Another Voice
Nige reminds us of the work by Richard Lieu at Univeristy of Alabama. Lieu has been another voice crying out in the wilderness, pointing out inconsistencies in mainstream science. He helped organise "Outstanding Questions for the Standard Cosmological Model," a conference (funded by the NSF) in London which this writer was unfortunately late for. Nige agrees on many things, including the sad incompetence of the local government.
Lieu's 2007 paper was entitled LCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? His conclusions:
"Cosmologists should not pretend to be mainstream physicists, because there is only one irreproducible Universe and control experiments are impossible. The claim to overwhelming evidence in support of dark energy and dark matter is an act of exaggeration which involves heavy selection of evidence and an inconsiderate attitude towards alternative models with fewer (or no) dark components. When all evidence are taken into account, it is by no means clear that LCDM wins by such leaps and bounds.
"Thus I do not see the wisdom of funding agencies in planning such ambitious and expensive programs to perform dark energy research, to the detriment of other fields of astronomy, as though cosmology has now become a branch of physics, which it will never be. These programs all have the common starting point that dark energy is really out there - no question about it. I hope the present article demonstrated the contrary."
Lieu measures the hodgepodge "LCDM" comsology with some alternatives you might not have heard about--from T. Shanks (2007), Subir Sarkar and Alain Blanchard (2003). These little-known cosmologies use the Einstein-de Sitter model where Omega = 1, and match just as many observations. Their main failing is not matching supernova data, for which the "standard model" adds the fudge factor of "dark energy."
Mainstream science and press promotes a hodgepodge model Through papers and conferences, word is getting out that there is Trouble with Physics. Alternative models explain as many observations as the mainstream, except for supernovae. All these models need is a changing speed of light.
UPDATE: As this is published, we have word that Home Secretary "Jackboot Jacqui" Smith is finally stepping down. Was it the Orweellian monitoring of cel phone calls and internet traffic? The ID scheme that would cost each citizen 60 pounds on top of the billions for implementing it? Charging a second home to the taxpayer while living with her sister? Making her husband a paid assistant? Said husband watching dirty movies at home alone and charging the taxpayer? Her giving him a 400 dollar iPhone and charging that too? She will shortly stand for re-election in her home district, though she is not popular enough to get elected dog-catcher. This relates to science in that dictatorship allows mediocrity to reach the top.
Lieu's 2007 paper was entitled LCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? His conclusions:
"Cosmologists should not pretend to be mainstream physicists, because there is only one irreproducible Universe and control experiments are impossible. The claim to overwhelming evidence in support of dark energy and dark matter is an act of exaggeration which involves heavy selection of evidence and an inconsiderate attitude towards alternative models with fewer (or no) dark components. When all evidence are taken into account, it is by no means clear that LCDM wins by such leaps and bounds.
"Thus I do not see the wisdom of funding agencies in planning such ambitious and expensive programs to perform dark energy research, to the detriment of other fields of astronomy, as though cosmology has now become a branch of physics, which it will never be. These programs all have the common starting point that dark energy is really out there - no question about it. I hope the present article demonstrated the contrary."
Lieu measures the hodgepodge "LCDM" comsology with some alternatives you might not have heard about--from T. Shanks (2007), Subir Sarkar and Alain Blanchard (2003). These little-known cosmologies use the Einstein-de Sitter model where Omega = 1, and match just as many observations. Their main failing is not matching supernova data, for which the "standard model" adds the fudge factor of "dark energy."
Mainstream science and press promotes a hodgepodge model Through papers and conferences, word is getting out that there is Trouble with Physics. Alternative models explain as many observations as the mainstream, except for supernovae. All these models need is a changing speed of light.
UPDATE: As this is published, we have word that Home Secretary "Jackboot Jacqui" Smith is finally stepping down. Was it the Orweellian monitoring of cel phone calls and internet traffic? The ID scheme that would cost each citizen 60 pounds on top of the billions for implementing it? Charging a second home to the taxpayer while living with her sister? Making her husband a paid assistant? Said husband watching dirty movies at home alone and charging the taxpayer? Her giving him a 400 dollar iPhone and charging that too? She will shortly stand for re-election in her home district, though she is not popular enough to get elected dog-catcher. This relates to science in that dictatorship allows mediocrity to reach the top.
Labels: astronomy, cosmology, speed of light
posted by L. Riofrio at 3:19 AM
2 Comments:
Hi Louise,
Thank you very much for blogging about the problems in the mainstream lambda cold dark model.
General relativity falsely replaces the discontinuous (particulate) distribution of fields and matter with a smooth artificial stress-energy-momentum tensor, T_{ab}.
This is equated to the curvature Ricci tensor and contraction term, so the whole of general relativity is artificial to begin with, regardless of gravitons! It's a false continuum source model being used to represent particulate (quantized) energy fields and particulate matter!
Anyone can see general relativity is obsolete classical junk, only relevant for physics as a fully relativistic correction to classical Newtonian gravity, which gets the light curvature etc. correct by energy conservation!
It's not a complete theory of gravity. General relativity implicitly assumes (by taking a universal fixed Newtonian coupling constant G for the entire universe) - without any evidence - that there is no gravitational mechanism within the universe.
When I point out these problems, the mainstream says falsely "well it's the best theory of gravity until we have a quantum theory of gravity". Duh! Some people have worked out a theory of gravity, and they just suppress it from journals and even from arXiv,
http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement -
‘We don’t expect you to read the paper in detail, or verify that the work is correct, but you should check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author ... if the work is entirely disconnected with current [string theory] work in the area.’
Thanks also for the update about Jacqui Smith going. That's excellent news. Maybe if the new Home Secretary spends less time submitting claims to get the taxpayer to pay for her husband's dirty porn on Virgin Cable, work visas will be done more efficiently! (Or is that just wishful thinking?)
I've suspended my Facebook account to avoid distraction until I've finished writing a new paper on gravity, reviewing all the theories.
I always appreciate hearing from you, nige. Thank you for continuously questioning the "standard model."
Post a Comment
<< Home