Evidence against concordance cosmology

That is one paper covered. The presentation points out that there are observational contradictions to all the basic predictions of concordance cosmology, not just one or two. In today's science, conference presentations tend to precede peer-reviewed papers. The paper that will cover all the points in the presentation is still being written. However, the presentation cites data in papers that are published. The presentation is 25 minutes-- not too long for anyone with a serious interest and non-impaired attention span.
 
Eric L said:
That is one paper covered. The presentation points out that there are observational contradictions to all the basic predictions of concordance cosmology, not just one or two. In today's science, conference presentations tend to precede peer-reviewed papers. The paper that will cover all the points in the presentation is still being written. However, the presentation cites data in papers that are published. The presentation is 25 minutes-- not too long for anyone with a serious interest and non-impaired attention span.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure why you are bothered to start this thread here. This a site on which people discuss things from a skeptical viewpoint. If this were real science (qv), do you not agree there are places on the Internet where people directly interested in such things discuss cosmological theories? Convince some acknowledged expert in the field and then comeback here and I will be somewhat more interested in your speculations. Why waste your time with us? :boggled:
 
Rules are tougher than here though and you only get 30 days to make your case.
There is a lot of helpful advice in the FAQ to help posters though
 
Maartenn100 said:
I mean: ehks says that you have to come up with a better theory, otherwise you must accept the disproven theory.

See:


I don't agree.

You can just conclude that you have no good theory to explain the phenomena. You let the phenomena unexplained.
Click to expand...
HIlite by Daylightstar
Clearly, that is not going to happen. If some phenomenon actually exists and an explanation fails, a better explanation will be looked for.
Science does this on cumulative principles. Crackpots think out of the blue and their ideas usually are not susceptible to cumulation on scientific principle. They prefer the mystery because that's the only environment where their crackpottery 'can' exist.
 
Maartenn100 said:
So, everybody must accept a theory in schools and universities and study it, even when it's been proven wrong, just because there is no other theory to explain the phenomenon? I don't agree. I would not accept such a disproven theory and I will call it 'pseudoscience'.
Click to expand...

If that model still retains the ability to inform new research and engineering why wouldn't you continue to build a workforce to drive it? There is nothing wrong with taking a pragmatic view of what we are doing in science.
 
Maartenn100 said:
I mean: ehks says that you have to come up with a better theory, otherwise you must accept the disproven theory.
Click to expand...
Wrong, Maartenn100.
Concordance cosmology has not been disproven. It works very well. There are some issues with the details, e.g. our existing understanding of dark matter leads to the cuspy halo problem. A theory that has an enormous body of evidence for it needs extraordinary evidence to invalidate it. For example, simply observing a high-z blue shifted galaxy will invalidate the Lambda-CDM model.

An alternative theory has to be better than or at least have the potential to be better than an existing theory.
 
Eric L said:
It is here.
Click to expand...
Oh dear - science by conference video, not scientific literature :D! Sorry Eric L but someone stating their opinions at a conference is not science.

marplots viewed the video and his question implies that the video contains irrelevant and ignorant material.
Tired light theories do not match the observed universe as suggested when tired light was first proposed in 1929 :eek:. See Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.

Proposing an alternative mechanism for cosmological redshift is not evidence against an expanding universe (logical fallacy of false dichotomy).
 
Eric L said:
One thing to note right off is that neither the inflation field, dark energy nor dark matter have been observed in any experiments on earth or experiments conducted by spacecraft.
Click to expand...
A better point to note is Eric L, there is no requirement in science to observe astronomical objects in any experiments on earth or experiments conducted by spacecraft. How many stars have we experimented on in labs on Earth :D? For that matter we have never detected quarks and yet their existence is widely accepted.
Another point is that proposing bad experiments does not make things vanish. No one expects to detect the inflation field or dark energy in any physical realizable experiment. There is a possibility to detect dark matter if the universe is good to us.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Might want to make a start on this one Ben :)
Click to expand...
Already started on in another thread by ben m and I. But we may as well continue here.
ben m: We have a tremendous amount of data showing that galaxy metallicities, stellar populations or colors, quasar/AGN activity, and populations vary over redshift.
Simply put - ignoring the evolution of galaxies invalidated the paper.

