$\Lambda$CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the evidence supporting the $\\Lambda$CDM cosmology, arguing that it is heavily influenced by propaganda and suppression of counter-evidence, and suggests alternative models are nearly as viable.

Contribution

The paper provides a critical analysis of $\\Lambda$CDM cosmology, highlighting biases and comparing it with alternative models that challenge dark energy and dark matter.

Findings

$\\Lambda$CDM is supported by selective citation and propaganda.

Alternative models without dark energy or dark matter are nearly as consistent with evidence.

The field may be overly influenced by funding and ideological biases.

Abstract

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in point on selective citation. I also show that when all evidence are taken into account, two of the competing models that abolish dark energy and/or dark matter do not trail behind $\Lambda$CDM by much. Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark.