Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
...

I remind you again that Ari's solution to the redshift problem requires no inflation, just EM fields. Your choice of redshift "interpretations" is entirely "subjective" and it is not "tested" anymore than Ari's theory is "tested". The difference is that his theory "could" be "tested", whereas you theory cannot be "tested" at all.
Click to expand...

So, is it claimed that the cosmological red shift is due to EM fields and we have a steady state universe? Now, that is confusing since it was the expansion of the observable universe that allowed Einstein to get rid of his cosmological constant. If the universe doesn't expand we are back to needing a Lambda to counter gravity and avoid a collapsing universe. But one of your passionate beliefs is that there is no lambda (dark energy). Am I missing something?
 
Ziggurat said:
You accept an apple falling as sufficient physical evidence that space could be curved (despite no measurement of curved space),
Click to expand...

I accept that "gravity" has some influence on me and on on objects. Whether your math calls it "curved space" or "gravitational force" or "quantum gravity", I have no doubt it has some influence on "reality".

Your math is meaningless as far as it relates to "generic qualification" of concept. I'm more interested in the fact that the apple falls and does so repeatedly than I am interested in the exact mathematical expression of that process. I can reach all the objects in this solar system with nothing but Newton's equations. I couldn't honestly claim to use GPS and only be the benificiary of Newton's equations, so I really have no problem with GR theory or "curved space" theory. Everything in space tends to be curved, and follows a curved path, so the notion that space itself is "curved" seems rather logical to me, but then I've had 30+ years to chew on Einstein's formulas and watch them be cludged to hell by the mainstream over that same time period.

yet you don't accept astronomical red shifts as indicating that galaxies are moving away from each other at rates proportional to their distance, even though we CAN measure doppler shifts and even Lorentz time dilation right here on earth.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with "doppler shifts" related to moving objects, but show me an experiment where "expanding space" produced a "redshift". I accept that there may be several if not many different kinds of redshift involved in any given observation. What was wrong with Ari's theory of redshift? What makes your ideas superior?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411666

He's got a 95 page "whopper" of a mathematical presentation that you are welcome to read through at your leisure.

Forget space expanding: red shifts show that everything is moving away from everything else,
Click to expand...

No. Redshift is *presumed* to be related to "movement". In Ari's paper it's simply a result of Compton scattering effects, much like all tired light theories. You are subjectively 'choosing' to "interpret" that redshift observation to be related to "space expansion". Demonstrate it. If you can't, Ari's paper look equally valid, and in an Occum's razor argument, it wins hands down. I know for a fact EM fields exist in nature.

which means that going backwards in time, everything moves towards everything else. Guess what the limit of that process is.
Click to expand...

Again, this is all related to you subjective "interpretation' of the redshift observation. How do you respond to Arps criticisms of that idea, or do you simply ignore the data that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas?
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
So, is it claimed that the cosmological red shift is due to EM fields and we have a steady state universe?
Click to expand...

Virtually all "tired light" theories are based upon the idea of Compton scattering effects on the photons from their interaction with electrons and typically require no specific state, be it a steady state, slight expansion or slight contraction. Most would probably "presume" that the universe has reached a point of "equilibrium" in some way, so I think that the general consensus among PC/EU theorists is a "steady state" model, but I doubt that this is a universal belief among all EU/PC advocates. I personally do entertain an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of "spacetime" expansion, but not the idea of "expanding space". I accept that it could just be a "steady state" that is "steadied" and made stable by EM fields.

Now, that is confusing since it was the expansion of the observable universe that allowed Einstein to get rid of his cosmological constant.
Click to expand...

Yes, and pervasive and persistent EM fields to stabilize the process, or some limited expansion or contraction would do the same thing. Einstein realized that GR theory was a great theory all by itself, and any "additions" to GR theory were not only unnecessary, but they were probably not related to "gravity" in the first place and therefore they didn't belong in a gravity theory. The mainstream has been stuffing Einstein's simple and elegant physics theory with metaphysics ever since.

If the universe doesn't expand we are back to needing a Lambda to counter gravity and avoid a collapsing universe.
Click to expand...

I'm sure most PC/EU advocates would assume it's related to an EM field rather than anything else.

But one of your passionate beliefs is that there is no lambda (dark energy). Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

The only thing you're missing perhaps is the fact that I personally believe that it's possible that we do experience an "objects in motions stay in motion" sort of "spacetime" expansion, but not the "space expansion" of Lambda-Gumby theory. I'm probably in the minority on that point inside the EU/PC community, but I've never taken a pole. :) I'm fine with either possibility.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Virtually all "tired light" theories are based upon the idea of Compton scattering effects on the photons from their interaction with electrons and typically require no specific state, be it a steady state, slight expansion or slight contraction. Most would probably "presume" that the universe has reached a point of "equilibrium" in some way, so I think that the general consensus among PC/EU theorists is a "steady state" model, but I doubt that this is a universal belief among all EU/PC advocates. I personally do entertain an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of "spacetime" expansion, but not the idea of "expanding space". I accept that it could just be a "steady state" that is "steadied" and made stable by EM fields.



