Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Welcome to JREF Forum, derekmcd!

By now I think you've realised why you can't post links ... you need to get to 15 posts before the board's software allows you to.

Indeed. I, actually, knew that. I just didn't realize (twice) that I had quoted a link. And, thanks for the hearty welcome.

That being said, may I enquire as to what other forum MM has been active on? The 'google coordinates' will suffice (google is the friend of many folk here).

Not sure if that would be proper etiquette. If Michael wishes to direct you to his threads, then you're welcome to peruse them. However, I can assure you that you would just be boring yourself with a repeat of what you see here. The only exception is that the nonsense was spread through several threads totalling a few thousand posts.

Another assurance I can guarantee is that nothing will be resolved here.

You may have already noticed that I, for one, have found quite a few sets of (astronomical) observations that are inconsistent with AB's papers (collectively), which MM agreed to have a go at explaining (within AB's 'plasma redshift' model), but hasn't yet done so.

AB's papers are the only interest that drew me to this thread. I believe it is as simple as a misapplication of quantum mechanics. Good luck with getting Michael to address real physics with real math (or vice versa).

A saying that I like to put out there (I don't know for whom it should be attributed as I doubt it's original):

Understand what is going on inside the box before you think outside the box.

Sadly, I fear I will get drawn in for the sheer entertainment value of debating Michael. Unfortunately, though, I can't post quite as often as I used to. There may be days where I can actually hold a conversation; However, more often than not, there will simply be days with no posts.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

The idea of "merit' seems to be highly subjective. For instance Birkeland's aurora and solar theories have "merit" to this day because they work in a lab. It might be acceptable to ask if they actually *apply* to solar theory, but the ideas have empirical merit either way, even if they are falsified somehow.[...]

(bold)

I have found that it can pay to re-read your posts, MM, because there are some real eye-openers ... at least in terms of my efforts to understand, in detail, how your views on what sorts of criteria are acceptable, for use in cosmology, and what are not.

This extract, from one of your posts, is one such.

Take what you wrote slowly, a phrase at a time ... now assume the research question we are interested in is the nature of aurora, the solar wind, and the behaviour of the Sun's photosphere and corona. Assume we have hard drives packed full of high quality data - 'observations' if you will - taken over decades and centuries, in all wavebands (gammas to visual to radio), etc, etc, etc. In addition, we have more hard drives packed full of data from instruments aboard spacecraft 'tasting' the plasma environment in many locations in the inner and outer solar system, and the magnetospheres of several planets.

From this great mass of data, we conclude that the simulations Birkeland did in his lab do not resemble the physical environments of the Earth's upper atmosphere, the solar wind, the Sun's corona, ... in anything but the most tenuous sense. Further, we have the results from far better, and more numerous, simulations done since Birkeland's day, that we also know are much closer approximations to the environments we are interested in.

So, concerning aurora and various Sun-related phenomena, in what sense can "Birkeland's aurora and solar theories" be said to have merit "because they work in a lab"?!? :jaw-dropp

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Hi Derek! Welcome. I'm glad you came over.

I'm just dropping in... not quite sure on the extent of my stay yet.

Ah to be young and naive again......

I'm neither... though I wish I was. Well... I'm still young and always will be.

Have you ever studied Arp and his objections to "Hubble's law"? I assure you it *can* be highly political, particularly when one starts futzing with the redshift interpretations. The Lambda model has become dogma at this point in time, and getting something like that published in the APJ is never going to happen.

Yes, I have. I find it amusing you make this statement when Arp has had a paper concerning QSOs published in APJ. Might you be referring to Arp's loss of scope time?

So how come you believe that it cannot ever be a political sort of rejection, or a rejection based on "fear" rather than merit?

It's the scope of the paper. Ari is trying to support a paradigm shift. It's the magnitude of his presentation. I could understand some political infighting over something minor and inconsequential.

Why didn't they "flock" to Birkeland's explanation of aurora, or his solar discharge ideas? He could *simulate* solar wind acceleration, and he could certainly explain it. I have no idea why the mainstream has become so dogma oriented, particularly over the past 25+ years or so. It wasn't always like that. Inflation and DE are relative newcomers in fact.

