We never let Newtonian mechanics die a natural death based on a number of failed predictions.
That is because gravity shows up on Earth and Newtonian mechanics still has practical value. Dark energy only shows up in one creation mythos and has no practical value outside of that singular creation story.
Not the LCDM is
a) a creation mythos
Of course it is. You all think that the universe had a "beginning" where all matter and energy came from a singular "clump".
or
b) has failed any predictions.
You mean besides that last study I cited? Getting you folks to acknowledge information seems to be the big "trick" around here.
There are no gods in LCDM. That is a delusion entirely of your own making.
There are however several invisible sky entities that have no useful or practical value outside of your creation myth.
The cosmological constant dates from the 1910's. That's nearly a century ago.
That constant has absolutely nothing to do with "dark energy" since you can't get "dark energy" to show up in a lab or have any effect on matter in a lab. That constant is no more related to 'dark energy' than it's related to the EM field. The only difference is that an EM field is "real" whereas your 'invisible sky entity" is not.
Its not a matter of make believe with math. It's a matter of comparing prediction with observation. Just like any other branch of physics. This segregation is one entirely of your own making.
Oh boloney. You folks expected the universe to be slowing down over time. It wasn't. You then added liberal doses of an invisible sky deity named "dark energy" that has no practical value outside of your "creation religion".
That is, of course, flat-out false. Unless of course you believe Einstein's field equations and the entirety of general relativity are a "creation mythos". Do you? Or you just unaware that the LCDM is based on a set of solutions to the EFEs?
I could stuff "magic invisible Michael Mozina energy" in there and accomplish the same feat. So what? Does that mean "magic invisible Michael Mozina energy" did it?
Why would we? They have passed many tests and not failed any.
That's pure denial actually. Mainstream theory has "failed" pretty much every single "prediction" it's ever made. The last failure was related to the mainstream's assumption that the universe was "slowing down" over time. When you discovered that was not the case, you folks stuffed it full of "dark evil energies". You simply 'make up" the properties of this stuff as you go. Unfortunately you "missed" again, and the "threads" of spacetime are longer than you 'predicted'. Now you need dark energy to not only do a repulsive trick, it also has to 'pool' in some places and not in others.
The whole thing is based on absurd "ad hoc" properties galore!
Nonsense. There are far fewer free parameters in LCDM than the standard model of particle physics. I don't hear you objecting much to that.
That is because unlike dark sky entities, particle physics theory has "practical" value here on Earth. The fact we can "split" atoms helps heat my home. Your mythical sky beings have no effect on me whatsoever.
Fail. There is not a single God in LCDM.
No, actually there's a "trilogy" of them, Inflation father (now deceased and not officially included in LCDM mind you), dark matter sun, and dark energy holy ghost.
The math is basically the Einstein field equations. You got a problem with them?
Not until you start stuffing them with "magic energy".
You suggested it had a solid iron shell!
No, I did not. I suggested it had a solid *CRUST* and that the majority of the sun was iron in terms of it's overall mass.
Trust me. There is absolutely no need to dumb down the assertion that the Sun has a solid iron shell to make it sound ridiculous.
The idea it has a "solid iron shell" has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. They are a "dumbed down" strawman that is repeated often by your side.
Says the person who debates science by pretending theories he doesn't like have Gods in them...
How does the "dark energy Jesus" affect my life in a "tangible" way here and now?
You seriously need to learn some basic mechanics and electromagnetism.
You folks really should read Cosmic Plasma and Peratt's book too, but alas I doubt that will ever happen.
The idea that is a creation mythos is one of your own making due entirely, it would seem, to your complete inability to make a scientific argument.
Would you prefer one of Alfven's paper where he picks on all "prophet" forms of astrophysics?
The calls are piling up on me now. I'll see if there was anything else worth responding to when I get a chance.