Yes, and pervasive and persistent EM fields to stabilize the process, or some limited expansion or contraction would do the same thing. Einstein realized that GR theory was a great theory all by itself, and any "additions" to GR theory were not only unnecessary, but they were probably not related to "gravity" in the first place and therefore they didn't belong in a gravity theory. The mainstream has been stuffing Einstein's simple and elegant physics theory with metaphysics ever since.



I'm sure most PC/EU advocates would assume it's related to an EM field rather than anything else.



The only thing you're missing perhaps is the fact that I personally believe that it's possible that we do experience an "objects in motions stay in motion" sort of "spacetime" expansion, but not the "space expansion" of Lambda-Gumby theory. I'm probably in the minority on that point inside the EU/PC community, but I've never taken a pole. :) I'm fine with either possibility.
Click to expand...

What is your response to s. i.'s view that if there were EM fields that could have cosmological effects they would be easy to detect, since EM fields so readily influence light and other EM radiation.
 
The Man said:
How about that “experiment”, or did you miss the whole connection between inflation and the Higgs field?
Click to expand...

What "experiment"? You mean all the other particle physics experiments that showed all the other particles of the standard particle physics theory? That was a non response to my point. LHC is intended to provide you with empirical support of the last of key particles, the Higgs. There is no such experiment for inflation, nor any link between the Higgs and inflation other than in your mind.

Well I’m sure they are grateful for the time you will be ‘giving’ them just as I’m sure they will be waiting for you to make up your mind. When did I ever say that the Higgs boson must exist?
Click to expand...

You keep sidestepping the point. The search for the Higgs is here on Earth in "controlled experiments". The search for inflation faeries is always based on uncontrolled events in space.

Wait first you claim I have made up my mind, now you make a point of me specifically asserting the lack of certainty (which any skeptic should). You do seem to have demonstrative problem making up your mind and simply not contradicting your own assertions.
Click to expand...

As long as you keep sidestepping the difference between "controlled experimentation" and "interpretation of uncontrolled observation", we will continue to talk past one another. They are not the same thing and they never will be equivalent.
 
Perpetual Student said:
What is your response to s. i.'s view that if there were EM fields that could have cosmological effects they would be easy to detect, since EM fields so readily influence light and other EM radiation.
Click to expand...

My response is that they *are* easy to detect. Every key "prediction" that Birkeland made with his empirical tests have been observed. We observe solar wind acceleration as he "predicted" *and simulated empirically*. We observe coronal loops as he predicted and photographed in his experiments. We observe "jets" flying off the sun as he "predicted". We observe lightning around planets and aurora and rings around planets just as he predicted and simulated in his lab. The are *extremely* easy to detect in those "flux tubes" they keep talking about and Birkeland first described in his writings.

The mainstream just doesn't want to admit that they've been beaten to the "explanation" of these observations by over 100 years now.
 
Michael Mozina said:
My response is that they *are* easy to detect. Every key "prediction" that Birkeland made with his empirical tests have been observed. We observe solar wind acceleration as he "predicted" *and simulated empirically*. We observe coronal loops as he predicted and photographed in his experiments. We observe "jets" flying off the sun as he "predicted". We observe lightning around planets and aurora and rings around planets just as he predicted and simulated in his lab. The are *extremely* easy to detect in those "flux tubes" they keep talking about and Birkeland first described in his writings.

The mainstream just doesn't want to admit that they've been beaten to the "explanation" of these observations by over 100 years now.
Click to expand...

None of that has anything to do with cosmology.

But you wouldn't know that, because you don't know even basic physics. I keep forgetting that, because usually when someone posts with such vehemence on a topic they actually know at least the basics of it.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're still stuck on the idea that there's some fixed number of Higgs particles, and you construct the condensate by stuffing a bunch of them together. But that's simply not the case. Yes, I know your link made it sound that way, but that was a gross simplification which is actually wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness we are constantly talking past each other.

Let's consider the electric field of a point charge.
Click to expand...

Why? In that case the photon is presumed to be the carrier particle of the EM Field. In this case a Higgs boson is the carrier particle of mass. EM fields do not retain constant density over exponential increases in distance or volume.

We can describe it as a function E(x). If we take the Fourier transform of this, we can decompose this function into sine waves. But sine wave electric fields are photons, so the electric field of a point charge is really just a collection of photons.
Except it isn't.
Click to expand...

Correct. Its a collection of protons and electrons with a "carrier particle" that is *presumed* to be the photon.

If you take the photon number operator (the thing that tells you how many photons you have) and try to apply it to your electric field, you'll find out that the number of photons is indeterminate.
Click to expand...

That isn't surprising since it's not the point charge, nor is the point charge a collection of photons. The point charge may be transported by photons, but then they must transfer in discrete units and all energy is conserved.

The field and excitations of the field are not the same thing......

Same thing with the Higgs field........
Click to expand...

No so. In the case of the EM field the protons and electrons are the "point charges" as you are calling them and the photons are simply the carrier particle. In the case of the Higgs field, the Higgs particle is also the carrier particle.