Apples and oranges. Birkeland wasn't presenting anything that was an attempt to throw known physics out the window or toss the collective understanding of the community on its head. Birkeland was just trying to explain a local phenomena (that wasn't understood) for which he had the unique opportunity of location to study said phenomena.

Beside, I believe it was you that told me that Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel at least 7(?) times. How is that not being recognized?

Well, if so, there should be actual line number and equation oriented objections cited so that I can respond to *specific* criticisms. Evidently DRD has provided a few criticisms but at first glance they didn't look specific, as in citing a line number or equation. I will have a look at them this weekend however and see if any of them have merit.

My criticisms were specific enough. Are you saying you want to see how his equations are wrong? If so, doesn't that seem just a bit hypocritical? Guth's math has been parsed relentlessly and found to be consistent (inflation has evolvled, but that doesn't change anything).

FYI, here's another paper on redshift that does not require superluminal expansion.

[link snipped. Available in original post above]

There are many possible ways to "interpret" the redshift phenomenon purely from a mathematical point of view. Why pick one and call it "superior"?

So, a theory based on a hypothetical particle is ok if you present it. However, if mainstream presents a theory based on a hypothetical particle (WIMP), it's considered woo. Your logic defies me...

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

derekmcd said:
Indeed. I, actually, knew that. I just didn't realize (twice) that I had quoted a link. And, thanks for the hearty welcome.

Had you heard of this forum before, in some other context perhaps?

What do you think of it, based on your short time here?

Not sure if that would be proper etiquette. If Michael wishes to direct you to his threads, then you're welcome to peruse them. However, I can assure you that you would just be boring yourself with a repeat of what you see here. The only exception is that the nonsense was spread through several threads totalling a few thousand posts.

Another assurance I can guarantee is that nothing will be resolved here.

Quite recently I entered "Michael Mozina" into google, and was pretty amazed at how many fora that user name/member name/whatever appears in! A random sample of some of the posts, by the various MMs, revealed a strong similarity in content and style to those by MM here. Many threads in which MM participated were long, very long ...

AB's papers are the only interest that drew me to this thread. I believe it is as simple as a misapplication of quantum mechanics. Good luck with getting Michael to address real physics with real math (or vice versa).

Once again, google is your friend!

I found this post, by someone calling themself "papageno", on the very long AB paper, over in BAUT:

[Quote Originally Posted by Brynjolfsson]
A2 Fourier Spectrum of Photons in Dielectrics

We think of an atom free of external forces emitting a photon as it decays exponentially from an excited state with a lifetime of τ = 1/γ.[endquote]

This is not conventional physics, as the author claims.

The transition of an atom from an excited state to a lower state is not an exponential decay, but a (quantum) leap with occurs with a certain probability. If there is a statistically large set of excited atoms, then the number of excited atoms decays exponentially with a characteristic time inversely proportional to the probability of the transition. A typical example is NMR: an EM pulse excites a bunch of atoms, and the time for these to get back to the ground state is measured.

[Quote: Originally Posted by Brynjolfsson]
2 Energy loss of photons as they penetrate a plasma

For a photon’s field moving along the x-axis, we can at x = 0 normalize the Poynting vector, S, to the energy flux of one photon, ¯hω0 = hν0, per second and per square cm in vacuum, where h is the Planck constant.[endquote]

The Poynting vector is a quantity defined for macroscopic EM fields, not for a single photon.

If you keep reading, you'll realize that the author does not understand that in conventional physics the macroscopic EM waves are the result of statistically large numbers of photons, and that the macroscopic dielectric constant in a material (including plasma) comes from the interaction of these photons with matter and is not something external to a single photon.

The author does not understand conventional physics, and his claim that his "plasma-redshift" is based on it is utterly unfounded.

A saying that I like to put out there (I don't know for whom it should be attributed as I doubt it's original):

Understand what is going on inside the box before you think outside the box.

