the greatest story ever told!

The Standard Model of Big Bang Cosmology

We now have a template for when to start repeating our number pattern - at a billion! We will also be changing our scale from size to distance, but the numbers will be same. Lastly, when Sabine says: "we want to average over the density of matter," what she means is, we want to find out how much matter is within a certain volume of space. That volume of space is measured radially, in all directions, by average distance away from Earth. Due to the fact that the universe is so large, those distances are measured in light years - the amount of distance covered by light in one full earth year! To update our number pattern then, we will just add a sixth structure, valued at 1 billion, making our supposed average pattern look like this:

1, 5, 50, 1 thousand, 1 million, 1 billion ... and the universe should now follow this repeating pattern in every direction, or to keep in-line with our example - continuously, i.e.:

1, 5, 50, 1 thousand, 1 million, 1 billion; 1, 5, 50, 1 thousand, 1 million, 1 billion; 1, 5, 50, 1 thousand, 1 million, 1 billion and so on...

If the cosmological principle is true, and the universe is a product of blind cosmic evolution, the structure of the universe should follow this pattern at every location, and in every direction. That is what the twin principles of homogeneity and isotropy, dictate! That is the Cosmological Principle! What does the evidence say?

Testing the Validity of the 'Concordance Model'

The word concorde means agreement. Hence the Concordance Model of cosmology, is one based on agreement between two or more supporting factors. Another name for the Concordance Model is lambda-CDM, where lambda is symbolized by the 11th letter of the Greek alphabet, 'A' and CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter. The entity symbolized by lambda, is known as the cosmological constant, and was originally introduced by Einstein as an afterthought to his theory of General Relativity. It was a placeholder of sorts for a variable that would explain why the universe expands, as had been proved by Hubble. Much later, in 1998, this variable, which has nothing to do dark matter, was confusingly given the related name Dark Energy, by American theoretical cosmologist Michael S Turner. It is important to note that, after adding this term, Einstein later removed it from his equations but it was later introduced in modified format. This necessitates a clear explanation of the difference. Einstein conceived of it as a way to factor in the expansion of the universe. In its current form, it represents, not the expansion of the universe, but the accelerated rate of expansion of the universe. Essentially, it proposes that the universe is expanding at faster and faster velocities!And will keep doing so forever, since dark energy is now the dominant force in the universe.

The concordance in this model is supposed to come from the harmony that exists on two different levels: 1) that the cosmological constant has three lines of supporting evidence and they are all in agreement; and 2) that there is unity between the proposed cosmological constant, that is, dark energy and the second term in the name lambda-CDM, the proposed cold dark matter. Unity, in this case, means more than agreement. It means unity in the mathematical sense: the number 1. When all the different factors are added together, they should equal 1, or 100%. The three factors in this model being: dark energy as represented by the term lambda; dark matter as reflected in the term CDM; and normal baryonic matter. Though normal matter is not explicitly stated in the name lambda-CDM, it is implied, as it is the only variable that is not in question. For the nature of the visible universe is the very thing being studied. These three factors, then, two proposed and one, a given, are said to exist in the following percentages: 26% dark matter; 5% normal matter and 69% dark energy, equalling 100% - or the universe as a whole - unity.

The concordance model was proposed about a 100 years ago, at a period in the development of science when there was an absence of data about heavenly dynamics. In the century since enough data has been gathered to definitely test its assumptions. In our case, we now consider the evidence for and against homogeneity. First we will consider the empirical evidence that has been discovered since the theory was proposed. As Hossenfelder puts it,

Since scientists proclaim the cosmos to have evolved - cosmic evolution - it becomes necessary, that the mechanism that accomplished what we see today, did so in all directions and in equal increments, since the universe is a sphere! This is the underlying reason for why their descriptions of how the universe came to be must necessarily include both isotropy and homogeneity. Otherwise, if the universe had an axis, how could you justify blind forces producing a skewed result? Certainly over larger and larger scales, any local variations would smoothen out and over certain large enough scales, the universe would look the same everywhere and in all directions. And that, is exactly the claim scientists make - how could it be otherwise. We have already proven Isotropy to be false, unfounded and without evidence. More than that the opposite has proven true: the universe has an axis, a preferred direction on all measured scales! And that preferred direction, centers on the earth, within its Heliocentric frame!

Hossenfelder, next details the insurmountable difficulties that mounting new discoveries, pose to its continued survival:

The Cosmological Principle

The foundation of the Concordance Model is the Cosmological Principle, the claim that the universe looks the same everywhere. That clain is comprised of two aspects, that the universe looks the same in all directions, called Isotropy; and that the universe looks the same from all locations, known as Homogeneity. In other words, an isotropic universe is one where, when you look out in any direction, you will see the same pattern, whereas the similar, but independent concept of homogeneity, states that, wherever in the universe you look from, you will see the same pattern. Since the two definitions have similar aspects, many people confuse the them, and cannot distinguish between two. So, for extra clarity I will restate their meanings in a different way. Homogeneity, requires you to view the universe from at least two different locations, and claims that if you were to do so, you would see - on average - the same patterns or views, regardless of which two points you chose. With isotropy, you remain in the same place, and only your perspective or heading changes, that is are you looking right, left up down etc. In this scenario, isotropy states that changing your perspective will yield the same pattern, on average. Taken together, the proposed isotropy and homogeneity of the universe form the Cosmological Principle. We now delve into the mathematical components of the cosmological principle, as expressed in lambda-CDM. We begin with lambda: the cosmological constant.

The Cosmological Constant - Three Lines of Evidence

The three lines of evidence regarding the cosmological constant are divided into the two components that form the cosmological principle: Isotropy and Homogeneity. Two of the lines of evidence: supernova redshifts, and the distribution of matter in the universe fall under Isotropy. While, the third line of evidence, properties of the CMB: falls under Homogeneity. We will first consider Isotropy, and the evidence, for and against it.

Isotropy

Isotropy's First Line of Evidence - Supernova Redshifts

To get an accurate understanding of this claim we will simplify it. Instead of using distributions of matter, we will substitute patterns in a sequence of numbers. For instance, if the universe appeared the way it was claimed by scientists it would just be a simple repeating pattern, such as seen below

1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 ...

The above pattern could simply represent a planet and its star, a planet and its star, a planet and its star etc. But as Sabine noted earlier, the universe is more complicated than that, so let's use the number pattern analogy to try and pattern the number of different factors we see in the actual universe. First, let's list them, then we'll represent them with numbers. Keeping our list general, we could say: there are planets; planets often have accompanying moons; planets are always found orbiting star systems - so we have solar systems; solar systems in turn are found grouped together in galaxies, and galaxies often exist in groups forming galaxy clusters. That's our basic first approximation of what structures we see when we look out into the universe. We could be more detailed, but we want to be general to simplify our task. All in all, we have listed five factors and we could use appropriate numbers to represent each element, perhaps according to size. So a moon could be 1, since it is the smallest object on our scale. Let's say a planet is 5 because it is much bigger than a moon. The sun and a solar together are 50, since they are much larger than the planet. A galaxy is a 1000, and a cluster of galaxies 1 million. Putting this into our numbered pattern, we could represent what we see in the universe in the following way: are

1, 5, 50, 1 000, 1 000 000

Now, because the universe so obviously does not fit the cosmological principle, scientists claim: yes, at small scales - on the size of galaxies and even super-clusters of galaxies (which is small in terms of the whole universe), we don't see a repeating pattern, but above a certain size, the patterns in the universe start to repeat, and thus we start to see the same components repeated no matter where you are in the universe. A repeating pattern of the structures we have thus far catalogued would look like this,

1, 5, 50, 1 000, 1 000 000; 1, 5, 50, 1 000, 1 000 000; 1, 5, 50, 1 000, 1 000 000 ...

The principle is easy enough to understand. Now, of course, different galaxies have different numbers of stars, and different galaxy clusters have different amounts of galaxies contained within them, so what we are looking for are not exact number patterns, but an average of what the structures the universe has produced looks like. Put another way, we are looking for a repitition in the components, the universe is built of, and some average consistency in their scale, if the universe has an isotropic and homogeneous nature. Once we have an average, as determined by the programming of cosmic evolution, we can then know that if any structures are found that deviate too much from that average, that they were not produced by the claimed mechanism; and further, that the said mechanism could thus not be the means through which the universe we see came to be. Hossenfelder, again explains:

In other words, we want to figure out at what number in our pattern we should stop, and start repeating the pattern. This would be equal to Hossenfelder's "average distribution." Then, she adds the exact parameter or factor, we want to average over with regards to the universe.

So cosmologists, are trying to find the range at which the universe should start to look isotropic and homogeneous, because that range is larger than the "short scales" of galaxies, and thus, no longer open to influence from the local dynamics of galaxies, which are clearly neither isotropic, nor homogeneous.

This distance, as Hossenfelder says: "... at which the cosmological principle should be a good approximation to the real distribution of matter, was calculated from the concordance model" in 2010 by Subir Sarkar and his collaborator, Mr Hunt. "They found," she continues "an averaging distance of about 200 - 300 Megaparsec on. 300 Megaparsec, are about 1 billion light years." Thus, starting from the scale of the earth, the environment is not isotropic, nor is it homogeneous. Scaling up to the size of the solar system, the universe is definitely not isotropic and homogeneous as the solar system exists on an ecliptic plane, meaning all the planets revolve around the Sun, on roughly the same plane. Scaling up further to the size of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, we see the same is true, and for the same reason. The Milky Way, and all other galaxies, all exist on a disc-like plane, with a bulb-like center. Not being spherical in shape, they definitely do not look the same in all directions, nor from all locations. This paper, was Sarkar's first paper on the subject of scale. It was published two years after the announcement of evidence for dark energy was made by the two respective teams headed by Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess. The expansion of the universe at an accelerating rate had been confirmed for the first time. One year after Sarkar and Hunt published their findings on what the calculated scale should be, the Nobel prize in Physics for 2011, was jointly awarded to the lead scientists on both teams. These winners included both Perlmutter and Riess. A great advance in science had been achieved. Or, had it?

The data that both teams had accumulated in their research was not made public, thus no scientists outside of the two original research teams had the ability to verify the integrity used to analyze the data or the methodology used to reach conclusions. I quote Sarkar,

2010 - 2016

So, in 2014, 16 years after initial publication, and 3 after winning the Nobel prize, the data was released in its "un-doctored form," allowing for independent, analysis and replication of the results. A step that would allow for either the verification of the earlier Nobel prize winning findings, or the less likely, falsification of those findings. "Un-doctored form," means getting the raw data, without the scientists who made it available, cherry-picking the results that support their case, while disregarding any evidence that doesn't support it. It is these type of practices among scientists and other professionals who work with very large datasets, that Sarkar refers to as: "not ... principled." Sarkar formed a new team of collaborators, and with them, tried to replicate the results of both Nobel prize winning teams, so that he could compare apples with apples. To his surprise, their results did not match with the Nobel laureates' findings. Instead, they found that the so-called discovery of dark energy, which depended on evidence of acceleration of the universe, did not meet the minimum standard for scientific discoveries - 5 sigma. Five standard deviations are the threshold in science, to declare a finding to be a new discovery. In Sarkar's words: "We established that, in fact, the evidence for acceleration in the data was marginal, it was far short of the 5 sigma, that you'd expect for a discovery of fundamental importance. It was in fact, less than three standard deviations." It had taken 16 YEARS, to show that the discovery of dark energy was faulty science, partly because as Sarkar again, points out: "In fact, it was rather a surprise to us that this was actually the very first time somebody had in fact looked at the data and the analysis, in detail. Partly, this is because ... the data had simply not been available in un-doctored from, this is the important thing!" The obvious question is: why was there a discrepancy in their results? Further, which of the assumptions that the Perlmutter and Riess teams had incorporated into their analysis, had made both teams, think a result that was less than 3 sigma, was worthy of being taken seriously as a new discovery? Hossenfelder explains:

Put simply, both of the teams led by Perlmutter and Riess had used the wrong scale, as their minimum scale, at which the universe can hypothetically be thought of as isotropic and homogeneous according to the concordance model. That scale, according to the concordance model itself, was three times larger, than the the value both Noble prize winning teams, used as their baseline assumption. There is no evidence to back up this assumption. Hence, Hossenfelder says it was "an unjustified assumption...." Nonetheless, she further laments, "it ... entered the analysis of supernovae data from which the existence of dark energy was inferred. And yes, that's what the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for in 2011." So the implications have tremendous repercussions, for science and our understanding of the world.

