Evidences against Standard Cosmology

[Native]

New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

Sabines abstract:
“This video's topic is close to my own research, cosmology. The current standard model of cosmology rests on the "cosmological principle" - the idea that the universe looks, on the average, the same everywhere. Alas, it doesn't look good for the cosmological principle. Just what does the evidence say and, if it holds up, what does this mean? At the end of this video, you'll know”.

Content:
0:00 Intro
0:43 Sponsor Message
1:41 The Cosmological Principle
5:58 Trouble for the Cosmological Principle
10:20 What does it mean?

My comment:
More and more evidences against Standard Cosmology shows up when trying to get the cosmological dots together and it seems that many theories are based on "speculative boys toys" ideas and methods.

Sabine Hossenfelder predict a huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology in the near future, and so do I.

When it comes to the matter, it all will show up to confirm the most specified ideas in the ancient Stories of Creation, which speak of an infinite and eternal Universe with constant changes of formation, dissolution and re-formation, thus confirming the laws of energy conservation.

 

[ChristineM]

Sabine Hossenfelder predict a huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology in the near future, and so do I.

And so does every cosmologist, if science remained static without advancement then it wouldn't be science

 

[Regiomontanus]

New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

Sabines abstract:
“This video's topic is close to my own research, cosmology. The current standard model of cosmology rests on the "cosmological principle" - the idea that the universe looks, on the average, the same everywhere. Alas, it doesn't look good for the cosmological principle. Just what does the evidence say and, if it holds up, what does this mean? At the end of this video, you'll know”.

Content:
0:00 Intro
0:43 Sponsor Message
1:41 The Cosmological Principle
5:58 Trouble for the Cosmological Principle
10:20 What does it mean?

My comment:
More and more evidences against Standard Cosmology shows up when trying to get the cosmological dots together and it seems that many theories are based on "speculative boys toys" ideas and methods.

Sabine Hossenfelder predict a huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology in the near future, and so do I.

When it comes to the matter, it all will show up to confirm the most specified ideas in the ancient Stories of Creation, which speak of an infinite and eternal Universe with constant changes of formation, dissolution and re-formation, thus confirming the laws of energy conservation.

Cosmology is indeed at a crossroads of sorts. But hey, it is cosmology. As I always told my students, take grand pronouncements in the field with a grain (or two) of salt. Interesting but often very speculative. And very dogmatic.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting but often very speculative. And very dogmatic.

Rather like some religions i know of

 

[AlexanderG]

Cosmology makes no assumptions about the presence or absence of a god, agency, or disembodied minds. Whatever it finds will not add any credence to religious faith.

To illustrate this, imagine several different ways the "paradigm shift" could go, maybe even contradictory paths. (The universe has an eternal underlying force, or there is an eternal multiverse, or there was no time before the big bang, or our universe appears to have existed eternally and there was no big bang, or there are seven fundamental properties of reality, the universe is constantly variable and changing, etc.) Then, think about how as a theist you could rationalize each of these pathways as evidence for the god you already believe in. Then, realize that theology is entirely an exercise in unfalsifiable post hoc rationalization and ad hoc reasoning, whereas science is about confirming novel testable predictions to create verifiably accurate predictive models of reality.

Science and religion approach epistemology from opposite directions. Namely, faith in god has no need for supporting evidence, whereas the interpretation of scientific evidence has no need for any god.

 

[blü 2]

More and more evidences against Standard Cosmology shows up when trying to get the cosmological dots together and it seems that many theories are based on "speculative boys toys" ideas and methods.

On what basis do you assert that? As your video ─ thanks, interesting ─ says, the assumptions under question in this research have been labeled assumptions all along.

This looks like standard hypothesis testing dialectic to me, simply good science going about its job, rather than any remarkable jolt to what we think about the cosmos.

Indeed, the fact that these questions have arisen demonstrate that the system works as intended.

 

[ecco]

Sabine Hossenfelder predict a huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology in the near future, and so do I.

I'll bet your view of the result of the "huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology" is that science will accept your EM concepts. Is there anything in the video to suggest that Sabine Hossenfelder thinks the results of the "huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology" will be science accepting your EM concepts. No. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada.

When it comes to the matter, it all will show up to confirm the most specified ideas in the ancient Stories of Creation,

Again, this is not something she said nor is there anything in the video to support your claims/concepts.



In short, you did what many people with fringe ideas do; you took a scientific position and tried to twist it to support your woo.

Perhaps you could write to Sabine Hossenfelder and ask her if her views support your assertion that the "huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology" will show up to confirm your specified ideas of EM and the ancient Stories of Creation. Please do let us know the results of your inquiry.

 

[Native]

Once again the RF notification process has failed me. I´ll return here as soon as possible.

 

[ecco]

Once again the RF notification process has failed me. I´ll return here as soon as possible.

The RF Notification process is down with no speculation when it will work again.

I'm using the Watched Threads tab at the top of pages.

 

[Native]

Cosmology makes no assumptions about the presence or absence of a god, agency, or disembodied minds. Whatever it finds will not add any credence to religious faith.

Are you an expert on ancient religions and their Creation Stories?

 

[Native]

As your video ─ thanks, interesting ─ says, the assumptions under question in this research have been labeled assumptions all along.

Whether you call it assumptions or I call it "theories based on speculative boys toys ideas and methods", the result are the same according to Sabine Hossenfeld.

Indeed, the fact that these questions have arisen demonstrate that the system works as intended.

Yes, the scientific proponents states this frequently - but often "the scientific systematic process" goes on for decades before even beginning to act accordingly on the contradictive observations and change perspectives and theories.

 

[Native]

Is there anything in the video to suggest that Sabine Hossenfelder thinks the results of the "huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology" will be science accepting your EM concepts. No. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada.

Which I never claimed either so no need to bring this up at all.

In short, you did what many people with fringe ideas do; you took a scientific position and tried to twist it to support your woo.

"Woo" is just a term used by those who lack to see things from different directions and from a broader perspective.

Perhaps you could write to Sabine Hossenfelder and ask her if her views support your assertion that the "huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology" will show up to confirm your specified ideas of EM and the ancient Stories of Creation. Please do let us know the results of your inquiry.

Again: Why should I as I didn´t make this connection to Sabine Hossenfelder? I just pointed out my own take on this problem.

The RF Notification process is down with no speculation when it will work again.

Thanks for your explanation of this problem.

 

[ecco]

Which I never claimed either so no need to bring this up at all.

Again: Why should I as I didn´t make this connection to Sabine Hossenfelder? I just pointed out my own take on this problem.

Uh huh. Then please explain why you posted her video.

"Woo" is just a term used by those who lack to see things from different directions and from a broader perspective.

"Woo" is just a term used by those of us who recognize snake oil in whatever form it takes.

 

[Native]

Uh huh. Then please explain why you posted her video.

If you can´t discern this for yourself by watching the video, I don´t bother trying to explain anything else for you.

 

[blü 2]

Whether you call it assumptions or I call it "theories based on speculative boys toys ideas and methods", the result are the same according to Sabine Hossenfeld.

And will always be the same because the forming and testing of hypotheses is a fundamental part of science, not just a little something that happens now and then.

You don't seem to grasp what science actually is, how it works, what it can and can't do, and why.

Doesn't it seem significant to you that the source of your "criticism" is a respected science show reporting what's happening in science?

Yes, the scientific proponents states this frequently - but often "the scientific systematic process" goes on for decades before even beginning to act accordingly on the contradictive observations and change perspectives and theories.

How, exactly, do you propose they proceed instead?

What meaningful alternative do you put forward ─ distinct from the present system of observation, hypothesis testing and dialectic ─ that will tell a body of people with expert knowledge "to act according to the contradictive observations and change perspectives and theories"?

 

[Native]

You don't seem to grasp what science actually is, how it works, what it can and can't do, and why.

Spare me for such patronising comments. I´ve read of the scientific methods and modern cosmology for about 35 years and I know of the bad and good stuff very well.

Doesn't it seem significant to you that the source of your "criticism" is a respected science show reporting what's happening in science?

Surely so. But I´m mostly focused on what´s NOT happening in the cosmological science when inconsistencies or contradictions are found - just like Sabine Hossenfelder in her video.

How, exactly, do you propose they proceed instead?

More strict scientific according the the scientific method: By not inventing something which cannot be observed directly and using ALL observable facts when setting up a theory.

For instants: Newtons gravity was about 350 years ago asserted as a force but not followed up or revised by later observations of new knowledge. Then "dark matter" was invented when Newton was contradicted on the galactic scales, instead of revising the medieval ideas in the light of other observable fundamental forces

It´s about high time astrophysicists and cosmologists thinks outside the black gravity box instead of babbling old dogmas which is based on forces which isn´t explained and forces which simply is invented to patch the old insufficient dogmas.

 

[blü 2]

By not inventing something which cannot be observed directly and using ALL observable facts when setting up a theory.

But as I said, we're not talking about theories, we're talking about hypotheses (including assumptions).

As long as they're out loud, they're part of the method. And these ones are out loud and part of the method.

 

[Native]

But as I said, we're not talking about theories, we're talking about hypotheses (including assumptions).
As long as they're out loud, they're part of the method. And these ones are out loud and part of the method.

But as said: Not all is based on real explained forces and direct observations - so in fact such hypothesis NEVER should have appeared in the open at all in the first hand.

 

[blü 2]

But as said: Not all is based on real explained forces and direct observations - so in fact such hypothesis NEVER should have appeared in the open at all in the first hand.

The Higgs boson was predicted by theory, but there was no observable evidence for it until CERN was built at non-trivial cost.

It's not relevant that it succeeded, you say, that experiment should never have been tried?

I can only say I strongly disagree, and repeat, that's not how science works. You have a problem, your best brains form an hypothesis, they test the hypothesis. It succeeds, they learn something. It fails, they learn something.

What they haven't done, and what would have been wrong of them to do, is make claims, out loud or by silence, that they've obtained evidence that they haven't obtained. That's the significance of your video lady saying from the start that what is in question was always clearly labeled an assumption.

The same principle applies in all fields of reasoned enquiry, For instance, you may know from maths that there are many theorems whose conclusions begin along the lines of "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is correct, then ..."

But you'd equally disapprove of such procedures, I take it?

 

[AlexanderG]

Are you an expert on ancient religions and their Creation Stories?

I'm an expert enough to know that part of how we define religion is a belief in something supernatural, and that science does not consider, give weight to, or take into account any such unfalsifiable claims that lack any basis in reality.

Can there be coincidental similarities? Maybe, but this doesn't actually lend credence to these beliefs unless the religious model of reality can make testable, falsifiable predictions. Historically, all religions that have done this have been disproven, and so the remaining religions have evolved to avoid concrete claims about reality and favor unscientific things like interpretive metaphor, personal feelings, and attributing unexplainable mysteries to magic forces.

So I think my point stands.