🧵 Is lambda-CDM dead?
Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:41:19 UTC No. 16555675
It seems like the universe's expansion is not accelerating but an illusion caused by cosmic voids. Cold dark matter is incredibly elusive, maybe axioms, primitive black holes, or entropic, but it seems like it is an artifact of our models. How can we develop a new cosmos theory based on evidence when the evidence is so elusive to us?
Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 05:07:44 UTC No. 16558364
>>16555675
>cosmic voids
The voids are not absolutely empty, they have stars and galaxies in them just not as many as you would find in a super cluster
Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 05:09:11 UTC No. 16558366
>>16558364
But relative to the more populated space around them, wouldn't they have significantly less effect?
Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 05:17:37 UTC No. 16558373
>>16558366
No, since expansion under lambda-CDM isn't due to dark matter but dark energy.
Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:23:52 UTC No. 16560187
>>16555675
whu?
then, whats red-shift?
Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:50:16 UTC No. 16560304
>>16555675
yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eck
Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:22:25 UTC No. 16560343
>>16555675
Dark matter is bad math to connect General and Special relativity because Standard Model is a non unified theory.
The first step towards unifying physics is to expunge the Cult of Einstein from universities with pitch forks and torches.
Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:18:50 UTC No. 16560413
>>16555675
>>16560343
Anons, I...
/sci/ desperately needs better moderation. But I guess no guy with a PhD wants to be a janitor.
Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:57:08 UTC No. 16560498
>>16560304
??
its saying that galaxies have a red-shift.. and nearby galaxies that have a greater red-shift ARE NOT as far away as their red-shift suggests, they're nearby companion galaxies... BUT, the doppler-effect value of those companion galaxies is greater because the materials in that galaxy is ejected material with high velocity from the Quasar in the nearby parent galaxy..
Right?
Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 03:46:04 UTC No. 16560802
>>16560343
>connect General and Special relativity because Standard Model is a non unified theory
Saying a bunch of words to sound smart without understanding what they mean, behold the ultimate midwit,
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 02:58:56 UTC No. 16562013
.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 03:03:08 UTC No. 16562018
>>16560802
What if I told you you can't functionally evaluate one regime without accounting for the other?
What if you're an idiot that didn't understand an extremely simple statement?
What if I'm a completely different person from that guy, and immediately understood, because it really is that simple?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:37:43 UTC No. 16562581
>>16560498
yes
even mainstream astronomers accept that there can be other ways to redshift other than doppler.
there can be gravitational shift that happens when the light leaves a deep gravitational well, it loses energy.
there can be relativistic beaming, when a fast jet of material moves sideways with respect to the observer it appears shifted.
there are also other mechanisms hypothesized but not accepted by academics: tired light hypothesis (light losing energy as it travels through a medium) Q mechanics now says that vacuum is not empty and completely permeable but it's permeated by whatever the Casimir effect is. so it has something analogous to drag.
there is intrinsic redshift hypothesis (which is what the guy in the video was saying)
there is variable speed of light hypothesis. which says that if light sped up it would stretch the wave.
there is also the question of seemingly contacting objects with wildly varied redshifts (picrel) which suggests that doppler must be just some fraction of the total shift and not the whole explanation
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:42:42 UTC No. 16562597
>>16560498
started a tred here if interested >>16560104
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:07:52 UTC No. 16562636
>>16555675
Fluctuations of density of luminoferous aether ...
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:42:59 UTC No. 16562776
>>16560498
>>16560304
>its saying that galaxies have a red-shift.. and nearby galaxies that have a greater red-shift ARE NOT as far away as their red-shift suggests, they're nearby companion galaxies...
The video is incredibly baised. It only presents Arp's claims, and not any of the reasons his claims have been rejected.
Arp’s ideas have been given a fair shake. The problem with Arp’s work is that he searches through large datasets and then cherrypicks a few examples he though suited his conclusions. The issue is that if you reject 90% of the data are your conclusions really robust?
For example Arp claimed to find lots of quasars around low redshift active galaxies, he claimed they were ejected. He would do naive statistics to show it was extremely unlikely . An analysis which completed ignores all the galaxies he looked at and rejected.
A more robust test is to remove the cherrypicking and do a real statistical test. Arp claims to find these booming correlations in tiny datasets, so what happens when one uses a modern cosmology survey (e.g. SDSS), with millions of galaxies and quasars instead of tens? Surely if Arp’s effect is real it should be replicable.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506
The result was that the correlation is consistent with the random expectation, there is no signal. Arp’s signal has miraculously vanished when better datasets and real statistics are used. There is no excess correlation between these low redshift galaxies and quasars.
Arp’s idea also has it’s roots in an old observation called periodic redshift. About 50 years ago people claimed to see spikes in the distribution of redshifts of quasars, that there were preferred redshifts. Back then they had only 166 quasar redshifts. Now that there are samples 1000 times larger these spikes should be huge and dominant. But they aren’t there, because it was really just poor statistics and small samples. Overinerpretation of noise.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 06:25:19 UTC No. 16563266
>>16562776
big bang videos are incredibly biased. they only present Alan Guth's claims and no mention why his claims have been rejected.
as a kid i watched all the sci-slop from Sagan, Hawkwind, Grass Tyrone, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku that i could find. and NEVER have i ever heard even hinted that there could be alternative explanations. so no, nobody owes redditors a presentation of mainstream sci-slop because they get enough exposure from financiers as Epstein. Is it a coincidence that Epstein financed sci-slop ? no (they) want to create a historical narrative for the masses
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 06:27:16 UTC No. 16563269
>>16555675
big bang mythology is religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apV