Sarkar and his team, went to great lengths to set up their analytical work to reflect all the assumptions that the Nobel laureates had made, with the exception of assuming that the proposed scale for the validity of the isotropy and homogeneity in the universe is valid from one hundred Megaparsec, instead of the established, two to three hundred Megaparsec minimum limit, as he had already established in 2010. Of his teams intensions, he says,

In continuing with his explanation, Sarkar unearths a second major problem. We have already discussed how the data used to announce the discovery of dark energy had been: manipulated in an unprincipled manner that did not meet the scientific industry standard method called the maximum likelihood estimator; it was based on an "unjustifiable assumption" about the minimum scale at which the concordance model would start to approximate the actual distribution of matter we see in the universe; and that the data used was not statistically significant enough, to be used as the empirical evidence to support a new discovery. After describing the aim of his team's experiment, Sarkar goes on to elaborate on a separate endeavour that he - independently of his current efforts - had been trying to determine for the since 2011: whether the assumption that the universe was isotropic, was valid. The paper that he had published in that year was entitled Probing the Anisotropic Local Universe and Beyond with SNe 1a Data. The reason for such a probe is that to the naked eye, the universe, is quite obviously not isotropic, as we have earlier explained in detail. But this was not the reason Sarkar gives for wanting test such assumptions. As he says, "So subsequently, we had also been doing other work ... and we had been actually looking at something which is not directly related to the supernovae, but reflects on the underlying assumption of isotropy, and that has to do with the following: that in fact, when you look at the sky, it is not isotropic."

To understand the nature of the second problem that Sarkar and his team encountered, we must recall that we have noted previously, that the universe is known, to not be isotropic on small scales, that is, from galactic scales and smaller. Following on with his quote, we now learn something new, as he states, "... that, in fact, when you look at the sky, it is not isotropic. The cosmic microwave background - which is the information that you get from the deepest point in the universe, has a very pronounced dipole anisotropy, and this has been known ... since ... shortly after the discovery of the CMB." It should be carefully noted, that Sarkar is not here speaking of two different things. When he, and other cosmologists speak of the sky, they are not using the word in its everyday meaning, but are using it within the context of cosmology, in which case, it always defines the CMB, not the sky as seen from earth at night. If that detail goes unnoted, we will confuse the scale we are talking about, and thus, the meaning of what is being spoken of. So, in addition to the universe not being isotropic at its smallest scales, the galactic ones, we now have the added knowledge, that the universe is also known, to not be isotropic at its largest known scale: commonly referred to, as the observable universe. We say that because, as is acknowledged by all in the scientific community, the CMB "which is the information you get from the deepest point in the universe, has a very pronounced anisotropy," and that this has been known from almost the beginning of the discovery of the CMB, which happened in the mid 1960s. Thus, Sarkar's statement shows that the CMB is synonymous with the edge, of the observable universe. That the CMB, represents the deepest point in the universe, means we haven't seen anything beyond it - nor can we! Ever! Recall, that everything we know about the universe has been learned through light. There is no light beyond the CMB, for reasons we will delve into later. For now, we satisfy ourselves with the fact that the CMB is the perimeter of the observable universe. It is for this reason, that it is also called: the Celestial Sphere!

Anisotropy, is the opposite of isotropy. In other words, the discovery of dark energy assumes, unjustifiably, that the universe must look the same in all directions. Whilst, the evidence from the CMB tells us that on the largest scale, the universe does not look the same in all directions. Indeed, there is a "very pronounced dipole anisotropy!" We have have the word dipole before, in relation to magnets and electricity. Magnets do not have monopoles they have dipoles, which means they always come with two poles: north and south. So the anisotropy of the universe being a pronounced dipole, means it looks different (is anisotropic) in two directions (dipole)! If the anisotropy was a quadrupole, it would look different in four distinct directions or patterns. Technically, the patterns would be two dipoles, meaning it was different in two directions, and those directions, were themselves different in two more directions, but that's a technicality we gloss over, for simplicity of explanation. This dichotomy of results, one from the Nobel prize winning teams, the other from nature itself is the second problem Sarkar and his team set about resolving. What was the result of their subsequent investigation?

Surprised at the lack of evidence for dark energy after their in-depth analysis of both the data and the final conclusions of the previous authors, the 2016 paper that Sarkar, together with his collaborators, Jeppe Trost Nielsen and Alberto Guffanti published, was entitled: Marginal Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration from Type 1a Supernovae, in reflection of that fact. However, they did not stop at showing that the 1998 discovery of dark matter was questionable, as the results from work on another project came to bear on the question of whether the universe was, or was not isotropic. Hence, in the following year, Sarkar collaborated with fellow astronomers Jacques Colin, Roya Mohayaee and Mohamed Rameez. The purpose and results of that collaboration follows.

2017 - 2019

The impact, from Sarkar's 2016 publication led him to dig deeper as he already had background information from his 2011 paper that the universe was not isotropic. It is to this paper and his collaborators on it, that he now refers, in his last quote, as he says: "So subsequently, we had also been doing other work ... and we had been actually looking at something which is not directly related to the supernovae, but reflects on the underlying assumption of isotropy...." So it occurred, that two different projects happened to have overlap at just the right time, for the term Anisotropy, which was the topic of study, behind the 2011 paper is the exact opposite of Isotropy. In other words, anisotropy means the universe does not look the same in all directions! And Sarkar's 2011 paper, had been based on evidence to that effect! The synergy was already there, as it had been published with two of the same collaborators - Colin and Mohayaee. Thus, the stage was set for them to put all the information together and synthesize it, into one coherent whole.

Let us make sure, we are keeping track of the developments in this 2 decade saga, as the details are important. Upto now, Sarkar has published three papers which are of interest to us: the first in 2010, was about the scale - according to the Concordance Model of the universe - at which the Cosmological Principle should start reflecting, the structures that we actually observe in the universe - and that was from 200 to 300 Megaparsec; secondly, in 2011 he published another paper on a different, but overlapping topic - which would prove essential 6 years later, that paper was entitled Probing the Anisotropic Local Universe and Beyond with SNe 1a Data; thirdly, in a 2016 paper entitled: Marginal Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration from Type 1a Supernovae, he and his team of collaborators, initially tried to validate the findings of two separate studies by two independent group of expert astronomers that were published in 1998, and led to the 2011 Nobel prize in Physics. However, to their "surprise," they learned that, the data used to reach the conclusions was formulated in a way that "was not ... principled," and it was "... not as strong as it should be." It was less than 3 standard deviations, whereas the threshold for scientific discoveries is 5 standard deviations. This led Sarkar and his team to go deeper into the data that was released in 2014 and to reexamine, both the data, the conclusions inferred from it, and the assumptions that any such conclusions were based on. The result of that in-depth analysis, together with some intense independent work of their own on these topics would culminate in a fourth paper of interest to us: the 2017 publication, entitled: High Redshift Radio Galaxies and Divergence from the CMB Dipole.

It is of special interest, that so far, the evidence points to the universe being anisotropic on two of the three scales, that scientists have established for examination: that is, the largest scale, as borne out by the CMB; and the smallest scale, as borne out by human observation on the scale of galaxies and any structures that are smaller; leaving only the middle scale, the scale which spans distances larger than galaxies, but smaller than the universe as a whole - to prove isotropy, as a mechanism for the evolution of the universe. By their own definition, scientists have said set the limits of this scale to start at about a 100 times the distance that exists between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy, our nearest galactic neighbour. Of course, if the standard model of cosmology, as defined by the Concordance Model, does not have a mechanism to explain how the universe came to be, it would mean it has been falsified as the solution, to the question: "How did we get here?" It would have failed as a model of the universe. The discussion continues, with Sarkar explaining how scientists describe why the universe is seemingly anisotropic:

At which point, Hossenfelder asks: "So, that's an assumption that people made at the time?" To which Sarkar answers

Again, we parse out the quote, thought by thought. The first two sentences in the above quote, show an effort from scientists to try and manipulate the observed data to fit with their hypothesis of an isotropic universe. Hence, scientists attribute the cause of the universe to not look the same in all directions to motion on the small - galactic - scale. The reasoning being: "However, these motions are meant to be local, so if you average over a large enough scale, they should disappear, and you should then converge to the frame in which the universe looks isotropic." Interestingly, due to the overwhelming evidence falsifying the 'cosmological principle,' and its claim of isotropy and homogeneity, the original version of the standard model of cosmology, has had to be revised to include empirical evidence, that proves the opposite is true. Hence, the current version admits that, "... the present day universe is inhomogeneous." With that said, due to the fact that anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the universe makes dark energy redundant, scientists still claim that, on certain scales, the universe is indeed isotropic and homogeneous, and this inhomogeneity disappears, with the universe once again looking the same from all locations, and in all directions. Though this view is contrary to any and all empirical evidence and observable data - it remains the dominant view among scientists and forms the foundation of the concordance model: the cosmological principle.

The question then is over how large a scale? How much larger than the galactic scale - where the universe is definitely anisotropic and inhomogeneous - must one go before the universe switches, from not looking the same from all locations and in all directions, to the opposite, looking the same in all directions and from all locations? Scientists say from scales "bigger than a hundred Megaparsec." Sarkar then explains that a Megaparsec is about the distance from our galaxy to the nearest galaxy neighbour - Andromeda. Hence, scientists claim on scales which are a hundred times larger than such distances, the universe stops looking different and starts looking the exact opposite, that is, it starts to look the same in all directions and from all locations

It was this claim that Sarkar and his team wanted to test. So they looked at the anisotropy of galaxies and stars, that were those distances apart, and found that, there was still velocity at those distances, and that the velocity was in the same direction as the CMB dipole. Recall, that the test of the cosmological principle, is that at scales larger than 100 Megaparsec, the local movements of galaxies ceases and converges to the speeds of the rest of the universe. And it is at these speeds that the universe is supposed to look the same - or isotropic and homogeneous. Everything in the universe moves, so the calculation of movement is always relative. Put another way, at over 100 Megaparsec, any local movement within that part of the universe would slow down to the average of the universe as a whole, removing the dipole and establishing the cosmological principle. Was that the result Sarkar and his team found? Quite the contrary. Instead of decreasing velocities above 100 Megaparsec, they found that the supernovae displayed the same velociy for over 260 Megaparsec, in what is known as a bulk flow. Moreover, they found that the effect of bulk flow was even more pronounced - with the velocity of these supernovae being "four times larger!" than the CMB dipole. He adds the detail that his team was not the first to get these results. A radio astronomer by name of Single, was the first to discover that supernovae, in the portion of the sky he studied move at four times the velocity of the CMB. However, he was not taken seriously. A dynamic within the scientific community that we have now become familiar with. Hossenfelder, then asks what the significance of this finding is. Sarkar's reply is part of the next quote from him:

