Classic failed science predictions and a faulty cosmological model exposed

[Polymath257]

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

You didn't make it up, but some person made up each part.

Science makes up models based on evidence. Those models are required to be testable. And the tests need to be done before the model being accepted. And, if new evidence comes in, the model is tested against the new evidence and modified if need be. This is the scientific method.

What you are seeing in the OP is *exactly* what science *should* be doing: looking at the evidence and changing the model if there is an issue.

Science doesn't claim to have *final answers*. It always looks at the model that best fits the available evidence that is testable. it is *always* willing to change its evaluation based on new evidence.

And that is a good thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

I didn't make up the bible...

But other people did and you've made up your own way of interpreting it and trying to make said interpretation match all the inconvenient evidence that it's wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

You are misunderstanding, the speed of light is constant in vacuum. However it may travel further because of the shape of space time.

As explained in my post 13, these ripples in the fabric of space do make a difference, a very, very tiny difference.

 

[George-ananda]

I predict in the future we will find the so-called spiritual/non-physical planes of reality (so-called astral/heavenly/etheric etc.) are composed of a class of matter with dimensional aspects and vibratory rates beyond direct cruder physical detection. This stuff is currently part of what science calls Dark Matter.

So many types of paranormal phenomena that I believe do genuinely occur in the human experience is evidence for what I am saying. And those claiming psychic (clairvoyant) insight into reality see these additional dimensional planes directly.

 

[exchemist]

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.

The implications to a fable are not the issue here.
Right, yet they use it in models ans=d change what it is as the wind blows!

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


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

No it does not show "the predicted values are dependent on the premises used" - though after a moment's thought any intelligent person would realise that is true of any modelling, of anything, in any context.

It shows one widely used model, ΛCDM (there are several others), does not fit observation. When that happens, as it quite often does at the cutting edge of science, the model needs to be amended or changed. That is exactly how science moves forward.

 

[HonestJoe]

I am not. Exposing fraud is not promoting it.

So if the new measurements are a fraud, they can't be showing any problems with the cosmological model?

 

[Left Coast]

I didn't make up the bible, doc.

What @Polymath257 said.

 

[sun rise]

Not only without evidence but contrary to the evidence.

Relativity came about when Newtonian physics was proven to have errors. That's how science works.

 

[sun rise]

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

Some.

The Dalai Lama said that he'd correct his view when presented with evidence that required it. Evolution and the knowledge that the Earth orbits the Sun was accepted.

 

[dad]

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 OP is about predictions made by science. It would be better to take an honest approach and admit it, rather than to try and slander other religions.

Strike one.

 

[dad]

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.

There is a difference when the people involved know the difference! If they don't then they may use another term for the mistakes.

 

[dad]

You didn't make it up, but some person made up each part.

According to your made up opinion, maybe. In the beliefs of millions of others God wrote it through men.

Science makes up models based on evidence. Those models are required to be testable. And the tests need to be done before the model being accepted. And, if new evidence comes in, the model is tested against the new evidence and modified if need be. This is the scientific method.

And when the results of new tests show wildly divergent results, we realize what was true all along, that the predictions were a joke.

What you are seeing in the OP is *exactly* what science *should* be doing: looking at the evidence and changing the model if there is an issue.

You see what you want to see. I will see the obvious...that they were quite wrong in predicting! If the bible was wrong in predictions it would have been forgotten long ago.

Science doesn't claim to have *final answers*. It always looks at the model that best fits the available evidence that is testable. it is *always* willing to change its evaluation based on new evidence.

Men who have no possibility of ever arriving at the truth must have such a little philosophy. They are destined to be wrong, and need to be able to admit it when busted frequently!

 

[dad]

But other people did

Billions of people through history have accepted that God sent it to us and wrote it through men. You made up the claim that men did it.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

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 OP is about predictions made by science. It would be better to take an honest approach and admit it, rather than to try and slander other religions.

Much easier just to edit out my contrast between faith and science, rather than address it, eh?

What do you think I've not been honest about?

Science accepts that new evidence may mean that we need to modify our ideas, exactly because it's about fining out the truth of the matter, rather than sticking to blind dogma.

 

[dad]

No it does not show "the predicted values are dependent on the premises used"

-

Yes, of course it does. All models have premises used in constructing them.

though after a moment's thought any intelligent person would realise that is true of any modelling, of anything, in any context.

They might also then realize you are speaking and saying nothing at all.

It shows one widely used model, ΛCDM (there are several others),

All of which can be said to be science, correct? You can't even agree internally on your religion!

When that happens, as it quite often does at the cutting edge of science, the model needs to be amended or changed. That is exactly how science moves forward.

When predictions get shown to be false of course they need a new story. Nothing to brag about.

 

[dad]

So if the new measurements are a fraud, they can't be showing any problems with the cosmological model?

Well the articles says something seems to be indeed wrong. No one can call that a fraud...yet...until that too gets busted one day! That IS science. That is the name of the game. (an endless whack a mole game that keeps people busy with anything but the truth)

 

[dad]

What @Polymath257 said.

@defeated

 

[dad]

Much easier just to edit out my contrast between faith and science, rather than address it, eh?

What do you think I've not been honest about?

Science accepts that new evidence may mean that we need to modify our ideas, exactly because it's about fining out the truth of the matter, rather than sticking to blind dogma.

If you knew the difference between faith and science we would not be talking. Obviously a wrong prediction of science was not truth! When you get more than blind dogma get back to us eh?

 

[exchemist]

-

Yes, of course it does. All models have premises used in constructing them.

They might also then realize you are speaking and saying nothing at all.

All of which can be said to be science, correct? You can't even agree internally on your religion!

When predictions get shown to be false of course they need a new story. Nothing to brag about.

Well no, the new data says nothing at all about the premises used in the construction of the ΛCDM model.

So it does not show anything about any link between premises and predictions.

What it shows is that the model's prediction is 10% off from observation. That's a different thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

But other people did and you've made up your own way of interpreting it and trying to make said interpretation match all the inconvenient evidence that it's wrong.

But other people did

Billions of people through history have accepted that God sent it to us and wrote it through men. You made up the claim that men did it.

Another selective edit and an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Also note that amongst those billions are all kinds of denominations, cults, and sects, representing different and contradictory interpretations.

It is a fact that humans wrote the bible, and if it was "sent" by a god (which is still the view of a minority of humanity), said god would appear to have a serious communication problem.