LCDM and Cosmology and Cosmologists

[Wallace]

Edit: Thread started at the same time as Garth's on the same topic, go https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=170753" instead!

 

[Garth]

I don't have time to add my detailed thoughts about this yet, but I'm sure http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462" would be of interest to a good number of the folk around here!

Here is the abstract, though I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing (it's only 14 pages and written in an easily readable style)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?
Authors: Richard Lieu
(Submitted on 17 May 2007)

Abstract: Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in point on selective citation. I also show that when all evidence are taken into account, two of the competing models that abolish dark energy and/or dark matter do not trail behind $\Lambda$CDM by much. Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark.

Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ!

Crossed new threads! Which one shall we go with?

Garth

 

[Wallace]

See the edit, I like your approach to starting the discussion. I would like to see as complete a list of LCDM troublesome observations as possible!