At this point Hossenfelder, interjects and adds: "So, to tie this back together with what you said earlier, it means that this assumption that we're converging to this cosmological rest frame at something like [100] Megaparsec is just wrong?" To which Sarkar answers, "Yes, its definitely beyond 100 Megaparsec. So this is all rather puzzling...." But, that is the conclusion of the last quote. We must start at its beginning, and examine it thought by thought, to see how they arrived at that conclusion. The first thing to acknowledge, is that his team's analysis was technically sound and the panel of scientists who approve papers to be published all agreed on this point. This is also borne out by the "subsequent" results that were attained and published by Perlmutter's group, who was one of the original winners of the 2011 Nobel prize for the discovery of dark energy, also known as vacuum energy. Next, Sarkar answers Hossenfelder's initial question: "So what would it mean if the velocity that you get from that type of measurement is four times larger...?" It would mean Sarkar declares: "... that the CMB dipole is not entirely kinematical in origin." Here, then, there is need for a targeted explanation to add much needed clarity. We need to clarify why the issue of dipoles is even a matter of discussion. What are dipoles? How are they different from monopoles and what does each signify? To understand that, we have to know and understand the full import of the common belief that lies at the foundations of all current scientific models: agnostic materialism! There is no scientific field, from Anthropology to Biology to Zoology that attributes the features and aspects of nature to God. All sciences are unanimous in claiming that all existence is a matter of initial conditions, plus mathematics applied over time. That those two conditions - through evolution: cosmological for the universe; and biological, for life - gave rise to all we see around us. In this model of the universe, evolution is the mechanism that explains how the initial conditions were transformed over vast stretches of time to produce the universe we see before us today. No scientist better encapsulates this view than Robert Jastrow, an astronomer who spent his whole career with NASA, while concurrently serving as a professor at Columbia University:

Agnosticism, is the belief, that the existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known with certainty. Agnosticism, then, can be defined as an attitude of doubt! So while agnostic or atheistic scientists doubt the existence of God, or deny it altogether, they readily espouse a universe which appeared due to the Big Bang and developed through evolutionary forces. Hence, their total and unyielding aversion, for any and all things which could point to creation as the mechanism through which the universe appeared. It is for this reason that an anisotropic universe has huge implications, not only for cosmology, but for physics and indeed, all other sciences. For instance the dipole of the CMB lines up with the ecliptic plane of the earth. The ecliptic plane is the orientation of our solar system, the plane on which it rests: ground zero. In other words the line that divides the universe into two halves is exactly eye-level with the line that cuts all the planets in our solar system and the Sun in half - the equator of our solar system, if you will. The obvious question is, why? The answer scientists give vary, but the central theme among them is that it is an incidental feature of the universe, or its development, and in no way suggests creative intent. The most accepted scientific guess is that, though this is true, it has no significance, as this orientation is a function of our relative movement through space, that is, it is a result of our motion! All things in the cosmos have motion. We remember that from our lesson on Lord Kelvin and the invention of the absolute scale. But to understand how such movement can create a dipole, or section the surrounding environment in to two halves, think of yourself, being dropped in the middle of a large, flat desert. One where you couldn't see the where it ended, even if you turned 360 degrees. It is featureless: there are no trees, no water, no rocks. Everywhere you look, around you, looks the same. However, if you were to start walking you would establish a pattern of a certain direction. For instance, after 100 steps in one direction, you could look back, and notice your footsteps, while if you looked ahead of you, the sand would be footprint free. Thus, although the area behind and in front of you, once looked the same, it now looks different, due to your motion. The fact that one half, now looks different to the other half, is called a dipole. The fact that this difference, was a result of motion is known as kinematic. Putting it together, this kind of difference between two halves is called, a kinematic dipole.

From where you stand, the desert can now be classified into two sections, and that would only be due to your motion. One side, where there are footsteps and another that is footstep free; with the dividing line - the middle - being where you are standing. If your motion were factored out, then the desert would look the same in all directions and whatever location in the desert you were dropped down at, you would see the same flat landscape in all directions. This is the kind of scenario scientists want to paint, when they claim that the anisotropy of the universe, is due to motion. The word, for effects that are due to motion is kinematics - recall that kinetic energy is energy of motion. Hence, we can start to appreciate the significance of Sarkar's empirical evidence. If the dipole of: "the CMB is not kinematic in origin," it means it is STRUCTURAL, in origin. Again we consider our desert. This time we acknowledge that the difference is not due to motion. What would that look like. Consider, sand dunes that end at the ocean, and you as an observer are standing on the beach. Behind you, you have sand, in front, you have water. What is the cause? The cause is not your motion, but the fact that you are standing ont the seashore. All seashores have this same structural reality: water on one side, and land on the other. All seashores have this feature. Water in one direction, and land in the other. And that will be the case, whether the humans on the beach are moving or stationary. As it pertains to the universe, dipoles are established with temperature. If one half of he our surroundings is slightly hotter than the other half, then a dipole has been established. The temperatures involved here are 1 part in a 100 0000 of one kelvin, thus they are measure in micro-kelvins. The illustration scientists like to use is to describe this effect, is someone riding their bicycle. You feel the wind on your face, but not on your back. This creates a dipole with you at the center. Because, you created the dipole due to your motion, it is a kinematic dipole. The faster you move, the more wind you will encounter, so that the amount of wind on your face is proportional to the velocity at which you are moving. This is why the fact that the supernovae were moving at four times the rate of the CMB dipole meant the CMB dipole was "not ... kinematic in origin." If it was, the CMB dipole would have been proportional to the velocities of the supernovae. That is the one impact, of Sarkar's findings. The second like it follows.

In addition to the CMB dipole, not being "kinematic in origin," the second major blow for those who claim the universe is isotropic, was that at scales which were at least 2.6 times larger than they claimed would suffice to produce results confirming isotropy and homogeneity, the universe is found to be anisotropic and inhomogeneous. Recall, that we have already established that the universe is not isotropic on small scales. You can easily test that for yourself by going outside and looking up. Do you see what is beneath your feet above your head? That test applies to planet earth. But if we use telescopes and peer into the darkness of space, we see that the trend holds all the way to the galactic scale.

We have also established that the large-scale of the universe, the CMB, the Celestial Sphere, is Anisotropic. That is confirmation that the universe does not look the sane in all directions! for the cosmic microwave background: "has a very pronounced dipole anisotropy, and this has been known ... since almost the beginning of the discovery, shortly after the discovery of the CMB.*" And it is this very same, CMB dipole, that has now been proven to not be "kinematic in origin." Remember how Sarkar put it:

So, again, as a review, we now understand the universe is not homogeneous at the galactic scale. It is not homogeneous at the CMB scale, which is synonymous with the whole observable universe. And the claim that: "... therefore, the original standard model of cosmology, which assumed exact isotropy and homogeneity has been if you like, improved to take into account that, actually, the present day universe is inhomogeneous. To those two established facts we now add a third, a third intermediate scale. For the statement: 'Yes, it is, but that is only over small scales. If I average over large scales bigger than a hundred Megaparsec ... then, I should arrive at that idealized framework, which is usually the assumed theory,'" has been overturned by Sarkar's latest findings. His results having been confirmed by a team led by Saul Perlmutter, the very Nobel prize winner who claimed to have discovered dark energy, falsify the assumption that the universe is not isotropic at small and universal scales, but is isotropic at scales between those two extremes - at scales larger than 100 Megaparsec. The evidence is consistently of anisotropy. The universe doesn't look the same in all directions at the galactic scale, the universal scale and the intermediate scales between those two extremes, that is, at distances above 100 Megaparsec! In fact, as Sarkar points out, the fact that the universe is claimed to be homogeneous is an assumption, an: "... interpretation [that] is based on a model." Thus, once again, the danger of models rears its ugly head. The claim of "isotropy and homogeneity," are an interpretation, and as the evidence stands, a badly misguided interpretation. As the evidence, points to the opposite reality: the universe shows a "very pronounced dipole anisotropy," on all scales from the largest as borne out by the CMB to the smallest - the galactic scale - to the intermediate: at scales larger than 100 Megaparsec. As comprehensive as that evidence might seem, the lack of contrary data is just as definitive. The evidence for isotropy in the universe is, in fact, non-existent - as we shall soon see!

As Hossenfelder's interview with Sarkar continues, he gives an account of the latest test of the evolutionary theory of the universe, and how the evidence gathered from an analysis of the redshifts of 11 000 galaxies, confirms his, and the Perlmutter team's earlier analysis and discredits the standard model of cosmology. His quote follows, after which we will unpack its content, as has become our established pattern.

According to my research, this study on the Peculiar Velocities, of red-shifted galaxies appears to have been concluded in 2014. But, as of the release, of the interview by Hossenfelder, in March 2020, Sarkar states that this survey still held the record for the largest sample of the night sky. There is a Six Degrees Field Galaxy Study website, found at: 6dfgs.net, that explains their mission and results, for those who are so inclined. As ambitious as the project was, Sarkar, correctly states that it will not be the last word on the subject, as future surveys will aim to refine their results, reducing the error bars - a subject we will touch on, momentarily. He, then goes on to state that this survey of the southern night sky confirmed the results of his own team's work. That is, they confirmed "that our initial assesment, that the flow extends deeper than expected, is, in fact correct." Recall, that the standard model of cosmology, says there is a scale at which the blind forces of cosmological evolution function. And that because, it is the same forces, acting in the same blind way, on the same list of elements, using the same laws, the effects are isotropic and homogeneous. That is, cosmic evolution - at a certain scale - produces the same effects everywhere in the universe: making the universe look the same in all directions (isotropy), and look the same from all locations (homogeneity). That scale, of course, as we have covered, was claimed to start at 100 Megaparsec.

Next, we unpack what Sarkar means when he speaks of "error bars": "Their error bars are a lot smaller...." Error bars in the sciences are used to communicate "how much error is built in to the chart." While they can be used to represent anything the author wants, in the sciences they are used to show variability of data. Thus the smaller the error bars, the more precise the data. It is clear that the data will become more and more precise as the sample of what is being studied gets larger and larger. Hence, this survey having smaller error bars, is due to them having "... measured ... 11 000 galaxies ... the biggest sample to date." What is more important is what Sarkar says next: "Their error bars are a lot smaller and clearly discrepant with the usual expectation, which is the standard model of cosmology...." In other words, their results were the most certain to date, and they were discrepant, or at odds, with the standard model. In what way? The standard model is very basic in its claims. It states that the growth of structure in the universe came "from small fluctuations that we see imprinted on the Cosmic Microwave Background, and this has happened just through gravity, wo you can compute it, using linear perturbation theory." What this says is, at the beginning of the universe it is assumed that some parts of the universe were more dense than others, and through gravity, the denser parts kept being attracted to each other more and more, making them yet denser still. While the less dense parts, gradually grew more and more sparse as the universe continued to expand. Since the force acting on the dense parts was just gravity, and we know the strength of gravity, we can use those initial starting configuration to figure where everything went. And, then, using linear perturbation theory, we can calculate how gravity, over time, shaped and changed those dense regions, making them coalesce into the structures - planets, stars, galaxies etc - that we see today. Scientists claim gravity is not a force, but an effect. Hence, to represent their stance as accurately as possible I phrase their position, as accurately as possible. Those are the assumptions that the standard model of cosmology makes. Those are the assumptions that have now been proven to be in contrast to 3 independent analysis of uncorrupted empirical datasets.

Sarkar's next words raise eyebrows: "The expectation then, is that you do have structures today that have gone non-linear: you get the complexity of the galaxies, the [galaxy]clusters, and the [galaxy]super-clusters and so on. But, when averaged over scales bigger than 100 Megaparsec, or so, you should be able to recover the underlying simple model." That simple statement phrased in two sentences, poses huge problems. How can the existence of the universe, be the function of a model of cosmology whose dynamics are not in line with what produced the majority of the structures we see in the universe? We look at the two sentences, thought-by-thought! Firstly, he describes the structures of the universe, "... that have gone non-linear," such as: galaxies; galaxy clusters and galaxy super-clusters, and "so on." Thereafter, he states that "But when averaged over scales bigger than 100 Megaparsec or so, you should be able to recover the underlying simple model." That means, all those structures he just listed: the galaxies, the galaxy clusters and the galaxy super-clusters, do not fit into or agree with the standard model of cosmology! That is why, only after you have overlooked their existence, by averaging over scales bigger than 100 Megaparsec, "should you be able to recover the underlying simple model." Of course, galaxies and their arrangement into larger and larger groups, such as galaxy clusters and galaxy super-clusters is what constitutes the universe! So if your model cannot explain them, what is left for it to explain? Understanding this makes his earlier statement: "Their error bars are a lot smaller and clearly discrepant with the usual expectation, which is the standard model of cosmology, that the growth of structure is from small fluctuations that we see imprinted on the Cosmic Microwave Background, and this has happened just through gravity, so you can compute it using linear perturbation theory," clear! Now you know why the findings are not in line (discrepant) with the theory. That leads to an unavoidable conclusion about the assumptions of the standard model of cosmology:

The unavoidable conclusion is that all the presumptions of the standard model have to be "questioned" and re-evaluated. As Richard Feynman said,

And again ...