When describing how it interacts with other particles, some physicists like to talk about it as if you can decompose it into a collection of individual particles, but that's not really correct.
Click to expand...

Do I have more than your word on that from experimentation, or do I have to take your word for that one as well?

Your reliance on basically one line from a source that's dumbing down the theory for a general audience is not exactly convincing people who know more about what's going on than that target audience.
Click to expand...

I'm not relying on *one* source and I have actually published a paper on particle physics and fusion. I have no idea what qualifications you might have on this topic.

I will grant you that you could have a pervasive "field of flowing particles" that can be seen as some sort of all pervasive "Higgs field" from which Higgs particles can manifest, but you can't do that if all your energy/mass is all collected to an object that is smaller than a breadbox. You skipped ahead and provided no details of how your Higgs field came to do anything but cause everything to be crushed together again by the force of gravity the moment the field became "energized" at any "point".

Once again, you fail to grasp that there are in fact different kinds of condensates.
Click to expand...

You're now turned a "condensate" into something it is not. A basic "condensate" is nothing but an organized group of particles.

As my earlier link already pointed out. You cannot use them interchangeably.
Click to expand...

Your link did not in any way suggest that you could increase the volume by exponential amounts and maintain constant density. That's not what it claimed.

It will probably be a few years before we will have solid evidence that we've created any Higgs bosons.
Click to expand...

I agree, assuming we find them.

But I already know you are wrong. And I know you're wrong because you clearly don't understand the theory.
Click to expand...

Which theory? Inflation theory or Higgs theory? It's not clear that you actually separate the two.

Whether or not the theory is correct (it may not be), your statements about the theory are unambiguously wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've adequately separated your ideas about inflation from the notion of a Higgs boson or an existing Higgs field as you are calling it. I get the feeling we are simply talking past each other on this issue because somehow you got involved in a conversation about the idea that Higgs condensate will maintain constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Is that even your personal contention?

Inflation doesn't create Higgs bosons.
Click to expand...

What did, and what kept them from being crushed back together by the force of gravity?
 
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have no problem with "doppler shifts" related to moving objects, but show me an experiment where "expanding space" produced a "redshift".
Click to expand...

For the moment, I'm only concerned with showing that galaxies are moving away from each other.

I accept that there may be several if not many different kinds of redshift involved in any given observation. What was wrong with Ari's theory of redshift? What makes your ideas superior?
Click to expand...

Tired light ideas don't match observations. It's also quite amusing that you insist on having on-earth verified phenomena before you accept them in any physics theory, and yet you uncritically buy into a paper which violates one of the most basic, fundamental constraints we have on our physics theories: the second laws of thermodynamics. An everylasting universe (as Ari proposes) will suffer heat death. There's no way around that without violating the 2nd law. How does he pull that off? He can't: instead, he simply ignores the problem. How do you justify him pulling that off? You're no skeptic: you're a true believer.

Redshift is *presumed* to be related to "movement". In Ari's paper it's simply a result of Compton scattering effects, much like all tired light theories.
Click to expand...

Compton scattering should smear out line shapes - the redder the spectrum, the wider the linewidths should be. But that's not what actually happens.

You are subjectively 'choosing' to "interpret" that redshift observation to be related to "space expansion". Demonstrate it.
Click to expand...

You will note that I explicitly did NOT invoke expansion of space. I only said galaxies are moving away from each other. Do that on a flat spacetime background if you want, I don't care: they're still moving away from each other.

I know for a fact EM fields exist in nature.
Click to expand...

And you know that Doppler shifts exist in nature. But you don't know any tired light mechanisms which can uniformly shift spectra without blurring them. And you don't know of any process which can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...]

I have no problem with "doppler shifts" related to moving objects, but show me an experiment where "expanding space" produced a "redshift". I accept that there may be several if not many different kinds of redshift involved in any given observation. What was wrong with Ari's theory of redshift? What makes your ideas superior?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411666

He's got a 95 page "whopper" of a mathematical presentation that you are welcome to read through at your leisure.

[...]
Click to expand...
Michael,

May I ask if you're prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?

I'm pretty sure that you've already spotted at least one of the fatal errors in the theory part of this paper*, being a serious sceptic and heavy duty critical thinker and all, so I don't feel a need to ask similar questions concerning those aspects ...

* unpublished, not least because of the 'bloopers' in the theory parts!
 
sol invictus said:
What an incredibly stupid question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOOMERanG_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Imager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Small_Array
http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/
http://groups.physics.umn.edu/cosmology/maxipol/
http://amiba.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/
http://www.sdss.org/
http://www.lsst.org/lsst
http://universe.nasa.gov/program/probes/jdem.html

and many, many more...
Click to expand...

Just for the record, which of these do you believe to be a legitimate "experiment" complete with a "control mechanism"? I'm beginning to wonder if your entire industry is even capable of discerning an "experiment" from a "subjective interpretation of uncontrolled observations".
 
GeeMack said:
No, Michael. No, he didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes GeeMack, he did. You'll find images of his work on my website. Here is a Yohkoh image (orange) next to a black and white image of coronal loops (and polar jets) simulated by Birkeland in his lab:

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Michael,

May I ask if you're prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?

I'm pretty sure that you've already spotted at least one of the fatal errors in the theory part of this paper*, being a serious sceptic and heavy duty critical thinker and all, so I don't feel a need to ask similar questions concerning those aspects ...

* unpublished, not least because of the 'bloopers' in the theory parts!
Click to expand...

I know of only one specific issue that I still "question" about his work, but to this point in time, nobody inside your industry has even mentioned it. It's just something that evidently bothers me, not you folks. The only criticism I've heard thus far from any astronomer is more of a problem with their understanding of individual photons rather than a problem with the actual paper. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the "fatal flaw" that you believe negates his work?
 
Ziggurat said:
For the moment, I'm only concerned with showing that galaxies are moving away from each other.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in how you intend to "show" that from an observation of redshift.

Tired light ideas don't match observations.
Click to expand...

Which ones specifically and how so?

It's also quite amusing that you insist on having on-earth verified phenomena before you accept them in any physics theory, and yet you uncritically buy into a paper which violates one of the most basic, fundamental constraints we have on our physics theories: the second laws of thermodynamics. An everylasting universe (as Ari proposes) will suffer heat death.
Click to expand...

Er, why?

There's no way around that without violating the 2nd law.
Click to expand...
Typically when I hear one of these "there is no way around it" claims, it turns out to be false. I'll have to wait to hear your explanation I suppose before passing judgment but this claims sound pretty "out there" at first glance.

How does he pull that off? He can't: instead, he simply ignores the problem. How do you justify him pulling that off? You're no skeptic: you're a true believer.
Click to expand...

Um, before you pass judgment on my "skepticism", perhaps you could enlighten me on your idea a bit. A good skeptic likes to hear the explanation, and so far all I've heard is a handwave.

Compton scattering should smear out line shapes - the redder the spectrum, the wider the linewidths should be. But that's not what actually happens.
Click to expand...

How would you know? It's only a "point source" in most images and there is no way to tell much about "smearing" to begin with.

You will note that I explicitly did NOT invoke expansion of space. I only said galaxies are moving away from each other. Do that on a flat spacetime background if you want, I don't care: they're still moving away from each other.
Click to expand...

I will grant you that they *could be* physically moving away from each other, as in galaxies in motion stay in motion, but superluminal expansion is not possible IMO. I will also point out that this is not a "given", it's just something I will and do entertain as "possible". It is certainly not a "given" just based on the observation of redshift.

And you know that Doppler shifts exist in nature.
Click to expand...
And for that reason I can and do entertain doppler shifts due to movement.

But you don't know any tired light mechanisms which can uniformly shift spectra without blurring them.
Click to expand...

But I know of at least one proposed such theory. It doesn't look "untestable" to me unlike the inflation thing.

And you don't know of any process which can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you figure this violates that law in the first place.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snip...
There is no such experiment for inflation, nor any link between the Higgs and inflation other than in your mind.
Click to expand...

Michael: This may have been pointed out to you before since it is fairly obvious but in case it has not:

No experiment will ever detect cosmological inflation here on Earth. This is because inflation happens to be a phase during the initial expansion of the universe. It happened well before the quark epoch (between 10-12 and 10-6 seconds after the Big Bang) and is generally estimated to have happened 10-36 seconds after the big bang.

Thus there is no "inflation" to detect in modern experiments (unless you have a time machine handy!).

However we can make predictions from inflation and test them against the universe. There are a number of number of predictions that have been confirmed by observations.

IMHO, inflation is the weakest part of the Big Bang theory since there are many open questions about it. The physical evidence for BBT (redshift, CMB, Lyman-alpha forest, etc.) is strong enough to justify adding inflation to fix the horizon, flatness and magnetic monopole problems - especially since we get the above tested predictions as a bonus.

Another small point: The Lambda-CDM model actually ignores inflation since it starts after the inflationary period.
The model uses the FLRW metric, the Friedmann equations and the cosmological equations of state to describe the universe from right after the inflationary epoch to present and future. WP
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
For the moment, I'm only concerned with showing that galaxies are moving away from each other.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in how you intend to "show" that from an observation of redshift.
Click to expand...

The first question is easy:
  1. Think of ways that light can be redshifted.
  2. Devise empirical controlled experiments to test the redshift.
  3. Measure the redshifts of galaxies.
  4. Analyze the redshifts according the the various causes.
  5. Make a deduction about the galaxies from the analysis.
For example:
  1. Maybe velocity causes redshift?
  2. Test in it an empirical controlled experiment (yes it does - In 1901 Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors.)
  3. Done by Hubble.
  4. We see that there is a range of redshifts.
  5. We deduce that galaxies move with different velocities. Standard candles tell us the distance to the galaxies. We deduce that there is a relationship between the distance and velocity of the galaxies.
Or Ari's theory of redshift:
  1. Maybe plasma causes redshift?
  2. Umm... Perhaps you can give a citation to the paper containing the empirical controlled experiment confirming this cause.
  3. ...
Michael Mozina said:
Tired light ideas don't match observations.
Click to expand...
Which ones specifically and how so?
Click to expand...
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
 
Reality Check said:
Michael: This may have been pointed out to you before since it is fairly obvious but in case it has not:

No experiment will ever detect cosmological inflation here on Earth. This is because inflation happens to be a phase during the initial expansion of the universe. It happened well before the quark epoch (between 10-12 and 10-6 seconds after the Big Bang) and is generally estimated to have happened 10-36 seconds after the big bang.

