Many basic assumptions of popular cosmology are wrong but persist because of only 3 words "lack of evidence."
a) May 1919 solar eclipse proving Einstein's prediction.
The original photographic plates (the evidence) were lost. This is a controversial topic so reliable reports are difficult to find online; one is below.
All light sources did not bend correctly, as predicted.
Attached is a study in 1979 which found more distant stars bent more than the stars closer to the Sun which is opposite the prediction.
If any evidence conflicts with the prediction the theory is wrong.
The study has images of the discrepancies.
There is no evidence for light bending by gravity. Dowdye has explained how light bends as predicted when passing through the plasma in the solar atmosphere. The evidence conflicts with Einstein's theory
Notable quote from the study:
Similarly, philosophers like Earman and Glymour are grappling with the epistemological issue of whether it is really possible for theories to be overthrown by individual
experiments. The 1919 measurements were not sufficient, by themselves, to overthrow Newton.
These philosophers apparently believe a theory does not have to be fixed when any individual measurements conflict with the theory.
This is not following the scientific method. Perhaps philosophers have different criteria for verifying their theories.
Einstein's theory of relativity has no valid evidence in the 1919 eclipse.
b) distant galaxy red shifts are known to be caused caused by the intergalactic medium (IGM).
In 1936, Edwin Hubble remarked "our Local Group is separate from the Hubble Flow."
I find no evidence (published spectra) justifying his conclusion.
However he was right because the hydrogen absorption line red shifts are the result of hydrogen atoms in the IGM.
He made the correct conclusion but provided no evidence for the public, the result is no one else knows the real evidence falsifies the theory of universe expansion.
Galaxies with a published red shift values lack any evidence for the value because the spectrum data are not published. The lack of evidence is critical.
The lack of evidence enables the error to persist.
Separate studies of high red shift galaxies having their z value in different ranges concluded the measured hydrogen absorption line red shifts are the result of hydrogen atoms in the IGM.
This conclusion is consistent with Hubble who provided no evidence.
No spectrum from a galaxy in the study was published. Again the lack of evidence being published allows the false expansion theory to continue.
c) Dark matter has no evidence.
Fritz Zwicky in 1933 could not explain the red shift velocities in the Coma galaxy cluster. One cannot know whether he knew of the spectrum data which Hubble was working with. Clearly 1933 was before Hubble's conclusion in 1936.
Zwicky proposed a theory which was accepted though with no evidence for it.
Vera Rubin chose Zwicky's unverified theory for her work with M31 which followed that of Zwicky.
"Her research showed that spiral galaxies rotate quickly enough that they should fly apart, if the gravity of their constituent stars was all that was holding them together; because they stay intact, a large amount of unseen mass must be holding them together, a conundrum that became known as the galaxy rotation problem."
She had an observation with no apparent explanation. Her solution was: undefined dark matter held together a spiral galaxy but she ignored the effect of the galactic magnetic field in a spiral galaxy like M31.
There remains no evidence for dark matter.
In 2010 scientists in Spain concluded the M31 magnetic field predicts the observed rotation curve but the model with theoretical dark matter cannot. The M31 magnetic field has been measured so this explanation has evidence.
Dark matter persists and a search for it continues but with no evidence for it.
d) dark energy persists despite the lack of evidence for its theory to persist. Energy arising with no source is a violation of thermodynamics.
Dark energy is the consequence of the universe expansion theory which has no evidence for the claimed velocities.
e) gravitational waves persist despite the lack of evidence for them. GW is claimed as a proof of Einstein's theory of relativity and its new definition of gravity behaviors/
The first GW reported was on the day of a perigee. No evidence was provided for the first GW explanation (2 black holes).
The August 2017 GW which justified the LIGO Nobel Prize in Physics was a deception. In June 2019, someone familiar with that event revealed the GRB was detected first and then LIGO fabricated an event to apparently match the GRB location. The time of the event was set to prior to the detection. Emails between the parties were manipulated so the email time stamps matched the narrative. The figures in the often cited paper for the Nobel Prize were manipulated to match the fabricated GW.
There has never been a LIGO GW with an independent verification for evidence.
In November 2019, I predicted several GW which were confirmed with evidence and I followed the scientific method. I provided LIGO with predictions of GW detections for 3 specific time spans and all predictions had detections. The predictions were based on known events involving the Moon, just like the first GW detection.
My predictions had evidence. A prediction with evidence is always better than a claim with no evidence.
LIGO provided nothing to justify a claim Einstein's theory of relativity has evidence; TOR still lacks evidence.
LIGO claims mergers of black holes and neutron stars
f) black holes persist despite the lack of evidence.
In April 2019 an image of the M87 galaxy core was taken and widely publicized as a black hole.
Unfortunately for the claim the evidence also falsified the claim.
The same torus was observed in X-ray to radio. The famous image was in radio.
A black hole with a very hot accretion disk must radiate thermal radiation which exhibits a frequency distribution driven by the body's temperature. An accretion disk must have a varying intensity across the full spectrum.
A plasmoid generates synchrotron radiation which is a flat spectrum from high energy X-ray to low energy radio.
The consistent image is evidence for a plasmoid.
There is no evidence for a thermal spectrum from an accretion disk.
Also, the disk material is unknown, as well as its density, particle size, and its vaporization temperature.
The temperature required for thermal radiation in the X-ray range has many zeroes and such an unknown disk has never been demonstrated to offer some evidence it is even possible.
LIGO never detected a black hole in a merger,
There is no evidence for a black hole.
g) neutron stars persist with no evidence.
The theory is many neutrons amounting to a mass multiples of the Sun can be compressed into a sphere 10 to 100 km in diameter.
Neutrons outside a nucleus decay in a few minutes.
There is no evidence many neutrons can remain intact for a very long time, let alone the ridiculous number needed for many solar masses.
The theory also claims the neutron star, having no net electrical charge has a magnetic field.
There is no evidence many neutrons can remain generate a magnetic field.
The theory also claims the neutron star can spin at a ridiculous rate, like many revolutions per second, resulting in high energy X-rays with this pulse rate. There is no explanation for how the spin begins nor how it is sustained at a rate which will sometimes 'glitch.'
There is no evidence for many neutrons in a tiny sphere to do anything which is claimed.
LIGO never detected a neutron star in a merger.
There is no evidence for a neutron star..
h) big bang theory persists with no evidence.
There is no evidence for the entire claimed sequence from an initial unknown entity. The sequence is described with events at ridiculous tiny fractions of a second.
The cosmic microwave background is proposed as evidence for one step in the sequence. Unfortunately every time evidence is claimed it fails due to clear instrumentation design errors (did not account for Earth's oceans) and due to data analysis errors, including the measurements cannot be repeated as they must be to be valid evidence.
The big bang is required for the impetus for the universe expansion which has no evidence.
There is no evidence for a big bang.
This is an attempt at a concise case against popular cosmology's unverified claims. This covers 8 items, including their connections.