Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

 Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

Seifert et al. 2024

https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/537/1/L55/7926647?login=false

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-dark-energy-doesnt-lumpy-universe.html

Another article on imaginary dark energy. Looks like theorists are finally admitting it is imaginary after all. But now fortunately we have new improved Timescape. Astrophysics has its latest excuse for the continued failure of the BBT to explain any of the data since the priest LeMaitre recycled the creation myth as an expanding universe. His attempt to explain why Hubbles observed redshifted light over distance was not consistent with Einsteins’ photon model. A photon model which incidentally, predicts that photons cannot change frequency over distance. 

It’s worth pointing out the fact that Hubble himself didn’t believe in expansion. Being a good scientist he knew that cosmological redshift must just be EMR changing frequency over distance rather than an imaginary divine event at the beginning of time. Because the fact is that the Sn1a data that led the BBT community to scratch their collective heads in 1998, is not showing any expansion at all let alone acceleration. 

Best chi fits of SN1a data to z=0 here show that the SN1a data best fits a non expanding model. 

And this contradiction between no observed time dilation in any data and imaginary dilation predicted by the BBT expansion was starting to look really bad for the BBT.

The best way out of this conundrum is to change the data to make it look like there’s a Big Bang, even when the JWST and other data shows there isn’t.

And now thanks to Timescape, a new improved better excuse has been invented and the BBT is safe again for a while. To account for observed non dilated lightcurves and various other BBT predictions recently refuted by the JWST data, Timescape offers the BBT a way out of its self induced mess. By saying that yes the universe is expanding, but it’s just that imaginary effects due to general relativity mean that it just doesn’t look like it’s expanding!! Which is why the data shows no expansion. 

All you need is faith.

Detailed study of a rare hyperluminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago

A new paper titled “Detailed study of a rare hyper luminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago” has come to my attention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02296-7

This paper is a good example of how the more pages of theory based on assumptions only, increasingly byzantine maths and a good load of devious data crunching the paper has, the more fantastical and pseudoscientific its conclusions will probably be. 

As usual the BBT theory consistently fails to explain why predictions of (the lack of) star and galaxy formation in the early universe don’t match the observations. A serious problem now for BBT theorists with the new JWST data. However the fantastical BBT can still be saved by pretending even more imaginary dark matter exists in the early universe than previously predicted. (As Narayanan et al postulated in 2015) These sort of very mature old galaxies have been recently observed in hi redshift surveys and cause a serious existential problem for the BBT. They shouldn’t exist! There’s not enough time for them to form after the beginining of time in the BBT fantasy universe. One get out for supporters of this failed theory has been that there were multiple fast occuring mergers of early galaxies. However the authors of this paper admit...no such evidence of any mergers is observed in this particular hi redshift mature galaxy studied in this paper. 

But the authors of this 2024 paper now cite Narayanan and pretend even larger than expected, or allowed, imaginary dark matter existed in the early universe and fortunately can be invoked to save the continually failing BBT. Thank heavens for brilliant mathematicians. They can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And it is this pseudoscientific sleight of hand of that is used to save their cherished BBT. The rule seems to be: If the observation contradicts your preferred theory, then make up imaginary observations of imaginary new never before observed particles and your theory will be saved. For a few weeks at least until JWST comes up with new data that contradicts your theory once again.

When will supporters of the BBT theory admit that their favourite theory has never yet made a successful prediction. Starting with Gamows 1940’s prediction of a ridiculous 50k temp for the CMBR. (when a CMBR of 2.8K was measured in the 60’s, suddenly everyone forgot how wrong Gamow, LeMaitre or Apher and Herman’s predictions actually were) And JWST in particular has been a trying time for Big Bang fantasists. Every week some new JWST early universe data contradicts the Big Bang theory. Yet rather than admit the BBT is a quasi religious fantasy devised by a catholic priest desperate to reconcile his faith with a science that wouldn’t conform to his religion (LeMaitre) the theorists can always rely on Dark Matter. The phlogiston of the 21st C.