Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form

Hypothesis Application Form LCDM

Hypothesis Application Form LCDM

To help clarify what a complete Physical Cosmology Hypothesis looks like I’ve provided an example blank Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form here.

This is because no astronomical institutions (e.g. IAU, or AAS) and few published cosmology papers (I’m still waiting to see the first one) provide a complete or sufficient hypothesis for the Standard Cosmology Model which Big Bang researchers purport to be working from.

Hypothesis Independent from Evidence and Conclusions

We can use evidence from other experiments to form a hypothesis, however providing a complete hypothesis is independent from, and must wholly precede, all evidence and conclusions that the experiment is supposed to generate.

A scientific hypothesis is fully complete before evidence is examined and rejected or conclusions reached. To put it more bluntly – evidence is irrelevant until one has a complete unambiguous hypothesis.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
and: http://www.CosmologyScience.com/glossary.htm#Hypothesis

You will also find a partially filled-in Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form with the answers for one of the several dozen Big Bang models – a Lambda Cold-Dark Matter model, and to provide a baseline, a filled in form for a Static Universe hypothesis.

1. Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form – Blank

This blank form begins with questions to identify which mathematics, geometry and dynamics are employed or required by the claim.

However, questions such as whether the proposed Cosmology conjecture has a beginning or how much space curvature are not fundamental to a cosmological hypothesis, they are derived from interpretations of evidence.

2. Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form – Big Bang / LCDM

Here is a partially filled-in Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form with the answers for the leading Big Bang model – one of many Lambda Cold-Dark Matter models. There are many because there are so many adjustable LCDM parameters; and they all vary depending on the researcher.

As you can see – several key questions are not completed, because as far as my research shows, no one has ever clearly answered them. If you have better information for any question / answer, please point me to the published reference and I’m happy to update this. (However, the LCDM Geometry answer is blank because there are vaguely conflicting claims, not because there are no claims.)

As I would try to gently remind Science Fair students, no one gets the luxury of describing only those parts of the experiment they want to – we must clearly describe all possible variables that could affect our results.

For example: Photon-matter interactions per year (PMIY) turns out to be crucial for evaluating Redshift and Cosmic Microwave radiation. But it is a variable / parameter that LCDM / Big Bang supporters ignore. The best answer I have found is vaguely along the lines of – “there are no interactions other than the photons which are fully absorbed” (meaning lost).

Until we have clear, unambiguous answers for all the form’s questions, it is my opinion the Lambda Cold-Dark Matter model is not yet a complete, or an adequate, scientific hypothesis.

3. Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form – Static Universe

To provide a baseline I have included a form filled in with parameters for Static Universe.

I find it notable how Static Universes do not require any unobserved matter, forces, energy or phenomena, in sharp contrast to Big Bang models. (remember the Static Universe concept is very different from the Steady-State Universe.)

You are cordially invited to suggest improvements or supply citations to missing answers for the forms.

with my best wishes,
-David Dilworth
CosmologyScience.com

Note: The forms are currently printable PDFs, but I plan to provide interactive versions soon.

Share

9 Responses to Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form

  1. Peterson says:

    OK. Its hard to believe the state of cosmology is really that poor. But I have to agree that I’ve never heard answers to many of the reasonable questions on the application. I don’t understand the reason for the photon matter parameter. Do you have an example of a research paper lacking a full hypothesis?

    • David says:

      Hello Peterson,

      The number of photon-matter interactions per year (PMIY) is important to both redshift and the CMBR claims.

      An example of a research paper lacking a full hypothesis ? Almost any paper based on Big Bang or an Expanding Universe.

      Here’s one — “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters, Astrophys.J.Suppl.148:175-194,2003″

      While this research paper carefully describes the parameters it wants to, it does not explain whether it requires unobserved matter, forces, energy or phenomena; which definition of “space” it uses, the number of photon-matter interactions per year it is based on, which Inflation model it employs, etc.

      That’s why I prepared the Application Form for physical cosmology hypotheses – so these basic answers are agreed upon at the beginning – and not mysterious.

  2. Pingback: Ethan Siegel Makes Science Error – Then Evades Making Correction | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011 David Dilworth

  3. George says:

    If I post a theory of Cosmology here, will I get some feedback as to its possible validity? Some credible questions and critical comments? If so I am in.

  4. Pingback: Ethan Siegel Makes Science Errors, Corrects One | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011-2012 David Dilworth

  5. Pingback: Your Cosmology Hypotheses Invited | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011-2012 David Dilworth

  6. Pingback: Article on Big Bang’s Inadequate Definition Disputed – But Article Emerges Unscathed | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011-2012 David Dilworth

  7. shailendra K says:

    I have given a lot of thought to the idea of parallel universes which has been a major hypothesis to prove after the discovery of quantum theory which suggests the possible outcomes of an event also occurs simultaneously and since their occurrence demands different set of physical states and conditions so they do have occur in different universe at the same instant of time.

    For an example: the tossing of a coin; there are two possible outcomes attached to it but the observer in a particular state can observe only one outcome at a time but before the event taking place there is an equal possibility for the occurrence of both the output simultaneously.

    Now if the experiment is being made by fixing all the initial condition and accounting the difference in the state for both the outputs than there must be a change in entropy which i believe proves the existence of other universes.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>