The curious fact, is that when scientists insist on their ideas, even in the face of insurmountable contradictory empirical evidence and easily verifiable observable data, it destroys all their claims of loving and being guided by the founding principles of the endeavour they claim to love and practice with integrity - Science! Science, as Feynman rightly points out, was established as a means to distinguish "crazy ideas" from reality. And yet, when the crazy ideas originate from scientists, they are wont to relinquish it. Makes us remember, all those lovers of Phlogiston theory that spent their dying days fighting for a falsified and obsolete theory. Joseph Priestley died still holding firmly to the idea of a Phlogistonic ether, even though he was the person whose experimental evidence furnished proof of its non-existence - so endeared was he to the theory. Lavoisier heaped the theory of Caloric onto the world and died believing in it, despite the fact that he as a man who had managed to successfully follow the methods of true science, in his past, should have known better. There was never a shred of evidence for the existence of Caloric, and yet that inconvenient truth did not hold him back from wholeheartedly believing in it. Albert A Michelson devised an ingenious experiment to affirm the existence of the luminiferous ether, certain that the test would produce his desired result. It did not! Michelson refused to relent, and died still holding on to the firm belief of the existence of the luminiferous ether. Had he been proven correct, he would have expected others to live with and except the results, when he was proven to be in the wrong, he himself could not accept the results of his definitive experiment. We have spoken about the underlying assumptions of agnosticism and atheism, and thus the necessary and attendant belief in materialism that underlies the whole scientific enterprise. These beliefs are central to the practice of all sciences, though, of course individual scientists are free to hold personal religious views. The most poignant fact, of course, is if scientists would be committed to following the facts to their logical conclusions, there would be progress. Again, Feynman:

Though, I quote Feynman, I could have quoted any number of top scientists, as this fact is one that is commonly acknowledged and expressed by all in the scientific community. Of course, what we say and what we do is not always the same thing. The aversion from scientists to abandon their views, when they prove "discrepant" with the evidence is a function of the materialist view we have hitherto defined. While acknowledging that: "We don't really know why we are flowing at these speeds, why the flow is extending that deep?" They are nonetheless averse to digging deeper into what the evidence is pointing to. Sarkar's last words in our previous quote of his, are "These are issues that we can talk about separately." Later on in the interview, he and Hossenfelder, once again broach the uncomfortable truth and avoid it without shame: "What one makes of this is another matter. That I'm not commenting on here." That makes it clear that although he is aware that what has been tried so far is not working, he is in no way suggesting a non-materialist source as a possible resolution to the puzzle. This is the curse that scientists have placed on themselves and on Science as a mechanism for discovering truth! Our discussion continues with a further analysis of the interview between Hossenfelder and Sarkar,

To explain this portion, we must resolve to a higher resolution between three similar, but technically, very different ideas: Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology. Many people use the terms interchangeably, but they mean very different things.

Astronomy

Astronomy, was the first to be practiced as a science, when men like Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and other studious observers of the heavens who came after them, established astronomy as a science distinct from the unfounded views of astrology. Astronomy is the study of celestial objects and their attendant phenomena, such as eclipses. It studies celestial bodies such as comets, planets, moons, stars and the like. Focusing on their positions, movements, cycles and interactions.

Astrophysics

As the name suggests, Astrophysics merges the study of heavenly bodies with an interest in their physical properties. It seeks to understand how the laws and principles of physics and chemistry shaped the composition, structure and function of heavenly bodies. Thus it is concerned with "the nature of the heavenly bodies, rather than their positions or motions in space - what they are, rather than where they are.... Emissions from these objects are examined across all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the properties examined include luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition."* (Wikipedia keyword search)

Cosmology

Cosmology is different to either of the last two definitions, for firstly, Astronomy and Astrophysics, are classified as sciences. Cosmology is defined as: "A branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe." A second definition is: "A branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe. Also a theory dealing with these matters."* (Merriam-Webster online dictionary) Another definition, this time from Wikipedia lists Cosmology, as: "Cosmology is a branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of the universe.... In the science of astronomy [cosmology] is concerned with the study of the chronology of the universe. Physical cosmology is the study of the observable universe's origin, its large-scale structures and dynamics, and the ultimate fate of the universe, including the laws of science that govern these areas. It is investigated by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time." Those definitions should give you a good understanding for why the data and the assumptions of the model are "discrepant!" Cosmology is a branch of metaphysics! Of course, metaphysics is that most hated of all interests by true scientists. Long, have I given you quotes from Newton and others about the dangers of metaphysics. For one thing, it is not compatible with Physics. Physics is defined as: "The science of matter and energy and of the interactions between the two."* (Wordnik online dictionary) Whilst metaphysics, is defined as: "The branch of philosophy that examines the nature or reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value." And again as: "A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment." Do you see the difficulty? Physics is a branch of Science, metaphysics is branch of philosophy. "A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment." Above, we carefully noted how all in the scientific community agree about how if your theory does not agree with experiment, it must be abandoned. Now, we have come to understand that metaphysics is speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment!" No wonder the assumptions of the Standard Model of Cosmology are not in line with the evidence. That is not a bug, but a key feature of the system! Why would a branch of science Astronomy, have nested within it a branch of non-science Cosmology, that was based on speculations that are unanswerable to science, analysis or experiment? The whole enterprise is aimed, not at getting to the bottom of the nature of celestial phenomena, but of shrouding them in murky, half-brained philosophical speculations that are based "upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment! I cannot emphasize that enough. The speculations are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. That means the speculations are designed in such a way that no scientific observation, analysis, or experiment can prove them right or WRONG. They are unanswerable to such factors. Do you not another word for unanswerable? Immunity! Above the law - if you want a phrase! Unfortunately, the universe seems to be built in such a way that all of it can be answerable to Science, observation, analysis, and experiment. That is what Sarkar and other like him are finding out. When they run experiments, free of the assumptions of the standard model of cosmology, they not only get answers, but they get answers that force the metaphysical non-science of Cosmology to become answerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Having understood the above, we can come to appreciate deeply the meaningfulness of Sarkar's words that: ""

In other the empirical evidence, its uncorrupted analysis, and the logical conclusions derived therefrom "immediately impact on how the data is ... processed in order to draw cosmological conclusions." This then is a watershed moment like when the strict scientific discipline of Tycho Brahe, the last great naked eye astronomer, and his assistant, the brilliant Johannes Kepler created a clear distinction between astrology and astronomy. This immediate impact means Cosmology is moving from the metaphysical and unanswerable to the the physical and answerable! Cosmology is dead! Long live Cosmology!

Traction. We continue ...

Sabine interjects, to ask a question: "So to briefly summarize this. You re-analyzed the supernova data, without this assumption of convergence to the cosmological average at 100 Megaparsec?"

Again, Hossenfelder interjects, to clarify the point. "Okay, so yes, you got the data and actually had to undo the corrections, that had already been done."

This section is very illuminating. Hossenfelder summarizes progress so far, by stating that once Perlmutter's group had released the data and made it available to other scientists, for independent analysis, he and his team had to first undo the corrections. This touches on the point we have covered before, that: "... the statistical analysis that was being done was not what one would call principled, in the sense that it was assuming the model that they were actually meant to be testing." You might have heard the saying: "Most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than enlightenment." Initially, raw data was collected from a survey of a portion of the sky. However, the model you are using usually determines how you interpret the data. Consider Brahe, who had the most accurate astronomical tables of his time, but was misled by the model he believed in, to come to the wrong conclusion. The same can be said of Priestley, Lavoisier, Michelson and many others. The only exception to this rule is if you are using the right model! In this case, all the data is useful and confirmatory. When, this is not the case, people select the data that they think supports their model and discard data that they imagine detracts from it.

Such was the case with the data Sarkar was working with. The original team who used it had been working under the assumption that the standard model of cosmology, with its insistence on the two pillars of the cosmological principle: isotropy and homogeneity, was correct. Thus they made "corrections" to the raw data that would make it reflect such a bias. Effectively, they tailored the data to the theory, instead of testing the theory against the data. A practice, Sarkar referred to, when he very carefully said, "the statistical analysis ... was not what one would call principled, in the sense that it was assuming the model that they were actually meant to be testing." In other words, instead of testing whether their model fit the data, they tweaked the data statistically, to make it fit their model. This practice is outlined intelligently by K Dunnigan,

The "foregone conclusion," is belief in the standard model of cosmology's, cosmological principle, that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. The "unwarranted assumption," is the "unjustified assumption" that the universe converges to a "cosmological average at 100 Megaparsec," and hence, from this scale upwards, the universe must be isotropic and homogeneous. In between are seemingly complex mathematics which most people are afraid to question or interrogate. Hence, both ends of what the mathematically precise line is connecting remain murky to public scrutiny - and that, is how the "speculations that are based "upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment, remain UNANSWERABLE!

We are starting to see the house of cards nature of the relationship between Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology. Hence, Sarkar's words: "Now, all these things that I'm talking about, make one question these presumptions.... They immediately impact on how the data is actually treated or processed in order to draw cosmological conclusions." Now, Cosmology, is supposed to be the output, and not the input of the other two. In other words, you don't first create a model of what you think represents reality and mold the data to fit it, you analyse the data using principled methodology and then make conclusions based on empirical evidence and observable facts. When this was done by Sarkar and his team they found "that the supernova data, the supernova host galaxies also have peculiar velocities. About three-quarters of the ones in the JLA catalogue - there are 740 of them - three-quarters of them are within this bulk flow." What's the significance of this finding? Isotropy assumes that "... if you average over a large enough scale ... you should then converge to the frame in which the universe looks isotropic." That large enough scale is of course, 100 Megaparsec, as we should all be well aware of, by now. The bulk flow contradicts that narrative, because it is more than 260 Megaparsec in length. That is why 75% of the 740 of the supernovae and their host galaxies fall within it! It is just that large!

We now come to the statement about the "heliocentric frame," and having to "... make corrections for the fact that the earth is going around the Sun and all that, but it's the heliocentric frame." This brings the matter under discussion into clearer focus. You might only have a vague idea about why scientists go to so much trouble, to try and prove that the universe looks the same, in all directions and from all locations. In a word, they are trying to prove that Earth is not special in the universe. This thought process is an outgrowth of the corruption of Copernicus' statement that it was the Sun, and not the earth that was at the center of the universe. Of course, what he meant, when he uttered those words in the 16th century, was that the motion of heavenly bodies only makes sense, if the earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. It was those who came after him, who adulterated that principle to mean humans had been demoted from occupying the prime position in the universe, to now occupying a non special, degraded position in the universe. The ultimate expression of this corrupted materialist viewpoint, is that in fact, there is no such thing as the center of the universe, which is the central claim of all who promote that the universe is infinite, and unbounded. Additionally, the natural consequence of there being, no special place in the universe, is that all parts of the universe are equal, i.e., the universe looks the same in all directions and from all locations. In other words, Isotropy and Homogeneity.