Thus there is no "inflation" to detect in modern experiments (unless you have a time machine handy!).
Click to expand...

Ya, I've mentioned it here earlier in fact. How handy I will never be able to see inflation ever demonstrated here for me on Earth. I'm supposed to just keep funding this nonsense with my tax dollars? In this economy? Get real. If in fact that is the "consensus" of your industry, and you'll never be able to demonstrate your claims empirically, I am hereby disinterested in this absolutely stupid theory forever. It has *zero* useful predictive value and will forever have zero predictive value.

However we can make predictions from inflation and test them against the universe.
Click to expand...

Yet if I pilfer your inflation faerie math and call it magic, you can't physically distinguish between your theory and magic theory so what use is it? It's numerology on a stick.

IMHO, inflation is the weakest part of the Big Bang theory
Click to expand...

Ya, me too which is why I just went for the jugular from the start. No sense even wasting any time on dark energy since inflation is the "supernatural" cousin with zero useful byproducts.

Another small point: The Lambda-CDM model actually ignores inflation since it starts after the inflationary period.
Click to expand...
Yet another reason it's a stupid theory. It has skeletons in the closet that nobody wants to discuss, and even then it's got good ol' "dark energy" front and center in the theory. How can you guys peddle this nonsense as "science" to unsuspecting youth and look yourselves in the mirror in the morning?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Yes GeeMack, he did. You'll find images of his work on my website. Here is a Yohkoh image (orange) next to a black and white image of coronal loops (and polar jets) simulated by Birkeland in his lab:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Click to expand...
Actually what you have is two pictures that look a bit alike.

A simulation is more than a likeness between pictures. There is also a process of comparing the simulated data with the actual data. So we need a reference to the paper that Birkeland wrote that did this.
 
Reality Check said:
[/LIST]Or Ari's theory of redshift:
  1. Maybe plasma causes redshift?
Click to expand...


  1. Just out of morbid curiosity, how in your opinion is that any better than "maybe space expansion causes redshift"? I will grant you that an "objects in motion, stay in motion sort of "expansion" would generate "subluminal" redshifts, potentially approaching 2C if we throw in some accelerating expansion process, but in no way are you going to get the redshift necessary to explain everything based strictly on movement alone.

    How is your notion of expanding space any better than plasma causing redshift?
    I'm also going to admit right now that Ari's theory is no more "tested" than yours, but his theory *can* be tested whereas your theory will *never* be tested if your statements about inflation are accurate.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually what you have is two pictures that look a bit alike.

A simulation is more than a likeness between pictures. There is also a process of comparing the simulated data with the actual data. So we need a reference to the paper that Birkeland wrote that did this.
Click to expand...

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

Careful. It is a 160 meg file and it will take awhile to download. Make sure you save it so you don't have to download the whole volume a second time. Pay careful attention to his terella experiments, in fact you might skip to those and come back for the rest.

Specifically what Birkeland did is tinker with an arrangement of controlled variables. He change the variables and noted the results. By charging the sphere's surface as a cathode, he was able to produce that black and white image, produce solar wind, produce jets, and evidently produce "tornados" in the solar atmosphere which he wrote about but was unable to photograph. Such structures have been seen in TRACE images of the solar atmosphere. Pure coincidence?
 
Last edited:
Errors in your Errors claims. :)

# There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what amount of "blurring" you might expect to "observe* from this distance assuming any light made it at all. There are many "blurry" areas behind plasma structures to be seen in Hubble images.

# The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.
Click to expand...

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500

Your first two basic objections do not seem very convincing from my perspective.

Even if I just "give you" (for now) the black body argument, mainstream theory doesn't actually "explain" it either since it never really "explains" DE or inflation. I really don't see how this makes any theory superior to any other theory frankly.

I will have to do some further research on issues related to the BB spectrum you guys keep harping on. I suspect there is a relatively simple solution I'm simply overlooking at the moment, but frankly I think you're putting *way* too much emphasis on this *one* issue when there are a whole host of other issues to discuss.
 
Wow, I just read this whole thread. 5 pages of me yelling at the screen that even I knew that a Bose-Einstein Condensate wasn't the same thing as a Higgs condensate. :D

And 6 pages of the "if it hasn't been produced in a lab up until today it doesn't exist" gets REALLY old.

I don't think I've ever seen someone so systematically disassembled and still carries on oblivious.