Sadly, I fear I will get drawn in for the sheer entertainment value of debating Michael. Unfortunately, though, I can't post quite as often as I used to. There may be days where I can actually hold a conversation; However, more often than not, there will simply be days with no posts.

I look forward to reading your posts, however frequently, or infrequently, they may appear.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

It seems Ari Brynjolfsson made a brief appearance in Physics Forums. His post is far too long to reproduce, but it may be that the short exchange in that forum contributed to some of the changes between two of the versions of the "whopper".

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Had you heard of this forum before, in some other context perhaps?

What do you think of it, based on your short time here?

Quite recently I entered "Michael Mozina" into google, and was pretty amazed at how many fora that user name/member name/whatever appears in! A random sample of some of the posts, by the various MMs, revealed a strong similarity in content and style to those by MM here. Many threads in which MM participated were long, very long ...

Once again, google is your friend!

I found [arghh... link snipped again] this post[/URL], by someone calling themself "papageno", on the very long AB paper, over in BAUT:

I look forward to reading your posts, however frequently, or infrequently, they may appear.

I've run across a few JREF threads while googling. They are usually a few pages down, though. I'm also quite familiar with BAUT and Physicsforums, though I haven't posted much in either (probably under 10 posts). I've been lingering around space dot com for a few year with 3000+ posts. Sadly, since their transition from Uplink to Pluck, the forum has taken a nosedive. They seem to be more concerned with the article commenting and the nonsense that goes on there pales in comparison to this.

Thanks for that link to Papageno's post. It gives me assurance that I am on the right track.

I have no illusions of being an expert in any field. My line of work has absolutely nothing to do with astrophysics or cosmology. However, I do, immensely, enjoy learning. Especially considering these fields that I am interested in, logic plays an important role in distinguishing crackpot ideas from legitimate ones.

Mind you, there is a difference between logic and common sense. Common sense does not always apply. Actually, in cosmology, common sense rarely applies.

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The real physical problem here is that "space" is physically undefined, and the way you folks are using the term "space", it is more or less a magical aether theory that is absolutely unnecessary. In a Occum's razor argument, it therefore has to go. Objects can expand, "space" cannot.

The problem is confusing the difference between space and spacetime in GR. They are quite distinguishable. Your first mistake is objectifying space as something that is physically tangible. In GR, space and spacetime are not physical objects... they are based on metrics. Amongst relativists, saying "space expands" is acceptable as the meaning behind the phrase is understood. Amongst layman, the phrase leads to a plethora of misconceptions. You seem to be amongst the latter...

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
(bold)

I have found that it can pay to re-read your posts, MM, because there are some real eye-openers ... at least in terms of my efforts to understand, in detail, how your views on what sorts of criteria are acceptable, for use in cosmology, and what are not.

You spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the *critics* belief systems, and no time at all being the least bit focused on, or critical about the fact that you can't empirically demonstrate that your inflation deity isn't a figment of your imagination. Why? Like I said a long time ago, if I doubted the existence of EM fields or gravity you'd have no problem demonstrating that gravity and EM fields have an effect reality. Why all the tap dancing when we get to inflation faeries?

This extract, from one of your posts, is one such.

Take what you wrote slowly, a phrase at a time

There go go again focusing on the individual instead of making your case empirically. I guess your debate style doesn't work very well when it's your own belief systems that are being questioned, so immediately you try to switch the discussion to something else and attempt to switch the burden of proof. You're the one that believes in inflation. Let's see you demonstrate it's not a figment of your imagination before you start pointing at the sky with it. How about that "dark flow"? How come it didn't falsify inflation again?

From this great mass of data, we conclude that the simulations Birkeland did in his lab do not resemble the physical environments of the Earth's upper atmosphere,

Bologna. The aurora were more complicated but in other respects he was exactly right on the money.

the solar wind,

Why can't you "explain" or "simulate" something Birkeland was able to both explain and simulate over 100 years ago? Could it be you simply refuse to accept the part of his work that would actually enlighten you?

the Sun's corona, ...

Pfft. He created coronal loops in his lab and wrote all about them!