Firstly, we have to say that not being at the center does not mean you are not special. As Sarkar explained, "... looking at what is measured in our frame, in the heliocentric frame. Well, obviously, you make corrections for the fact that the earth is going around the Sun and all that, but it's the heliocentric frame." Which brings us to the marketing practices of estate agents. What do they mean when they say finding the perfect home is all about "location, location, location?" If the solar system where a neighbourhood - which is exactly what it is - what address in it, would represent location, location, location? Consider, a scenario of parents, who lovingly buy their child a home in the heart of the best neighbourhood in town, and when their child finds out the address, they complain that their parents don't love them, because the house is not located at the intersection of the busiest roads in that neighbourhood? Again, what do estate agents mean when they say" "Location. Location. Location." Do they mean, in the middle of the busiest intersection? Or, do they mean in the heart of the neighbourhood? In the part of the neighbourhood that is close to the best parks, schools, restaurants and other amenities? That word, "amenity" gives the answer away. It is defined as: "1. The quality of being pleasant or attractive, agreeableness. 2. Something that contributes to physical or material comfort. 3. A feature that increases attractiveness or value, especially of a piece of real estate or a geographic location." With that in mind, what part of our solar system is amenable to human life? What geographic location, is a feature that increases attractiveness or value? Is it to be found inside the sun? Or, out near Pluto? There is only one such feature in our solar system: its called the Habitable Zone, and the earth sits in the heart of it. Location. Location. Location!

Next, let's tackle the issue of what Copernicus thought about how the universe came to be. Are those who promote the so-called Copernican Principle, that the earth is not special, and our position in the universe holds no special significance right? Is that what Copernicus meant when he asserted that the Sun and not the earth was the center of the universe? Was Copernicus, a materialist, who didn't believe in God, or that God created the universe for the benefit of mankind? All the evidence proves quite the contrary! Copernicus was a priest, who had strong confidence that the universe was the product of a caring and loving God, wrought into existence for the benefit of mankind, by a benevolent Father! Below are his beliefs, in his own words. From examples like George Lemaitre - who invented the Big Bang hypothesis, we know that just because someone is a priest, doesn't mean they believe God created the universe. So, first, we consider to whom Copernicus attributed the existence of the universe:

Quite, obviously, Copernicus saw God as the almighty Creator who deserved praise for the existence of the universe. More than that, it was his firm belief that God wanted us to know that he created the universe, so that we could worship him. He asserts, "... surely all this must be a pleasing mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge." That is, our worshipful acknowledgement of God's Creatorship is a better way of being grateful in God's eyes than any ignorance of it. That was Copernicus' position on how the universe came to be: it was as the result of the, "... mighty works of God...." It is not coincidence, that is through his words that we glean the opposite sentiment: why those who do not want to worship God, need to insist on ignorance of his hand in producing the universe, for acknowledging as much, would constitute "an acceptable mode of worship to the Most High!" Having settled that, we turn our attention to trying to understand, what Copernicus' thoughts were about our place in the universe? How did God's mighty works relate to humans?:

In this quote, we find Copernicus expressing his feelings about why, he thought the universe was created. He states that: "... the world-machine established in our behalf by the best and most systematic builder of all...." Firstly, the world-machine does not refer to the planet earth, but to the universe as a whole. In his days, the term 'World,' referred to the universe in its entirety - as any Google search will confirm for you. Hence, he speaks of the "... movement of the world-machine," because as we had noted much earlier in our blog, the ancients regarded the universe as a clock-like mechanism. It is to this image, that Copernicus refers when he speaks of the "world-machine." This is confirmed, even within the quote itself, for at the end, he says: "the minutest details in regard to the sphere." The "sphere," is of course, the Celestial Sphere, that is, the entity, within which the machine of the universe as a whole is housed, as we have previously outlined, in quite extensive detail. Next, we want to consider the exact meaning of the phrase: "in our behalf." The grammarbook.com website defines it as, "In behalf of means 'for the benefit, advantage, or interest of ' in acting as an agent, friend, or benefactor. Another way to think of it is 'as helping' someone or something." To sum up Copernicus' views about the origin and purpose of the universe - the "world-machine" - then, Copernicus believed it was created by God, who was acting as a "benefactor" when he created it "for the benefit, advantage, or interest of," the human race! Lastly, we ask how Copernicus felt about the compatibility of the Bible and Science - which didn't exist as a discipline in his days, by the way? Again, in his own words,

His thoughts are most illuminating! Like all the greatest Scientific minds in history, Copernicus believed that anyone who appreciated the Scriptures and understood mathematics, would not fail to see the compatibility of the one with the other! We see this expressed in negative terms in the above quote. In it, he equates anyone who would oppose his assertions that the world, i.e. universe, was heliocentric, as being ignorant of both the true meaning of the Scriptures and of mathematics! Isn't that interesting? He was not the last to feel that way, though some in later generations tried to adulterate his views away from the pureness with which they were held in his lifetime. Such corruption of his true sentiments, being a craze that gained momentum among the ignorant and misinformed after his death, no less a figure than Galileo rose to the occasion, of coming to his defense:

Galileo, was one who knew intimately, the difficulties of making scientific advancement in the face of an intolerant religious environment that was ignorant on both scientific matters, and the proper understanding of the Bible. Knowing that the message of the Bible was layered, and the words did not always represent what they pointed to, at first impression, he readily admitted that basing your science on what one thought the Bible was saying could lead to errors of judgement: Thus he believed in the same methodology practiced by Copernicus, as quoted above. Conduct your research first, and then, once your scientific premise was verified by experimental evidence, reconcile it with what the Bible says. For Galileo believed the Bible to be both "true and inviolable," a word that means: secure from violation. That is, he believed that when the words of the Bible were understood correctly, they would agree with true science and thus the Bible would never face the danger of being falsified. He argued that the Bible is too "abstruse" to be used as a guide for scientific discovery. Again, the word he used meaning: concealed, or hidden; difficult to understand. Thus he never wanted some supposed understanding of the Bible to lead scientific experimentation. Rather he preferred the opposite, where scientific discoveries could be used to clarify the true meaning of Biblical passages, since a scientific understanding of the universe, based as it is, on understanding mathematics, which he considered to be an exact science, was much more accurate, and left no room for alternate interpretations. We can only imagine, how important this stance was at a time when the Church fathers were burning people at the stake, for claiming to have made scientific discoveries, if those discoveries were thought, to contradict what the Bible was understood to say. All these views find full expression in Galileo's above quoted defense of Copernicus and his methods!

Next, he describes what difficulties scientists face from people who try and use the Bible to argue against, scientific discoveries:

The danger then, of stating scientific discoveries in such an atmosphere become glaringly clear when we consider the last quote. It was just that you would be prone to error, if you used your understanding of the Bible as a scientific guide, its the ominous outcome of being declared "heretical" that gave one pause for thought. Especially when the people who would referee your guilt or innocence were not expert in either the Bible, nor the sciences! The next three quotes, taken in succession, combine to make the point, with the last extraordinary quote being of special interest, as it is the one that ties everything together:

The next quote, then shows how, in his day, such limited people then used their supposed, Biblical qualifications to question and condemn matters of which they didn't have the slightest inkling,

Copernicus expressed the exact same sentiment, in its contrary guise in our second last quote, and here, we have Galileo voicing it in proactive form! If "his doctrine were proved," said Galileo, "then it could not contradict the Scriptures, when they were rightly understood." Put simply, when Science is practiced in a "principled" way as Sarkar rightly pointed out, and the Bible is "rightly understood," or as Copernicus put it when it not "badly distorted to their purpose," then there are no contradictions - EVER. Furthermore, in addition to there being no contradictions, quite the opposite becomes true, as Galileo declares. Under such circumstances, the new scientific discoveries can be used to understand the deeper meaning of the Bible: "On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths." That is, there is compatibility and agreement between Science and the Bible. That, is of course what we would have established by the end of this blog. But before we prove the positively worded expressions of Galileo, we must establish the contrary reality as expressed by Copernicus. Put another way we will falsify the untrue, and verify what is true.

Take special note that Copernicus said they those who take it upon themselves to question his proposals, do so: "... on account of some passage in Scripture, badly distorted to their purpose." That's a subtle, but vital detail. Their twisting of the Scriptures is done to achieve a purpose, not out of ignorance. In like manner the nesting of Astronomy within Metaphysics: two opposing forces, one within the other, in the creation and definition of Cosmology, as "1) a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe; and 2) a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe"* (Merriam-Webster online dictionary), is similarly done with a purpose in mind: to allow "speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

For instance, it is no secret why scientists unanimously push for the universe to be defined as isotropic and homogeneous. If the earth has no special place in the universe, that would mean there is no deep underlying connection between the existence of the universe and the human race. However, if the reverse were true. That is, if the earth were found to be at the center of the universe - after accounting for the heliocentric nature of our solar system, then it would effectively mean the universe was created around us! Up until now, I have not made the significance of this finding clear, as I wanted us to get to grips with and become comfortable, with the foundational scientific facts. So now I give you a synonym, for dipole. In the whole section about isotropy, we have been coming across that word dipole. We are now intimately familiar with the fact that, isotropy is the opposite of the universe having a dipole, at any scale. For instance, the universe has a dipole at its deepest point, that is the CMB, and thus the universe is not isotropic at that scale. Scaling down, our next available scale that has been analyzed are the surveys that have been conducted by two independent groups Perlmutter's and the group in Australia, and Sarkar and his group re-analyzed Perlmutter's data, finding that the universe was not isotropic at scales of 100 Megaparsec. In fact, the bulk flow which has the earth in it extends to more than 260 Megaparsec, therefore the universe is not isotropic on these scales either! Before we get to the smallest scale of the universe, the galactic scale, we must define the synonym of dipole: it is AXIS!

The word "Axis," means a plane, for us on earth it is a plane of existence and observation. For everywhere else in the Cosmos, it means a plane of existence. Here, you must pay more than the usual attention. An axis means a preferred orientation! Put another way it means: A SPECIAL PLACE. We can now consider the dipole/isotropy dynamic when it comes to the smallest cosmological scales of he universe - galaxies. It is clear that our galaxy - the Milky Way - has an axis, since it a disc. And that, all the celestial matter within the Milky Way disc is closely aligned to the central plane of that disc. Thus, as mentioned many times before, galaxies are anisotropic, and inhomogeneous! They have dipoles or axes. You read how Sarkar described, that to his, and his team's great surprise, when they re-examined the "big dataset," without the assumptions that the original team had factored into their analysis, they uncovered a unique property about the supernovae data:

We take the different points in quick succession. "That is almost entirely a dipole," means it has a strong axis. When he says "the universe is accelerating locally," he is referring to the 740 supernovae that comprised the big dataset, and the fact that 75% are within the locally accelerating bulk flow that extends more than 260 Megaparsec across, more than 2.6 times the scale at which the standard model of cosmology says, we should find isotropy instead of an axis! Yet an axis is what was found, hence their surprise! What's more, this axis is aligned to the axis found in the CMB itself. Next, he wants to clarify that finding this "surpris[ing]" result in the analysis of the supernovae in way means that the universe itself, has an axis. Only that: "It means that the sample of supernovae that have been so far observed, if analyzed, without any presumptions: they show this dipole!" That is, an axis! We will get to whether the universe itself has an axis, or merely the structures within it, shortly enough. For now we will be satisfied with the fact that the "deepest point" in the universe the CMB is acknowledged to have a dipole, that is a axis. Next, he refers to,

So averse are scientists to discussing the meaning of a preferred axis in universal structures, that even when they unearth direct evidence for it, they are won't to investigate or offer theories as to the meaning and solution of the data. What has been said, because it can no longer be denied, is that the observable universe - we'll be satisfied with that for now - has an axis at all scales: from the largest (the CMB); to the intermediate (larger than 100 Megaparsec), currently observed to scales of more than 260 Megaparsec; to the smallest - in terms of the universe a whole - the galactic scale. What may not yet be obvious to you is that all these axis are ALIGNED! To put that another way, not only is the earth in a special, preferred place in the universe, but this preference scales up, all the way to the deepest point in the universe - the very edge of the observable universe! Let that sink in. These are the findings of scientists when they rid the data of pre-conceived assumptions: when, as Sarkar puts it: the data is "analyzed, without any presumptions." Knowing the underlying bias that all the sciences, as disciplines, have against God being the Creator of the universe, what name do you think they have given to this surprising axis of specialness? You shouldn't be surprised that it has been dubbed: "the Axis of Evil." With that expression, betraying their attitude towards any significance, such an axis may hold, what do imagine is their level of curiosity, for investigating said axis? Sarkar's unabashed aversion on the matter, should be a good indication - and he is a scientist who is not afraid of digging for the evidence that falsifies dark energy and its discovery - and with them, the cosmological principle. Whenever, the discussion gets to that point Sarkar, always pushes the can down the road: "These are issues that we can talk about separately," he said in one place. In another he strongly asserted, that his intentions with this research did not include that issue, with the statement: "We certainly are not talking about that!" As for Hossenfelder, she does not ask for clarity. If this is how Hossenfelder and Sarkar feel about the subject, one can only imagine how their much more conformist colleagues feel? It shouldn't be a stretch, to guess that many of their colleagues feel the same dread in discussing the matter. Look at the following candid admission I came across in a science-based question and answer forum. The question was about the nature of the "Axis of Evil," and below I include two of the replies:

When the axis was discovered, it had a low level of certainty, and scientists were hopeful that it was a statistical anomaly, that would go away in subsequent data gathering exercises that used more precise equipment! Hence, the optimism of this science enthusiast, as listed in August, 2011. Two years later, more data had come in, and the existence, or non-existence of the so-called "Axis of Evil" could finally, be put to bed. A user of the forum, named Rick DeLano, posted an update in April of 2013:

There you have it. Two reasonable questions arise: 1) why would the existence of an Axis present a "very big problem ... for the standard (LCDM/inflation) cosmological consensus?" and 2) Why would such a "fact" be "...assiduously avoided?"* (Rick DeLano).