I noted that it is a bit disturbing that the paper is quite simplistic when compared to the real Tolman Surface Brightness Test.
Somehow the analysis that Sandage and Lubin had to split into 4 papers (and a follow up paper) was either ignored or condensed into one 27 page paper.

ETA: The source for ignoring galaxy evolution seems to be the conference presentations by Eric J. Lerner. I am surprised that working astronomers (Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa) did not pick up this flaw.
 
Last edited:
Eric L said:
That is one paper covered. The presentation points out that there are observational contradictions to all the basic predictions of concordance cosmology, not just one or two.
Click to expand...

Well, hold your horses, because that paper explicitly says that it's not making an argument against LCDM cosmology, only evidence in agreement with a not-too-well-defined "SEU" cosmology.
 
A small bit of doubt about the Lerner et. al paper: Why did the authors select to publish in International Journal of Modern Physics D which is a relatively new (1992) journal covering gravitation, astrophysics and cosmology.
Impact factor (2014) 1.699

Compare this with The Astronomical Journal which was established back in 1849.
Impact factor (2014) 4.024.

I would expect a paper claiming "that available observations of galactic SB are consistent with a static Euclidean model of the Universe" would be important enough to be published in as high an impact journal as possible.
 
After that irrelevant paper the video goes onto unpublished results.
Next is "Lithium, Helium predictions are "clearly" wrong."
No citations to literature saying that Li is wrong. His comments seem ignorant of the fact that astronomers know the production of Li in stars needs to be accounted for to get the BBN amount.
No citations to literature saying that He is wrong. Goes on about He in local stars being "far too low".
The science is Big Bang nucleosynthesis
The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models,[11] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the abundances of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be.[12]
Click to expand...
So Lerner is wrong about He. Issues with Li were known and seem to have been fixed.
 
At 19:55 uncited what looks like woo appears.
A "plasma model of galaxy formation (1988)". Looks like Lerner used Peratt's obviously wrong model (he thought that spiral galaxies had no mass between their arms and so his computer simulation produced spiral galaxies!).
The implied idiocy that the CBR is light from galaxies - galaxies are not perfect black bodies!
Irrelevant to this thread because it is not evidence against the concordance model, just evidence of bad science.
 
At 20:38, Lerner gets onto dark matter and starts with a misrepresentation.
I. D. Karachentsev, Astrophys. Bull. 67, 123-13 is Missing dark matter in the local universe (04/2012). This is not a problem with the Lambda-CDM prediction for the DM throughout the universe. It is a problem about the measurement of the local density of dark matter. The paper suggests solutions.
 
At 21:34, Lerner cites Clowes et al , 2012 for ">200 Mpc LSS Takes Far Too Long to Form for BB".
This seems to be A structure in the early universe at z ~ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology. This and a couple of other larger structures are a problem for the Lambda-CDM model.

Lerner goes onto unsupported, irrelevant assertions that a "non-expanding plasma theory, 1986" can explain the large scale structure and LSS is evidence for a fantasy about "formation by magnetic-gravitational processes"
 
At 22:34, Lerner has uncited "CBR Alignments and Asymmetries Contradict Inflation Predictions".
Inflation has specific predictions for the CMBR fluctuations not that they would be"completely random".
 
At 23:01, Lerner goes onto "Evidence Indicates Scattering/Absorption of Radio-Frequency radiation in local universe".
Astronomers know that the universe is not transparent to radiofrequency waves.
The CMBR is not "radiofrequency waves" - it is microwaves!
A fantasy abut this being inconsistent with the CMB coming from a Big Bang.
 
At 23:40, Lerner summarizes his mostly irrelevant, sometimes wrong "evidence". He only has 2 pieces of evidence against the concordance model:
Structures that seem too large.
Missing local dark matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom