Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
And you can defend this assertion?...
The clear implication of your claim, Jerry, is that all areas of mainstream astronomy are in the same 'fix' as the one that "Peebles & company" are talking about. Which is, of course, nonsense.
But, since you made the claim, here in the ATM section, let's see you defend it ... please show that every area in modern astronomy is in the same kind of pickle.So here is one disconnect - although the first sentence of the OP relates to cosmology, the rest of it clearly doesn't ("The EU model" purports to be, as you well know Jerry, an alternative for just about every part of modern astronomy).
But even if it were confined to just cosmology, your little list conveniently seems to focus on just a few aspects of such cosmology - how much heavy lifting did the SCC folk need, to develop what they claim is a good alternative? Or Narlikar?
Here in BAUT's own ATM section we have lots of examples of alternatives (to concordance cosmology) - how much work is needed to get any of them on the map (in terms of showing even the most basic agreement between idea and observation)?
The main reason that there are no serious alternatives is that almost none of any alternatives can even show internal consistency, much less consistency with good observational and experimental results, even when the bar for the latter is set very low indeed. We have a whole thread devoted to this topic, here in this ATM section; should we continue discussion in that thread?
|
Three words: Structure, metallicity and denial.
As far back as we can see, there are mature galaxies with high levels of metallicity. Yes, population three stars remain a possible reason for this. It is just as reasonable to conclude the universe is much older than current theory allows, therefore some of the basic premises are wrong. But which type of paper is most likely to be accepted for publication, which research strategy will attract institutional funding?
Why is it that millions are being spent trying to find gravity waves which have not been observed, but there is virtually no funding directed towards understanding or duplication the Pioneer 6,10 and 11 acceleration anomalies? Why are gravitational assists yielding non-Newtonian results? Why did the gravity braking exercise of the MRO yield results so different from the models? Why can't the Cassini team understand the atmospheric behavior of Titan? What is Titan made out of? How can Ganymede have severe gravity anomally where there are no surface features? There are many markers out there telling us the universe is quite different from what we expected. These are the clues we should be pursuing - with relish.
I lament about this, but I really don't require an answer, because I already know something fundament is wrong. The Phoenix mission will soon attempt another landing on Mars, and once again it will be iffy. Once again, the 'fickle Mars atmosphere' will be blamed.
We are still waiting to hear how much less gravitational braking was experienced by Messenger than expected during the Venus gravitational assist maneuver. Watch, listen, and learn.