The answer is very simple! Remember, how the early scientists first discovered the laws of nature? They used extensive tables of data that was collected by themselves, as was the case with Tycho Brahe; or by others, as was the case with Johannes Kepler - using Tycho Brahe's extensive and accurate charts - to establish the hidden relationships between the entities they were studying. Once they understood the correlations, they could formalize equations that described the relationships. These mathematical descriptions of the hidden relationships is what we call the laws of nature. Our task is much simpler, but based on the same technique! We skip the mathematical formulations altogether, and concentrate on understanding the relationships between entities. What makes our task even easier, is that we don't even have to ascertain any hidden relationships. The relationships are claimed. All we have to do is analyze the claims in the face of abundant empirical evidence and observational data to verify if the claims stand or are falsified by the facts!

We start by defining the components of the current Standard Model of Cosmology, what DeLano referred to as the "standard cosmological consensus" - LCDM/Inflation. What do these terms mean, and how do they relate to each other? Firstly, we state that all just stated concepts are equal. Scientists express these principle ideas in many different ways, but they all reference the same ideology. The standard model of cosmology is LCDM, and LCDM is predicated on the Inflationary theory. Let's unpack the information.

The standard model of cosmology, states that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous due to the cosmological constant, of Einstein fame. What he is reported to have called the "greatest mistake of my life." The cosmological constant is supposed to be an all pervasive force equivalent in function to negative gravity. We say that because its supposed function is the opposite of gravity, in that it is supposed to push the universe apart, driving the expansion of the universe. It has the symbol 'A,' is named after the Greek letter, lambda and is synonymous with dark energy, which in turn, is also known as vacuum energy, the force which scientists claim makes up more than 70% of the universe. Everything we have just defined, finds equal, if alternate expression in the term LCDM. In this configuration, L stands for 'Lambda.' CDM stands for 'Cold Dark Matter,' which the standard model of cosmology says accounts for roughly 26% of the energy in the universe. How do both these expressions relate to Inflation? Inflation, is the belief that the universe is expanding, and has been doing so since the Big Bang. Closely related to Lambda/the cosmological constant, is the Hubble constant, which represents the rate at which the universe expands. So the cosmological constant is the negative energy term that supposedly drives the expansion of the universe. While the Hubble constant is the rate at which such an expansion is taking place. Dark energy, aka the cosmological constant or Lambda, is supposed to possess a constant energy density, that is, it does not dilute with the expansion of the universe. That means over time it will get stronger and stronger in relation to the other constituents of the universe, like dark matter, normal baryonic matter and gravity. That's because, as space expands, it expands, but all other factors dilute with the expansion of space - according to this model - but dark energy does not, meaning there is more and more of it, over time, but since, it stays at the same strength, it comes to dominate all the other entities that dilute over the same period. In other words if this negative repulsive force exists, it will continue to drive the expansion of the universe at faster and faster rates over time. This will have the knock on effect of accelerating the Hubble constant, so that the rate of universal expansion increases with time. Lastly, we want to wrap all these definitions up by tying a neat bow of understanding on them. The effect of the cosmological constant, also known as lambda and dark energy; the effect of the Hubble rate of expansion in the universe, which results in inflation, is a Monopole! Mono, means one and is the opposite effect to a dipole. Let's put that another way, so as to remove any kernels of confusion that might exist in our minds. These concepts produce a monopole, that is no axis, because in such a scenario the universe would be isotropic and homogeneous. Remember electrical charges, and how they can exist by themselves - as monopoles - unlike like magnets which always come in pairs of poles: north and south. What did the field lines for a solitary electrical charge - a monopole look like? Just like they radiated out in all directions equally, in all directions, our perspective, looks the same in all directions. What would happen, if you moved a monopole electric charge to another location in the universe? As long as there were no other charges in its vicinity, its field lines, would look the same, and so it is with what we would see if we were moved to another location within the universe: we would see the same pattern regardless of our location - homogeneity. If you recall, they extended out radially in all directions. That should help you to connect the meaning of a monopole to the effect of things looking the same in all directions. Applied to the universe, and how it looks, if the effect of cosmic evolutionary expansion is a monopole, it means the universe looks the same in all directions and looks the same from all locations, that is, it is isotropic and homogeneous. Those are the relationships, now to cross-analyze the theory of the standard model of cosmology against the DATA! Remembering, that always but always, we hold the following principle foremost in mind:

What then are the results of the cosmological experiments that collected vast amounts of data? What conclusions were reached once the data was analyzed, properly analyzed through principled methodologies that were not: "assuming the model that they were actually meant to be testing?" You already know the answer, as we have already covered this territory in minute detail. We will continue to review Sarkar's answers, as we continue our discussion. What we want to do now, is see if indeed, they overturn the above theory of the standard model of cosmology. In previous paragraphs, we have already established what the data, properly analyzed says about the orientation of the supernova dataset, as to whether it forms a monopole, and the implications of what that would mean versus, whether or not it forms a dipole, and similarly: what that would mean about the universe? The conclusion of Sarkar's analysis was:

We take each development in turn. We take the first three sentences together, for they form one coherent thought, with the following elements: a conclusion; the evidence used for the reaching the conclusion; and the reasoning that links the evidence to the conclusion through direct inference. The conclusion is stated twice for emphasis: "that is was almost a dipole! " And, "... if analyzed, without any presumptions: they show this dipole! " We move to the second component. On what was this conclusion based? What entities, is it that when "analyzed, without any presumptions ... show this dipole? It is the supernovae. So the evidence from which any inferences can be drawn are the actual structures that make up the universe itself - the supernovae and their host galaxies. Remember, "everything we know about the universe, we have learnt through light!" Which leads us to the last factor, in our initial coherent thought: how did we draw the inference that, "... it is almost a dipole?" Recall these words from Feynman,

If you are paying keen attention, you would have noted that Feynman ushered this thought more than once, and in the two instances, he expressed the same thought, by changed in his wording slightly. In one instance he says: "If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong." In another he says: "If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong." The point is science is not based on hunches or intuition. Science is based on nullifying or validating our guesses based on experiment. Once the experiment has been conducted, what we have is no longer a guess, but "experience," since, we have confirmed reality through observation! Hence, Feynman equates experiment with experience , using them synonymously. So what experience did this experiment give the team analyzing the data? "We are talking about what we actually observe, and what we infer from that. It means that the sample of supernovae that have been so far observed, if analyzed, without any presumptions: they show this dipole...!" To "infer," means to draw conclusions based on evidence. So, unlike the assertion of a monopole, meaning the universe is isotropic, the conclusion that from "what we actually observe" we can infer a "dipole," means the observable universe is a dipole, that is it has an axis and does not look the same in all directions!

Time to consider another great Feynman quote, to help guide our scientific thinking and methodology:

Let us put this quote forefront, in our minds as we consider what Sarkar and his team next do. As soon as they came to an evidence-based conclusion, they realized they had to reconcile their experimentally based findings with the assumptions of the standard model of cosmology, which state that the result should have been a monopole! Sarkar's team, could not, but address this discrepancy. Hence, they immediately: "... of course, pointed out that the monopole in the acceleration, that is to say, the isotropic component was ... zero." Like Aristotle, who errorneously attributed to an ether dynamics that it did not possess. He did so when, in formulating the equations of electromagnetic waves, ascribed to the ether properties that in reality belonged to electromagnetic waves themselves. With what results? Whenever, scientists apply variables that are non-existent to an entity, the evidence will always give a null result! Stating this another way, if you input non-existent factors into your theory, by attributing functions and their effects incorrectly, the evidence will always output a null result. This is nature's way of telling you your assumed variable doesn't actually exist. It's nature way of voiding your theory and showing you the function, whose effects can be observed has been attributed to the WRONG FACTOR! This reality is neatly summarized in Sarkar's next words:

The point is clear! If the observed effect were ascribed to a "cosmological constant, interpreted as a vacuum energy, it would have to isotropic." That is, the cosmological constant, which we know is the same thing as vacuum energy or dark energy or lambda, it would produce an "isotropic" effect. Why? because those the proposed dark energy can be calculated over time mathematically, and since it would, by definition be a blind force it would produce linear results over time, creating an outcome that looked that same in all directions and from every location: i.e. an isotropic and homogeneous universe. What does the fact that this misunderstanding of how nature functions has been wrongly presumed and inserted into the equations in an unprincipled manner produce? A null result for the assumptions, or as Sarkar puts it: "So, in other words, the evidence for an isotropic acceleration is NON-EXISTENT! " Interesting, isn't it - null results are the function of non-existent factors!

Next, Sarkar feels the need to clarify why these kind of errors enter scientific disciplines which are supposed to be based on empirical evidence:

To which, Hossenfelder replies:

Clearly motivated to make a "distinction," between fantasy and reality, Sarkar states that "... the interpretation of this [the bulk flow acceleration] as [being] due to a cosmological constant ... is simply based measuring observables ... and then interpreting this [the bulk flow acceleration], as [being] due to vacuum energy...." In other words, this takes us back to his original words:

This is what Sarkar meant, when he said "... the statistical analysis that was being done was not what one would call principled, in the sense that it was assuming the model that they were actually meant to be testing.... So our first step was to use a principled statistical method." Put another way instead of testing their theory, the initial group who obtained the data of "measurable observables," then interpreted them as being the product of vacuum energy, when we know, as has since been proven, that no such energy exists. As he says emphatically, three quotes back: "This is not what is written in the sky. these are all interpretations. So, we are trying to make a clear distinction between what is measured, and the interpretation!" That distinction is reflected in Hossenfelder's statement of confirmation to him: "So the result of your analysis is, basically, that you don't need dark energy to explain the observations that come from supernova." How did the other scientists get it wrong, when they had the data? They chose their assumptions over the data! You think that's harsh? I'm not the one who pointed it out. Sarkar, their fellow scientist did so earlier:

Did you catch that? There is a BINARY relationship between the assumption, and the evidence. By now, we are very familiar with binary realities: it means for one to exist the other must not. And that was the relationship between dropping the "assumption that it's isotropic on the sky," and taking "... that into account." With the result that when the scientists looked "... for a direction dependence ... we found to our great surprise, that it is almost entirely a dipole." Both set of scientists had the same data. The difference, is one group overrode the data with unfounded presumptions, thus effectively "assuming the model that they were actually meant to be testing!" Let that sink in. For, to create such results, it was not sufficient to just add the layer of assumptions. No, much more was needed. Those assumptions, had to be inserted into the data and that came with manipulation of the data to fit those ends. Hence, for a proper analysis to take place, the database had to be rid of "the corrections that had been made for peculiar velocities, because we found them to have been done ... in an inconsistent manner: in fact, UN-PHYSICAL." As Hossenfelder stated: "Okay, so yes, you got the data and actually had to undo the corrections, that had already been done." The truth is, there is no difference between "corrections" done under unfounded, unwarranted assumptions and falsifying data. How otherwise can you have a matrix with "un-physical" large negative terms in the off-diagonal elements. Matrices are a way of plotting physical positions in space, how do you attain un-physical elements in a plot of physical positions in space, unless the data is manipulated? The verdict of the analysis, is that the data show the observable universe is dipolar, and this axis is not a property of motion. Hence since there is no monopole, no isotropy, "... basically ... you don't need dark energy to explain the observations that come from the supernova," as powerfully summed up by Hossenfelder.