Thanks for sticking with it though, I learned some good things from this thread.
 
temporalillusion said:
Wow, I just read this whole thread. 5 pages of me yelling at the screen that even I knew that a Bose-Einstein Condensate wasn't the same thing as a Higgs condensate. :D
Click to expand...

As it relates to density and volume the condensates are no different. You certainly won't get the density of the particle condensate to remain constant over exponential increases in volume! Gah. Talk about useless peanut gallery comments.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just for the record, which of these do you believe to be a legitimate "experiment" complete with a "control mechanism"? I'm beginning to wonder if your entire industry is even capable of discerning an "experiment" from a "subjective interpretation of uncontrolled observations".
Click to expand...
It's time for some semantics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Who cares what you think you can "explain" (if you can call it that at all) with a theory that is 96 percent "made up" nonsense and only 4% real physics?
Click to expand...

Your refusal to explain any of the most important observations in cosmology with your preffered theory has been noted.
So that's 0/14 then. Bit of a failure I'd say.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just out of morbid curiosity, how in your opinion is that any better than "maybe space expansion causes redshift"? I will grant you that an "objects in motion, stay in motion sort of "expansion" would generate "subluminal" redshifts, potentially approaching 2C if we throw in some accelerating expansion process, but in no way are you going to get the redshift necessary to explain everything based strictly on movement alone.

How is your notion of expanding space any better than plasma causing redshift?
I'm also going to admit right now that Ari's theory is no more "tested" than yours, but his theory *can* be tested whereas your theory will *never* be tested if your statements about inflation are accurate.
Click to expand...
Read the post. It is not about inflation. It is about cosmological redshift.
Redshift caused by velocity is tested now.
Ari's theory (cause by plasma) is not tested.

By your own criteria that makes cosmological redshift caused by velocity the better theory.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It has certainly not been demonstrated empirically and not one single useful product uses or requires the use of inflation. It's hard to take seriously if you are skeptical of the idea because it's no better than numerology at actually "predicting" events on Earth.
Click to expand...
Its been shwon to empirically match observations. Of course its better than numerology. Numerology can't make succesful predictions.

I don't "lack belief" in your inflation faeries because other people lack belief in them. I lack belief in them because you cannot physically demonstrate that they are anything other than a figment of Guth's imagination. Big difference. Why do you believe inflation exists? Please don't tell me it's because of the redshift phenomenon because I can explain that with a simple EM field thanks to Ari's work. In an Occum's razor scenario, EM fields win hands down.
Click to expand...
What just like your alternative explanation of the CMBR. Gonna do better than out by a factor of 700 million this time are we?

I'm sure it's also very obvious to a numerologist that there are critics out there of numerology that are by no means an expert on numerology. So what? The thing inflation proponents share in common with numerologists is that they can't demonstrate their claims in controlled experimentation. In addition, no 'expert' on inflation seems to be able to "predict" the outcome of any controlled experiment here on Earth as the result of their "expertise" on this subject, so it's all useless number shuffling as far as I know.
Click to expand...
They can demonstrate there claims in controlled experimentation. Just not in a lab. Just as we can't demonstate evolution of large animals in a lab overnight. Your creationist style argumental technique is doing you know favours.

But you never showed that "space" can or ever has "expanded". That's another of those dogma things related to *subjective* redshift "interpretation"", not controlled experimentation. Einstein rejected GR with constants and Lambda-CMD theorists stuffed them in there anyway.
Click to expand...
He rejected part of his own theory precisely for the reasons I gave you. Do you understand what an unstable equilibrium is?

Thus far what I have learned is that none of the proponents of inflation can empirically demonstrate their claim as I already knew, and people get ticked of when their belief systems are scrutinized and found to be wanting.
Click to expand...
You've just been linked to a load of stuff. Read it and stop lieing.

No. Redshift observations have been *interpreted* to be related to "space expansion", one of those things that astronomers cannot demonstrate here on Earth. Its amazing how many of their fudge factors must be accepted on faith, and in the absence of a proof of concept here on Earth.
Click to expand...
Then you just seem to be rejecting GR after all.

Let's just be clear that I don't care if the universe was created or not, if it has a creation date or not, or if it is simply eternal and infinite. I don't care.
Click to expand...
I guess that would make you an anti-cosmologist then.

It is only the mainstream that *insists* that there was a "creation event" and that they have the day figured out down to about 100K years. These are *extraordinary* claims that I cannot and would not make. I expect 'extraordinary' evidence to support that claim, not a simple "interpretation' based on an uncontrolled observation.
Click to expand...
We've given you the etroardinary evidence. Like the prediction and observation of the Universe being bathed in microwave radiation with a perfect blackbody spectrum. Or the Lyman-alpha forrest? And all those other things on that list you could not explain a single one of.
 
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student:
What is your response to s. i.'s view that if there were EM fields that could have cosmological effects they would be easy to detect, since EM fields so readily influence light and other EM radiation.
Click to expand...


