out as much as 100 years ago. Not once has he been able to cite a particular piece of real science. Very often he has vaguely directed people to read material which hasn't provided any of the support which Michael claimed. Never once, however, has he been specific about particular references to the sources of his claims. And as always, very knowledgeable and rational people have patiently and thoroughly explained where Michael has gone wrong and tried with great difficulty to get Michael to make himself understood.
Much of the effort of these participants has been met with Michael's insults, taunting, incivility, whining, lies, and more arguments from incredulity and ignorance. He has consistently avoided answering legitimate, relevant questions. He has outright ignored far more valid questions than he has addressed. He has consistently attempted to derail the thread to avoid issues important to the topic and/or to interject nonsense about his other pet crackpot conjectures. And he has refused to improve his uncivil tone and to stop lying even when asked politely to do so. All in all, Michael failed to respond in a reasonable, scientific manner to any issue across more than 4000 posts in this discussion.
So in summary, the questions in the opening post have been addressed, thoroughly, reasonably, and intelligently, to the satisfaction of everyone except Michael. Many people have learned a great deal about cosmology thanks to Tim, Reality Check, sol invictus, DeiRenDopa, Tubbythin, edd, Ziggurat, tusenfem, W.D.Clinger, Perpetual Student, ben m, Dancing David, temporalillusion, The Man, and certainly a few others who contributed. Michael, not for lack of extreme effort on the part of others, has taught nothing, certainly not directly, and apparently learned nothing. Not a single god damned thing. And he has failed in every way to provide even the most rudimentary criticism or alternative explanations for the concerns he expressed in his opening post.
Does this sound about right?