Sarkar, is walking on egg shells throughout this interview, because although he is determined to present the evidence in as truthful and unfiltered a way as his findings dictate, he still does not want to stand afoul of anyone. This comes out repeatedly in his statements about his colleagues. So when he goes on to define un-physical, in technical terms using a matrix - which describes positions in space - it is a stern, but limited rebuke. Many of is fellow scientists will appreciate the full import of his statement, but most of the general public will not: it translates to UNREAL, i.e. fantasy! In their zeal to generate an isotropic property for the universe and hence a monopole that made all places equal and none special, they had to conduct their science in "... an inconsistent manner." Sarkar's team found "that [they were] not quite satisfied that it had been done in an appropriate manner." You can sense his great discomfort at having to disparage his colleagues. Nevertheless, there is no way to present results that are completely opposite to the original ones without having to account for the unprincipled manner in which the original analysis was carried out.

With the case for dark energy, so clearly defeated, Hossenfelder asks the next logical question: "So what's with all the other evidence for dark energy that people are so proud of?" *(@ 24:17)

In other words, it's a dog chasing its tail - the very definition of circular reasoning. The assumptions of the experiments are based on the model being correct! And the model not being falsified, is due to experiments which assume it is correct!

Isotropy's Second Line of Evidence - Distribution of Matter in the Universe

New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology

In this video, Hossenfelder only mentions some of the structures that fit this bill. A more comprehensive list is available at Wikipedia. The picture these discoveries, this empirical evidence, this observable data, paints is obvious. The cosmological principle is not the mechanism, that is responsible for the development of the universe we see around us. Realizing the very clear implications of the situation, Hossenfelder, asks some straightforward question, and, as is her commendable style, gives some forthright answers:

This, has the feeling, of the days when Phlogiston theory, was nearing its end. Many top scientists still clung on to it, but the evidence against it was accumulating at a faster and faster pace, and most startlingly - there was suddenly, no evidence to support it! This is a telling dynamic, in the progress of all human knowledge. First, there are long periods, when both sides in a debate, say the heliocentric versus the geocentric solar model debate, when each side seems to have a case for how the evidence supports them. However, as the debate matures, we notice an interesting development: all the evidence suddenly seems to support one side - and only one side! What is happening? It is not, that the evidence changed sides. The evidence, was always, only on one side. What is developing, as the debate matures, is the accumulation of evidence, that allows us to resolve the paradox around which the debate was being fought. The debate seemed to equal, initially only because the was a lack of evidence and therefore, no way to settle matters. When that evidence emerges, that contrary side seems to be losing steam, when the hard truth is, it never had any steam to begin with!

Of particular interest, regarding the cosmological principle, is that there is no scale at which it is a good assumption for the reality we see in the universe. And it is this property, that is the central feature of all idolatry. It is a horrible predictor for what we see on the small scales of the universe. The galaxies, look nothing like what the cosmological principle says they should. They are certainly not isotropic and homogeneous at any level. It is a horrible guide for what we should expect at the smaller intermediate scales of the universe, that is, larger than galaxies but smaller than 100 Megaparsec. At such scales we see bulk flows that extend far beyond 100 Megaparsec, with the one our solar system finds itself in extending more 2.6 that distance to over 260 Megaparsec. It is a horrible fit on what we will call larger intermediate scales that are larger than 100 Megaparsec, where we see large structures that routinely span more than 306 Megaparsec, which is equal to 1 billion light-years. With the largest such structure, currently on record measuring 4 billion light-years, or 1 226 Megaparsec! Additionally, at the largest, known scale of the universe, the so-called limit of the observable universe, the CMB, the cosmological principle of isotropy and homogeneity, is once again defeated by the evidence, for the CMB is anisotropic. Furthermore, this axis in the CMB is not kinematic in origin, but structural. Another way to say that, is that, the axis of the CMB forms part of its architecture. Lastly, the dipoles that we see at each of the scales that we have just reviewed are all aligned! And that alignment is in line with the ecliptic of our solar system. Let me repeat that: the axes that have been proven to exist at each scale of the universe are all aligned with the axis of our solar system! As disturbing as that is, for some who are hellbent on the earth, not having a special location in the universe, that is not the most damaging part, of the blind, evidence-free belief in the cosmological principle and its resultant Ether, of dark energy. Without doubt, what follows next is a glaring failing of the Nobel laureates and their teams, regarding their analysis of the data, and subsequent claims to have found evidence for an accelerated rate, to the expansion of the universe.

Orienting Our Perspective(S)!

To understand it clearly, we need an analogy. One that involves speed, and the declining of speed over time. So, we will look to the world of sports, and in particular, sports where the athlete was known for unusual speed and over time, the world saw a marked decline in his or her ability to show that speed. Since, what we are looking for is a sport where the athlete shows a marked slowing down of speed over time, the example we choose will be determined more by the athlete, than the sport. Our defined criteria, is more suited to the life and boxing career of Muhammad Ali (17 January 1942 - 3 June 2016), than to any other human being. Muhammad Ali, was by all accounts a most gifted athlete, who oozed extraordinary abilities out of every pore. He was struck with a neurological disease toward the end of his career and this caused a very marked and public decline in those abilities, in a short period of time. Such decline continued after his retirement from the sport of boxing, and again, it was public, for Ali, unlike any other athlete before, or since had transcended the world of sport and had become a bona fide star!

Let us now consider, the birth and maturing of one of his grandchildren. At first the child would just know Ali as grandpa. But as he grew older and older he would come to learn how famous grandpa was and why. For the purpose of our analogy, let us say that he learns of Ali's career in reverse. That is, he watches Ali's last fights first, and traces his history all the way back, to its beginnings when he fought Sonny Liston and further still, to when he won gold at the 1960 Summer Olympics. It is obvious, to one and all, that as Ali's grandchild peers ever farther back into Ali's career, he will witness his grandfather's abilities getting ever faster. At this point, it should be, becoming clear why we have chosen this example: it is EXACTLY, analogous to how scientists, all scientists - including our 2011 Nobel laureates, find out about the history of the universe: it is gradual and in reverse. You may have often heard, the refrain that as scientists peer farther and farther into space, they are "looking" farther and farther back into history. That is why both narratives are the same dynamically. Now, as Ali's grandchild keeps looking further and further back into his career, would he ever make the mistake of confusing the historical account with the everyday reality of his now frail grandfather? The obvious answer, is no - no one would ever confuse the career of Ali, which goes backwards, in history, with his actual life, that moves forward, in time! The child would never make the mistake of concluding that granddad was getting faster and faster. Yet, this simple error, is what all scientists, who claim the universe, is accelerating faster and faster as they peer deeper and deeper into its history, are making! The point was made succinctly by a member of an online science forum. He asked:

How did such a basic principle go unnoticed, in the midst of hundreds of scientists and experts working with the data and analysis? It takes us to the words of Allan Savory, an Ecologist working in Southern Africa,

It is patently obvious from the data that the universe has expanded over time. It was an initial size sometime in its history, but later grew to the dimensions it has today. What is not true, is the academic reading of the data. The correct, non-academic understanding of the history of the universe, as borne out by empirical evidence and observable data, is that the universe was much smaller in its initial stages, then it underwent a radial increase in its dimensions, that is, an equal increase in its volume outward, in every direction. This increase in size was first fast - as evidence by the fact that the stars in the deeper parts of the universe, and hence farther back in its history, are seen to be moving faster than the ones which are closer and who are thus closer in time to us in universal history. Thereafter, in subsequent stages of its development, the universe newer galaxies moved at a slower velocity, as the universe again grew in size, until today the universe exists, both, in a rest frame, and at critical density, meaning, it now has static proportions, and its only movements are relative movements in line with the normal local dynamics of its internal structures, such as solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters and galaxy super-clusters as they undergo their cycles. At no scale of the universe do we see isotropic or homogeneous patterns. Quite the contrary, as a scientist Justin Myles, from Fermilab's Dark Energy Survey put it: "Galaxy clustering, its sort of just a name for the fact that galaxies, they aren't distributed sort of uniformly randomly in space. They exist in a Web. And that's why we observe, we observe this web."* (Exploring 7 Billion Light Years of Space with the Dark Energy Survey - From 3:21 - 3:32) Now you know WHY, matter in the universe, doesn't come in isotropic patterns, according to the cosmological principle. It is because, matter is distributed around a structure that has nothing to do with the cosmological principle: a structure, we will soon learn more about. We have covered two of the three components of the concordance model: supernova redshift; and distribution of matter in the universe. Next, comes understanding an important aspect of the CMB, which will allow us to test the second of the pillars of the cosmological constant - homogeneity.

Homogeneity

Homogeneity, is defined as being able to go anywhere in the universe and seeing - on average - the same structures, no matter what direction you look! Let us see how that claim squares up with the evidence.

The Properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background

The Cosmic Microwave Background, is also known as the Celestial Sphere, and with good reason - it is! Many, read or hear that the CMB is the oldest light in the universe, and gloss over the statement, without taking the time to properly understand its significance. For one thing, the light of the CMB is different to all other types of light - for it is a PERFECT BLACKBODY! You will only come to appreciate the full significance of that, as our blog nears its conclusion. For now, let us dig deeper into, what the blackbody property of the CMB, tells us about its true nature. In the linked article from Forbes, entitled: This is How We Know the Cosmic Microwave Background Comes from the Big Bang, (It does not. I will deal with that in due time.) the writer - a Ph.D. astrophysicist - named Ethan Siegel, goes into some detail, to show that the CMB, as a blackbody, could not have originated from a star, hence: it is not a form of starlight.

His statement could be a little confusing, because he seems to be referring to multiple blackbodies. There is not material which is a blackbody, for such a substance would constitute a perfect, ideal material, capable of absorbing and emitting all frequencies of light! The material which is the closest to being a blackbody is graphite, for it also displays a spectrum which is very close to a blackbody spectrum. The sun's spectrum is also reasonably close to approximating a blackbody spectrum. For these reasons such substances, are casually referred to as blackbodies, under everyday conditions. However, technically they are very far from being a perfect blackbody. The only perfect blackbody spectrum that has ever been observed, is that belonging to the CMB. Since all stars have spectra that only roughly approximate, a blackbody spectrum, it is impossible that the CMB is starlight. As Siegel, continues with his article, he next goes through a laundry list of theories that have been suggested over the years, as to what the CMB IS, and the identity of its source of origin:

This last quote, contains many important points, so we will unpack it carefully. We've already dealt with what it is not, now we focus on what type of objects cannot emit it. Siegel's list includes atoms and molecules. As stated earlier, no material on earth can produce a perfect blackbody spectrum. When material substances, do emit thermal radiation, we know it is the atoms or molecules that compose them that are emitting the radiation, hence since no material is a blackbody, it goes without question, that no atoms or molecules can produce the blackbody spectrum of the CMB, for that is what would be responsible for thermal emission in a material. The conclusion is a given, by definition.

Seigel's next points must be taken as a two part block, as he writes of where it cannot originate from: not the Earth, earth's atmosphere, the solar system, or the galaxy. It doesn't diffuse out from point sources, or originate from the nebulous environs, where the earliest stars are located. The reason it cannot originate from nearby sources is reflected in the name of the Cosmic Microwave Background, namely it is background radiation. Remember, how to calculate parallax, you needed background stars, the CMB is in the background in exactly the same way, hence it cannot be confused with the foreground, and it cosmological terms, the earth, the atmosphere, the solar system, and our galaxy comprise the foreground. More informative, is the second part of this section: "It doesn't diffuse out from point sources...." Now a point source is a "single identifiable localized source of something."*Wikipedia The phrase, "It doesn't diffuse from a point source," is thus analogous to, it doesn't radiate out from one location in the universe. This is a critical point in coming to understand the CMB. Think of starlight, which originates from a point source, and radiates out in all directions. Now imagine, the opposite: light coming in from all directions to one point source: we are that point source, and the CMB is a powerful blackbody radiation that comes to the earth from all directions in the sky - night and day!

Lastly, we deal with, "It doesn't ... originate from nebulous environs where the earliest stars are located. This is background radiation...." We know that galaxies, were originally, just thought to be vast dust clouds called nebular. The term has stuck around, many stars are found in dusty environments. Where would the "nebulous environs where the earliest stars are located," be found? That just means, when we look through our telescopes, the stars that are the most distant from us. We remember that the farther back we look, into the universe, the farther back in time we are peering. Remember Ali's grandchild. Therefore, no matter how far back, we manage to look, there in the background of the stars is the ... CMB! Recall, how Sarkar, called it the "deepest point in the universe." Now according to the Standard Model of Big Bang Cosmology, the first structures to form in the universe, after the big bang were stars! Planets, moons, humans and everything else is supposed to be a product of debris from stellar explosions. Have you never heard the saying, "you are made of starlight?" That is its the origin. Hence, they reason: if we have a light that has been definitively established to not be starlight, and that exists in the background of all stars, and stars were the first entities to exist after the big bang, then this background radiation must have been produced by the Big Bang. And this is exactly, Siegel's conclusion: "This background of radiation, more perfectly a blackbody in its spectrum than anything else in the Universe, must have its origin in a hot, dense state that existed billions of years ago." We will correct that illogic, shortly. For now, we focus on what's important to us: we now have a mental shape of what the CMB - the Celestial Sphere looks like. It is a sphere, all around the earth - and indeed, the whole observable universe - which is equidistance from us, in all directions. In other words, it has the earth's solar system, as its center! And, not only is our solar system at its center, the CMB as a whole, has an axis, and that axis is aligned with the axis, or plane of our solar system. Humans are at the center of the Celestial Sphere!

But before you get excited, thinking you're special, scientists have a wake up call for you: you are not special - after all, the universe looks the same in all directions, and from all locations. What does that mean? What does it actually mean? It means, any supposed alien life form, in any and all, far far away corners of the universe sees the exact same thing, and thinks: they too are at the center of the universe - that they too, are special! The Cosmological Principle, sure can be a downer. Of course, we have already established that Isotropy is false: there is no scale at which the universe is isotropic - at which, it looks the same in all directions. Now we only have to use the empirical evidence mankind has painstakenly gathered over many years to test what is true. Remember, these delightful words:

First, we will illustrate what we have so far come to know and understand about the Cosmic Microwave Background, in terms of its shape, size and position in the universe into a 3-D model. Then, we will incorporate two different perspectives, into a second model, that will allow us to compare what each of the two perspectives sees. In modelling the universe, due to the scale we are working with - the whole observable universe - we will not include actual galaxy images. Instead, we will represent galaxies, with individual stars. And, our solar system will just be represented by a model of the earth for simplification. The second perspective, will also be represented by an earth-like exoplanet, but one that is smaller in size, for easy reference, to differentiate between our planet and the exoplanet. Lastly, the Cosmic Microwave Background, has been made semi-transparent, so that you can see into it. Basically, this is the view we would get if we we looking at the universe, from the outside. The scientists have guessed. Below, 12, "computes the consequences." Illustration 13, below it, "compares the consequences to experience." Lastly, after our interactive demonstration, we will have a firm foundation to come to a definitive, logical conclusion.

Below, we have the universe arranged according to the assumptions of the Cosmological Principle, which proposes that the universe is homogeneous. That just simply means no matter where we are in the universe, we will see the same patterns. Essentially, that no location in the universe, is special. All vantage points have the same view. With regards to the Cosmic Microwave Background, it means, no matter where we are in the universe, we will see ourselves as being at the center of the CMB. Below, we test this theory, by having two planets, and comparing the logical inconsistencies of them both having the same views. To falsify the theory of homogeneity, we will assume it is true and prove it to be false, by examining the contradictions that would result, if it were true! The set up, uses our planet as ground zero. Our planet is the bigger of the two planets, for easy reference and differentiation - the planet at the center of the red wire mesh sphere. The red wire mesh sphere, represents our CMB. It's red so that there is no confusion between it and the CMB of the second planet, on the right. As per the illustration above, if your zoom into our planet, you will notice stars surrounding our planet earth, with all the stars falling within our red wiremesh CMB, as per the undisputed, empirical evidence gathered over many years, from electromagnetic telescopes. To the right of our home planet, toward the very edge of our observable universe, that is, falling just inside our CMB, is an exoplanet, that we have given the same look as earth, only it's smaller - for easy identification. According to homogeneity, anyone on exoplanet has the same view of the universe, that we do. Hence they also see, and measure themselves as being at the center of the CMB. We have represented this with the actual image of the CMB. Lastly, in this scenario, earth is also at the very edge of the exoplanets observable universe - falling just within the CMB, that they are at the center of. For the moment, we overlook the fact that there can't be multiple CMB's, and follow the homogeneous scenario to its illogical self-contradictory end!

Of course, we all recognize that the CMB is the oldest light in the universe. We all acknowledge that, that is why, it is defined as background radiation, hence there are no stars outside it - by definition! For the deeper into space that we peer, the farther back in time we seeing. That being the case, carefully note, that all the stars fall within the CMB, there are no rogue stars, beyond its boundary - as per the evidence! Now, as we zoom in, you will notice that the scene is aligned in such a way that, the zoom control takes you to just left of earth - to just inside the CMB. Empirical evidence, tells us there are no stars that are deeper in space than the location of the CMB. Put another way, there are no stars that lie outside, or beyond, the CMB. Thus, according to homogeneity, and the cosmological principle, there should be no stars to the left of planet earth: outside the exoplanet's CMB, outside it's Celestial Sphere! Once again, please familiarize yourself with the mechanics of he illustration: zoom in and out; rotate to the right and left, up and down etc ... until you feel comfortable with what is represented, and you have oriented yourself so as to have a clear understanding of all the moving parts and what they represent. Carefully, reread the explanation, if you need more clarity.

According to the cosmological principle, if homogeneity is true, then a full hemisphere of outer space will be devoid of stars when viewed from earth. Of course, this is not what experience shows us. No matter what direction, we point our telescopes in, toward the night sky, we galaxies and galaxies of stars! Stated differently, there is no direction of the sky that we can point telescopes in and not see umpteen numbers of galaxies, billions and billions of them. Before we state the obvious, inescapable conclusion, we once again recall the delightful words, this time, through a more comprehensive version of the quote:

What, then, is our conclusion. The scientists guessed: guessing that the universe is homogeneous, without a shred of evidence. We have "computed the consequences," through our two illustrations for purposes of demonstration. And, lastly, we have "compared the consequences to experience ..." and indeed the guess "disagrees with experience," which means it is WRONG!

We have previously established that the universe has proven to Anisotropic at all scales. Stated alternately, the universe is not isotropic - at any scale. Now, we have seen, that in addition to the universe not being isotropic, it is also not homogeneous. The universe, does indeed, have a center, and that center is planet earth - taking into account the heliocentric frame, of course! The anisotropy and inhomogeneity, of the universe, means the cosmological principle is dead, having had all of its different aspects, individually falsified.

Homogeneity, is the second and final major arm of the Cosmological Principle. Again, to restate the claim, homogeneity is the assertion that an observer could go to any point in the universe, and - on average - they would see the same patterns in all directions. Isotropy is about sameness regardless of what direction we look into. Homogeneity, is about sameness regardless of what location, we look from. These assumptions were made about a hundred years ago - just after Hubble's discovery - at a time when there was no data, no firm evidence about the true structure of the universe. The Cosmological Principle, was founded on a further assumption that the universe was infinite! This, would be prove to be a grave error, as it is easily proven to be demonstrably false, once there is empirical evidence. What is that evidence? What is the definitive evidence that constitutes the last word on the matter? The CMB. If you understand what the observable data is telling us about how the universe is constituted, you will appreciate that in the universe, star systems are a central, around which other celestial bodies are stationed. Our location within the Milky Way is defined as a Solar System, precisely, because it depends on the central mass of the Sun, for stability and function. As such, all the matter in the universe is contained around stars and within star systems. Hence, when we say that the CMB, is the a background radiation, that lies beyond all stars, star systems and galaxies, when we say, as Sarkar said, that it is: "... the deepest point in the universe," we should simultaneously, realize that, that means: there is no matter outside the CMB. Put another way: everything that exists is to be found INSIDE THE CMB! If you understand that, then you realize that the CMB, the deepest point in the observable universe IS ALSO the deepest point in the un the universe, as a whole. For the term the universe is defined as all that exists. Since, homogeneity requires an infinite universe, and the existence of the CMB means the universe is finite, then by definition homogeneity is a false assumption, founded on false assumptions, for which there was never any evidence.

Before we leave the section on the CMB altogether, I would ask you to put these last words of Ethan Siegel, from his Forbes article at the back of your mind, for we will have use for them later:

I ask you to record this quote, because Siegel himself argued that, the only possible source of the CMB is the Big Bang, yet here, he admits that the Stefan-Boltmann law describes "... how any perfectly-absorbing, completely black surface will radiate at a given temperature. If such a substance were evenly spread throughout the Universe ... then teh absorbed and re-emitted starlight ... could be responsible for this signal." The actual criteria, for a substance that emit the CMB is uniform distribution at the location of the Celestial Sphere, and the substance must have the property of being a perfect absorber! We already know, that that rules out the Big Bang, since by his own admission Siegel pointed out that "It isn't emitted from atoms or molecules, nor does it contain signatures that atoms or molecules absorb portions of it." If atoms and molecules cannot produce the CMBn through thermal emission, how much less so, can it be produced by free electrons, in an hot plasma soup, before they combined to form the into atoms and molecules that form elemental chemistry? Incredibly, that is the claim of the Big Bang. We will deal with that in short order. For now, I just wanted you to take special note of Siegel's words, for this is the only section his views are outlined. We will recall them later, when it comes time to falsify the Big Bang. For now, we return to our immediate quest: we have thus proven that two of the three, components of the Cosmological Principle have thus far been falsified: Isotropy and Homogeneity. they formed the two aspects of the Cosmological Constant, remember, the one represented by the Greek letter 'lambda.' In turn, the cosmological constant is the generalized form of Dark Energy, the mysterious force, which is supposed to be responsible for the expansion of the universe occurring at ever faster velocities. We have since learned that, that interpretation was a lazy product of what we'll call academia gone wrong! (OOPS!) These expressions: lambda; the cosmological constant; dark energy; and vacuum energy, all represent the same thing - which is founded on concordance, or agreement between three factors. Those factors are: 1) data from Supernovae redshifts 2) distribution of matter in the universe, and 3) Properties of the CMB. In all three of those areas, we have shown that the claims of the Concordance Model, have been falsified. Hence, there is no concorde! As Sabine put it:

Of course, the Cosmological Principle, is only one of two parts of "the current standard model" of cosmology, also known as lambdaCDM. The other part is COLD DARK MATTER: which is neither cold, dark, or made of matter. And it is to this subject, that we now turn out attention!