Michael Mozina said:
My response is that they *are* easy to detect. Every key "prediction" that Birkeland made with his empirical tests have been observed. We observe solar wind acceleration as he "predicted" *and simulated empirically*. We observe coronal loops as he predicted and photographed in his experiments. We observe "jets" flying off the sun as he "predicted". We observe lightning around planets and aurora and rings around planets just as he predicted and simulated in his lab. The are *extremely* easy to detect in those "flux tubes" they keep talking about and Birkeland first described in his writings.

The mainstream just doesn't want to admit that they've been beaten to the "explanation" of these observations by over 100 years now.
Click to expand...

This is worth repeating...

NONE OF THE ABOVE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY.

I can't believe you've been arguing all these pages about the current cosmological paradigm without even having the faintest idea of what cosmology is.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How is your notion of expanding space any better than plasma causing redshift?
I'm also going to admit right now that Ari's theory is no more "tested" than yours, but his theory *can* be tested whereas your theory will *never* be tested if your statements about inflation are accurate.
Click to expand...

Give it some credit. Ari's theory has been tested. It failed the second law of thermodynamics and belongs in the bin.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Errors in your Errors claims. :)
Click to expand...
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology is Edward L. Wright's page not mine. But there are plenty of other sources for the problems with tired light - including Wikipedia.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm not sure exactly what amount of "blurring" you might expect to "observe* from this distance assuming any light made it at all. There are many "blurry" areas behind plasma structures to be seen in Hubble images.
Click to expand...
The "blurring of distant objects" = blurring in the images of distant galaxies. The Hubble telescope is very good at getting clear images of galaxies at high z.
Things behind plasma are of course "blurred" - by the plasm obstructing the object.

Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500
Click to expand...
This unpublished pre-print (not cited by anyone except another paper by the author) is not a good source of information.
Ari Brynjolfsson in fact cites Goldhaber et al. whose abstract ends:
"We also demonstrate the 1+z light-curve time-axis broadening expected from cosmological expansion. This argues strongly against alternative explanations, such as tired light, for the redshift of distant objects".
He ignores the other papers on the same subject, e.g.
Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the Big Bang been observed?
For a more recent paper see Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift.
Michael Mozina said:
Your first two basic objections do not seem very convincing from my perspective.

Even if I just "give you" (for now) the black body argument, mainstream theory doesn't actually "explain" it either since it never really "explains" DE or inflation. I really don't see how this makes any theory superior to any other theory frankly.

I will have to do some further research on issues related to the BB spectrum you guys keep harping on. I suspect there is a relatively simple solution I'm simply overlooking at the moment, but frankly I think you're putting *way* too much emphasis on this *one* issue when there are a whole host of other issues to discuss.
Click to expand...
The emphasis on black body spectrum is easy to explain. Only a smaller universe completely filled with photons at a temperature of 3,000 K will produce a CMB of 2.725 K.

Mainstream theory explains (no quotes needed) the BB spectrum of the CMB and its power spectrum.

There are no other real issues to discuss.

There is only your belief that deductions about the universe cannot be made from observations (your "uncontrollable experiments") without verification from empirical controllable experiments here on Earth. It is obvious that this is not something that you will change your mind on.
Thus by your definition the expansion and dark energy part of BBT are invalid because thay will never be tested here. Gravity dominates over expansion locally (in galaxies). Dark energy is too weak to measure on a small scale.
Dark matter may be testable here on Earth.

Of course Ari Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift seems to be untestable here on Earth (unless you cited a paper that I missed?) and so is also invalid. Thus you can forget about refering to his paper again since it is nonsense by your own definiiton.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just for the record, which of these do you believe to be a legitimate "experiment" complete with a "control mechanism"? I'm beginning to wonder if your entire industry is even capable of discerning an "experiment" from a "subjective interpretation of uncontrolled observations".
Click to expand...

Mmmm, fresh hypocrisy!

I'll let you argue with the other Michael Mozina that posts here:

Michael Mozina said:
As far as dinosaur extinction theories, they too are based on observed processes in nature, including a nifty little layer of iridium around the whole planet (common in meteorites) that defines the boundary layers where the dinosaur fossils end.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, why?
Click to expand...

For the same reason perpetual motion machines are impossible. The 2nd law says the entropy is increasing, and every star that forms generates a huge amount of entropy and uses up some of the available free energy. In our universe (I can't speak for yours), after a few more stellar generations all the available material for star formation will be used up, the remaining stars will burn out, and the universe will be a cold and dead place.

The details of the future evolution of the stellar population follow from understood principles of stellar dynamics. But even if you ignore those, the 2nd law is one of the most basic, well tested, and thoroughly understood laws of physics we have. An eternal universe which is still forming stars today violates it - it is a perpetual motion machine.

So there you have it - the theories you favor rely on wildly speculative mechanisms for redshift that have never been empirically demonstrated in any context (on the contrary, they are impossible according to all the data we have), violate the fundamental laws of physics (which have massive empirical support - there's a reason they're called "laws"), and are inconsistent with general relativity (which one of the other yous said he believed in), and the theory you claim is garbage and nonsense relies only on empirically and theoretically almost certain
phenomena like Doppler shift and general relativity.

