Astronomy is extremely difficult. We don’t know the relevant fundamental physics, and we can’t perform direct experiments on our subjects. We should expect numerous problems with any cosmological model that we propose at this point. The only people who are certain of their cosmologies are the religious.
You need to do a lot more work for this sort of post to be useful. Cherry-picking weak arguments spread across the entire field of astronomy isn’t enough.
There are some areas where rigorous analysis can be made. No need to cherry pick some sample points. Actually lots of dark matter physics and cosmic inflation modelling apparently uses cherry picking too to arrive at their results. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey provides such an immense trove of data on galaxies very far back into the past (up to z>10) that statistical analysis with millions of galaxies is possible. Basically ‘all there are’. Enough for a crackpot to use it to ‘disprove’ inflation:
I’m not sure whether I should recommend reading that. It is based on lots of real data and shows clear failures of LCDM on that but in the end it all drives toward the author’s (apparently a crackpot) pet theory of a static universe based on a ‘small’ correction to general relativity (complex time).
At this point I have to stop and ask for your credentials in astronomy. The link you posted reeks strongly of crackpot, and it’s most likely not worth my time to study. Maybe you’ve studied cosmology in detail and think differently? If you think the author is wrong about their pet theory of general relativity, why do you think they’re right in their disproof of LCDM?
If you think the author is wrong about their pet theory of general relativity, why do you think they’re right in their disproof of LCDM?
I don’t know whether his theory is wrong. In the end I’m not qualified to make that claim.
Despite all the crackpottery of the auther (“‘dark’ age”, “Einsteins blunder”...) there are some things that he does different than other crackpots. He doesn’t resort to interpreting the words instead of the math of physics nor does he avoid to make testable predictions nor does he cherry-pick or creatively reinterpret data. For the SDSS data less so than serious astro physicists apparently.
His curves which quite well fit the raw SDSS data seem to be derived from an unusual but ‘simple’ spacetime geometry and are not notably fitted to parameters—quite opposite to the LCDM curves which he took from standard sources (those only fit comparatively cherry picked galaxies). Thus judging from raw SDSS data LCDM could be considered severely challenged.
He also gives all the sources he uses, the SDSS queries used in the graph generation, how the magnitudes are calculated, how the results apply in different spectral lines. All relevant considerations you’d rather expect in serious work. It is only tained by his extraordinary claims, his ego and other crackpottery traits (like making grande generalizations about everyhing).
Great! It will certainly be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The author will most likely win a Nobel Prize for his work and be hired to work at the top institution of his choice.
Totally. That’s why I added the disclaimer. I edited it a bit to make that more clear. The author matches all criteria for crackpot no doubt. But even a crackpot can stumble upon something.
I do not have credentials in astronomy. I’m somewhat well-read in the subject and can handle sufficient math. And when checking the presented data (I did actual SDSS queries; the SDSS explorer and query facilities are genuinely cool) it appears that there is something to his claims—if not to his theory itself.
Astronomy is extremely difficult. We don’t know the relevant fundamental physics, and we can’t perform direct experiments on our subjects. We should expect numerous problems with any cosmological model that we propose at this point. The only people who are certain of their cosmologies are the religious.
You need to do a lot more work for this sort of post to be useful. Cherry-picking weak arguments spread across the entire field of astronomy isn’t enough.
There are some areas where rigorous analysis can be made. No need to cherry pick some sample points. Actually lots of dark matter physics and cosmic inflation modelling apparently uses cherry picking too to arrive at their results. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey provides such an immense trove of data on galaxies very far back into the past (up to z>10) that statistical analysis with millions of galaxies is possible. Basically ‘all there are’. Enough for a crackpot to use it to ‘disprove’ inflation:
SDSS Renaisance—end of the ‘dark age’ in cosmology
I’m not sure whether I should recommend reading that. It is based on lots of real data and shows clear failures of LCDM on that but in the end it all drives toward the author’s (apparently a crackpot) pet theory of a static universe based on a ‘small’ correction to general relativity (complex time).
At this point I have to stop and ask for your credentials in astronomy. The link you posted reeks strongly of crackpot, and it’s most likely not worth my time to study. Maybe you’ve studied cosmology in detail and think differently? If you think the author is wrong about their pet theory of general relativity, why do you think they’re right in their disproof of LCDM?
I don’t know whether his theory is wrong. In the end I’m not qualified to make that claim.
Despite all the crackpottery of the auther (“‘dark’ age”, “Einsteins blunder”...) there are some things that he does different than other crackpots. He doesn’t resort to interpreting the words instead of the math of physics nor does he avoid to make testable predictions nor does he cherry-pick or creatively reinterpret data. For the SDSS data less so than serious astro physicists apparently.
His curves which quite well fit the raw SDSS data seem to be derived from an unusual but ‘simple’ spacetime geometry and are not notably fitted to parameters—quite opposite to the LCDM curves which he took from standard sources (those only fit comparatively cherry picked galaxies). Thus judging from raw SDSS data LCDM could be considered severely challenged.
He also gives all the sources he uses, the SDSS queries used in the graph generation, how the magnitudes are calculated, how the results apply in different spectral lines. All relevant considerations you’d rather expect in serious work. It is only tained by his extraordinary claims, his ego and other crackpottery traits (like making grande generalizations about everyhing).
Great! It will certainly be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The author will most likely win a Nobel Prize for his work and be hired to work at the top institution of his choice.
Yeah. One probably can read that PDF only if one is devoid od status regulating emotions.
Totally. That’s why I added the disclaimer. I edited it a bit to make that more clear. The author matches all criteria for crackpot no doubt. But even a crackpot can stumble upon something.
I do not have credentials in astronomy. I’m somewhat well-read in the subject and can handle sufficient math. And when checking the presented data (I did actual SDSS queries; the SDSS explorer and query facilities are genuinely cool) it appears that there is something to his claims—if not to his theory itself.