've been working on a new postulation. Nothing new, to some, many of you may have done the same.

If/when you postulate a beginning of the universe, it helps if you can understand other work. I have issues with Lambda-CDM because I believe its something of a contradiction in terms.

Its believed to be science, but the line between supposition and evidence, when one refers to Lambda-CDM principles is not simply not clear. If you could draw a line through this collection of science, err... evidence and supposition is it possible to do it in a clearly defined fashion?

I've picked a spot. I'd like to hear comments before revealing my choice, should you be so inclined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

Not an easy topic to tackle.

If/when you postulate a beginning of the universe, it helps if you can understand other work. I have issues with Lambda-CDM because I believe its something of a contradiction in terms.

 

Are you postulating a beginning to the universe? Is there any evidence for that?

 

Its believed to be science, but the line between supposition and evidence, when one refers to Lambda-CDM principles is not simply not clear. If you could draw a line through this collection of science, err... evidence and supposition is it possible to do it in a clearly defined fashion?

 

I am not aware of any supposition. What do you have in mind?

 

Its believed to be science, but the line between supposition and evidence, when one refers to Lambda-CDM principles is not simply not clear. If you could draw a line through this collection of science, err... evidence and supposition is it possible to do it in a clearly defined fashion?

The Lambda-CDM model is the simplest model with the least number of parameters that has a parameter space that fits the observations well.

 

That is, via observations you can give numbers to these parameters (with experimental errors) and the model is quite consistent. The model, with these parameters chosen, fits the observations very well, including details of the CMBR and so on.

Thinking about it, I suppose the assumptions are things like: the invariant speed of light, the equivalence principles and the cosmological principle. But these all seem to be confirmed by observation and experiment so they don't seem unreasonable.

... and the cosmological principle.

This is the biggest assumption, in particular in the form that the laws of physics do apply to the whole Universe (or for sure our observable Universe). This is not an unreasonable assumption, and I am not sure what one would do without this.

On that, I have seen suggestions that the need for "dark energy" could be explained by the fact we are near the edge of a less (or more?) dense area of the universe.

Wikipedia lists ten unsolved cosmological/relativity problems that current science cannot explain, which means the current scientific consensus must be questioned. In addition, no consensus exists afaik about the beginning of the Universe; rather, scientists have followed clues backward in time to a small fraction of second, about 10⁻³⁶ seconds. Only speculations exist for events before that time, because no experiment can be done at this time to confirm or refute the speculations. So, does your postulation fit all the existing observations, and does it solve or purport to solve something currently unknown or unresolved?

Wikipedia lists ten unsolved cosmological/relativity problems that current science cannot explain,

 

Can you please elaborate about those problems?

 

Can you please elaborate about those problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Cosmology_and_general_relativity

If/when you postulate a beginning of the universe, it helps if you can understand other work. I have issues with Lambda-CDM because I believe its something of a contradiction in terms.

 

Since the Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the "beginning of the universe", referring to it in this context isn't appropriate. It's like saying, "I have issues with the theory of evolution because I believe trying to predict when the sun will set is a contradiction in terms".

 

It helps if you can understand the work you're criticizing.

Wikipedia lists ten unsolved cosmological/relativity problems that current science cannot explain,

 

Worth noting that these are unknowns but they are not challenges to the big bang model. Although answering them could lead to new physics and therefore changes to the model (which is what makes science so exciting).

 

which means the current scientific consensus must be questioned.

 

That is always true.

That is always true.

 

But somehow, people who get only the popsci education think that accepting mainstream means blind obedience, rather than simply standing firm by the best current explanation, while constantly testing, observing, and measuring to find an even better explanation. And even when corrected, the image of hidebound ivory academia towers breaking under their own rigidity persists. Reason will not penetrate.

 

And they always want to believe they don't have to study formally. Yootoob is enough for one to overturn Relativity, apparently.

Study takes too much work sheer conjecture and wild imagination will solve everything roflmao

Study takes too much work sheer conjecture and wild imagination will solve everything roflmao

Don't forget "logic"