Oh and incidentally, how does your eternal universe theory get around Olber's paradox?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
in no way are you going to get the redshift necessary to explain everything based strictly on movement alone.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. You forget time dilation, another lab-verified phenomenon which contributes to redshift. When you take time dilation into account, you can obtain arbitrarily large redshifts. And again, I'm not even resorting to expanding space, I'm only dealing with things (doppler shift and time dilation) which have been verified experimentally right here on earth.

How is your notion of expanding space any better than plasma causing redshift?
Click to expand...

This has already been pointed out to you: it won't blur images or spectral lines. Compton scattering will. Any tired light process which doesn't violate conservation of energy and momentum will. But again, we don't need to resort to expanding space: all we need do is acknowledge that redshifts mean objects are moving away from each other.

I'm also going to admit right now that Ari's theory is no more "tested" than yours, but his theory *can* be tested whereas your theory will *never* be tested if your statements about inflation are accurate.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting, once again, that inflation does not mean any expansion of space. But again, let's leave that to the side for the moment. Let's stay focused on the fact that the ONLY explanation we have to explain redshifts is that galaxies are moving away from each other. Can you accept that yet, or are you still in denial?
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Michael,

May I ask if you're prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?

I'm pretty sure that you've already spotted at least one of the fatal errors in the theory part of this paper*, being a serious sceptic and heavy duty critical thinker and all, so I don't feel a need to ask similar questions concerning those aspects ...

* unpublished, not least because of the 'bloopers' in the theory parts!
Click to expand...
I know of only one specific issue that I still "question" about his work, but to this point in time, nobody inside your industry has even mentioned it. It's just something that evidently bothers me, not you folks. The only criticism I've heard thus far from any astronomer is more of a problem with their understanding of individual photons rather than a problem with the actual paper. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the "fatal flaw" that you believe negates his work?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the swift response.

However, you didn't answer the question I asked, which was "Are you prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?"

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the theory side, perhaps I was too quick off the mark in assuming you'd already spotted at least one fatal flaw; never mind, several others have (collectively) pointed out more than one such flaw, so there's no need to take up more server space discussing them, is there.
 
Michael Mozina said:
As it relates to density and volume the condensates are no different. You certainly won't get the density of the particle condensate to remain constant over exponential increases in volume! Gah. Talk about useless peanut gallery comments.
Click to expand...

You haven't read anything Ziggurat been trying to tell you about it, or you haven't understood what he's saying. :(

One other observation, you called sol's formulas "formula salad" because there was no units, and didn't comprehend when he said units weren't involved...

E = mc2 - What's Einstein doing, he forgot the units!

F = ma - Oh look, Newton's laws of motion are formula salad because there's no units!

V = IR - Uh oh, no units here either.

A = πr2 - No units here either, geometry is nothing more than formula salad (that's supposed to be pi, not sure why it looks weird).

You think the relationships of things in the universe care if we use m/s, furlongs/fortnight, or smizmars/perocals?

As an innocent bystander watching this train wreck, I can honestly say your ability to understand what others are saying and communicate what you are saying is sorely lacking.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I will have to do some further research on issues related to the BB spectrum you guys keep harping on. I suspect there is a relatively simple solution I'm simply overlooking at the moment, but frankly I think you're putting *way* too much emphasis on this *one* issue when there are a whole host of other issues to discuss.
Click to expand...

Hmm. A "relatively simple solution" that's so simple not one person has come up with a meaningful alternative explanation for in half a century. And you, Michael Mozina, who doesn't seem to understand what the CMBR even is (or for that matter what cosmology is) is going to come up with a meaningful alternative explanation in the space of a few moments? Seriously?
 
temporalillusion said:
You haven't read anything Ziggurat been trying to tell you about it, or you haven't understood what he's saying. :(
Click to expand...

All Ziggurat did is post a quote that did *not* support the original claim. In fact it wasn't even Ziggurat's original claim to begin with and I'm not even sure he agrees with sol to begin with on the density issue.

One other observation, you called sol's formulas "formula salad" because there was no units, and didn't comprehend when he said units weren't involved...
Click to expand...

His one claim about Higgs condensates not being composed of particles has already been thoroughly debunked. His claim was related to particles per volume and he can't support his claim. When asked for any sort of units, he ran like hell.

E = mc2 - What's Einstein doing, he forgot the units!
Click to expand...

It's in JOULES! Gah. I won't do these one by one.

You think the relationships of things in the universe care if we use m/s, furlongs/fortnight, or smizmars/perocals?
Click to expand...

I care that you aren't just making things up as you go, and knowing what units are in use is typical in any calculation. Get over it. I didn't ask for the moon, just the units of measurement.

As an innocent bystander watching this train wreck, I can honestly say your ability to understand what others are saying and communicate what you are saying is sorely lacking.
Click to expand...
Your participation in this thread takes you out of the role of "innocent bystander" and puts you squarely in the roll of 'peanut gallery commentator'. The "train wreck" is watching you all try to avoid the fact you can't physically demonstrate inflation, so you're attempting to attack the messenger. How predictable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom