Classic failed science predictions and a faulty cosmological model exposed

[Polymath257]

So, let's see. A 10% discrepancy in a parameter that we didn't know to within a factor of 2 just 30 years ago? And that might mean tweaking our understanding a bit?

Sounds like the right plan to me.

Is it a puzzle? Absolutely.

Does it bring down the whole structure? Not even close.

Can we learn something from it? Undoubtedly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Minor quibble: it was the Romans who gave us crucifixion.

Who is to say it wasn't from their religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, let's see. A 10% discrepancy in a parameter that we didn't know to within a factor of 2 just 30 years ago? And that might mean tweaking our understanding a bit?

Sounds like the right plan to me.

Is it a puzzle? Absolutely.

Does it bring down the whole structure? Not even close.

Can we learn something from it? Undoubtedly.

But there's your problem....you keep getting it wrong, & keep learning.
What we need is a source that has all the answers that never change
and aren't even wrong.

 

[HonestJoe]

Hilarious. Hard to believe some folks still take this junk seriously.

If you don't think we should take science seriously, why are you accepting and promoting the scientific measurements that suggest the models need adjusting in the first place?

 

[blü 2]

It looks like they admit the standard cosmological model is wrong these days.

"All indications are that the standard model needs revision"

"
Determinations of the Hubble Constant based on the standard candles and the gravitationally-lensed quasars have produced figures of 73-74 kilometers per second (the speed) per megaparsec (distance in units favored by astronomers).

However, predictions of the Hubble Constant from the standard cosmological model when applied to measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) -- the leftover radiation from the Big Bang -- produce a value of 67.4, a significant and troubling difference. This difference, which astronomers say is beyond the experimental errors in the observations, has serious implications for the standard model."
New distance measurements bolster challenge to basic model of universe

One humorous aspect of this latest fail is that they may need to tweak what dark energy is! (they invented dark stuff in the first place to try and explain what we see)

same link "Astronomers have various ways to adjust the model to resolve the discrepancy. Some of these include changing presumptions about the nature of dark energy"

Hilarious. Hard to believe some folks still take this junk seriously.

What's hilarious is that you don't have a clue what the words you quoted mean.

Well, at a deeper level it's kinda sad, but you seem to like not knowing so ─ enjoy!

 

[metis]

Science tends to be self-correcting over time, but religion does not.

 

[dad]

View attachment 40659

Normalize not making stuff up and you will have no need to reinvent the fable.

 

[dad]

As opposed to claims of inerrant accuracy without evidence? Meh...give me a changing landscape and a willingness to learn.

No, I am not comparing the astoundingly failed predictions of science with anything. We just observe them on their own.

 

[ratiocinator]

Normalize not making stuff up...

Perhaps you should try it?

 

[dad]

Yes this is rather interesting news. It provides independent corroboration of the actual value of Hubble's constant being 74 km/sec/Mpc, instead of the 67.4 predicted by the ΛCDM model from the CMBR. It looks as if it may be connected to the puzzle of "dark energy", which is just a placeholder term for something we don't yet understand.

No. It shows the predicted values are dependent on what premises we use. The flavor of the day in science might be to use one premise that agrees with other things using the same premise, but the agreement is internal.

However it is worth pointing out that none of this challenges the basics of Big Bang cosmology. The new measurements remain consistent with an expanding universe. It is just that the explanations for the rate of expansion need further work.

The implications to a fable are not the issue here.

We knew this already, as nobody has any real idea what "dark energy" is.

Right, yet they use it in models ans=d change what it is as the wind blows!

The new data is a positive step, in the sense that the discrepancy between model and measurement seems to be real. So there really is a problem to be solved. That's helpful.

Not at all. It just shows former predictions were wrong. That no more makes new ones right than it makes Mother Goose stories right.

Science often moves forward by an accumulation of elements that don't fit, until someone finds a new theory that accounts for them. Classic examples from the end of the c.19th are the problems with the "aether" before relativity, and the "ultraviolet catastrophe" before quantum theory.

It is true that science has adapted it's fables, but that does not make them better! It just makes them different from the stories that were shown false already.

Those among us with scientific curiosity about nature find such news exciting rather than depressing.

Those of us that never believed the fables to begin with find these things humorous, not depressing!

 

[dad]

Not only does this contrast your blind faith despite all the evidence, with the scientific approach of going wherever the evidence leads us, but also, in no way does it call into question the basics of big bang cosmology. We still have lots of evidence that the universe as we know it emerged from a hot dense state about 14 billion years ago.

I will agree with the dense and hot bit.

 

[Native]

What would the cosmological implications be on cosmological standard theories and different constants if this is correct?
-----------------
Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say - Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say | Live Science

Excerpts:
“The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say. But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space.

Both papers say that light interacts with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. In Leuchs' and Sanchez-Soto's model, the impedance of the vacuum (which would speed up or slow down the speed of light) depends on the density of the particles. The impedance relates to the ratio of electric fields to magnetic fields in light; every light wave is made up of both kinds of field, and its measured value, along with the permittivity of space to magnetic fields, governs the speed of light.

Photons of light, as they fly through space, are captured and re-emitted by these virtual particles. Urban and his colleagues propose that the energies of these particles — specifically the amount of charge they carry — affect the speed of light. Since the amount of energy a particle will have at the time a photon hits it will be essentially random, the effect on how fast photons move should vary too.

A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off”.
-----------
So what then about all of the other connected theories and cosmic measuring data? Age of the Universe? Increasing cosmic recession (dark energy)? Big Bang?

 

[dad]

Judging cosmic distances beyond our galaxy via a single luminous type of star IS indeed bad science. One cannot descide distances by light only as all stars varies electromagnetically and the measured light can have been dispersed and slown down in cosmos towards the telescope.

No surprise that scientists are surpriced. And this false mesurement may also have influences in the Standard Model aging of the universe

I agree that distances used by science are wrong. I suspect that time itself may not be the same in the far universe. Therefore, as we get further from earth, time changes, since it was made for us! That could be why there is redshift in the pattern we see.

 

[dad]

If you don't think we should take science seriously, why are you accepting and promoting the scientific measurements that suggest the models need adjusting in the first place?

I am not. Exposing fraud is not promoting it.

 

[dad]

What's hilarious is that you don't have a clue what the words you quoted mean.

Well, at a deeper level it's kinda sad, but you seem to like not knowing so ─ enjoy!

You don't. Ha.

 

[dad]

What would the cosmological implications be on cosmological standard theories and different constants if this is correct?
-----------------
Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say - Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say | Live Science

Excerpts:
“The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say. But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space.

Both papers say that light interacts with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. In Leuchs' and Sanchez-Soto's model, the impedance of the vacuum (which would speed up or slow down the speed of light) depends on the density of the particles. The impedance relates to the ratio of electric fields to magnetic fields in light; every light wave is made up of both kinds of field, and its measured value, along with the permittivity of space to magnetic fields, governs the speed of light.

Photons of light, as they fly through space, are captured and re-emitted by these virtual particles. Urban and his colleagues propose that the energies of these particles — specifically the amount of charge they carry — affect the speed of light. Since the amount of energy a particle will have at the time a photon hits it will be essentially random, the effect on how fast photons move should vary too”.

A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off”.

-----------

I agree that not only time is likely different in the far universe, but that space itself also is!

 

[Left Coast]

Normalize not making stuff up and you will have no need to reinvent the fable.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[dad]

Physician, heal thyself.

I didn't make up the bible, doc. Science does make models.

 

[ratiocinator]

Normalize not making stuff up and you will have no need to reinvent the fable.

Actually, I'll modify my previous reply: perhaps you should try making stuff up that is in any way testable, rather than making stuff up whose only purpose is to reconcile whatever anybody observes with your favourite fable.

The difference between what scientists make up and what you make up to justify your fixed interpretation of your favourite myth is that science requires testable predictions. That's why it gets modified when new evidence comes to light. That's the difference between blind faith, in which you already 'know' the truth, so all observations must be bent and twisted to fit your 'knowledge', and genuine interest in the reality of the matter, where you modify your theories when something doesn't fit.

Your blind faith approach has never achieved anything. Science has given you the technology you use to preach your blind faith.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not. Exposing fraud is not promoting it.

There is a difference between fraud and making educated conjectures based on the evidence that later turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.