So, concerning aurora and various Sun-related phenomena, in what sense can "Birkeland's aurora and solar theories" be said to have merit "because they work in a lab"?!?

The jaw dropping part from my perspective is that you *can't* explain solar wind acceleration and you *refuse* to accept the one "solution" that has actually been physically shown to work empirically, in a lab, with control mechanisms and all the things you guys just hate. Evidently somewhere along the line your industry forgot the importance of experimentation of actual "physics". These days anything with a math formula that doesn't mention "electricity" is ok, but you outright ignore anything and everything that actually physically works in an experiment.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

derekmcd said:
The problem is confusing the difference between space and spacetime in GR. They are quite distinguishable. Your first mistake is objectifying space as something that is physically tangible.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Gah! I do not think it is tangible, I believe it to be empty space. Period. What was wrong with this paper by the way? I'll ask you because I think you might actually address his criticisms, whereas the rest of this crew seems to be in pure denial at this point. Objects in motion sort of expansion *can* explain this redshift phenomenon without any sort of 'space expansion'. From an occum's razor perspective, you don't have a let to stand on IMO and that paper demonstrates this point mathematically.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]
Like I said a long time ago, if I doubted the existence of EM fields or gravity you'd have no problem demonstrating that gravity and EM fields have an effect reality.

[...]

In a post, not so long ago ...

Michael,

I know the post I wrote was rather long, and I later realised you were extremely busy then, so here it is again (you didn't respond the first time), the key part anyway:

DeiRenDopa said:
Michael Mozina said:

My opinions are irrelevant to this answer. If you asked me can I empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature I would have no trouble demonstrating these things exist in nature in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions you might have on these subjects.

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you again!

A light bulb just went off!!

OK, I will ask you: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

I assume that your answer will be a resounding "Yes, I can".

With that answer in hand, I will proceed to find out how.

How about it?

Would you care to answer my question now? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

derekmcd said:
Apples and oranges. Birkeland wasn't presenting anything that was an attempt to throw known physics out the window or toss the collective understanding of the community on its head. Birkeland was just trying to explain a local phenomena (that wasn't understood) for which he had the unique opportunity of location to study said phenomena.

I think you missed my point. He not only came up with a way to explain the aurora, but solar activity as well. The mainstream took more than 60 years to accept *some* of his ideas related to aurora because they like Chapman's math better. At the rate they are going, it could them them another 60 years for them to realize that Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity. I'll be dead by then! Just because an idea is correct or accurate does not mean that the mainstream is immediately going to recognize it. They don't work that way. Look how long they clung to Chapman's math? It's probably still in use today.

Beside, I believe it was you that told me that Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel at least 7(?) times. How is that not being recognized?

Recognition is more than about 'awards', it's about giving him the credit he was due, and accepting his "explanations" for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*.

My criticisms were specific enough. Are you saying you want to see how his equations are wrong? If so, doesn't that seem just a bit hypocritical? Guth's math has been parsed relentlessly and found to be consistent (inflation has evolvled, but that doesn't change anything).

That "evolution" you describe is but a series of never ending "fudging with the numbers" because you never intend to empirically demonstrate any of it. The moment the theory fails, you just modify it here, snip a little from there, tuck a bit over there, and viola, it's "evolved" not into a "prediction machine" capable of predicting anything, anywhere, anytime. Holy cow, with a theory that's 96 percent fudge factor, what can't it explain? Oh ya, those "dark flows". I guess inflation will "evolve" again pretty soon eh?

So, a theory based on a hypothetical particle is ok if you present it. However, if mainstream presents a theory based on a hypothetical particle (WIMP), it's considered woo. Your logic defies me...

I'm simply noting that your inflation deity isn't mathematical "no show" deity in town. I'm frankly more interested in your reaction to that last paper I cited and it's "explanation" of redshift *without* expanding space. You and I both seem to be willing to entertain an objects in motion sort of expansion, and no other type of expansion seems to be required in the first place.

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina;4454077 (had to edit yet another link) said:
Gah! I do not think it is tangible, I believe it to be empty space. Period. What was wrong with this paper by the way? I'll ask you because I think you might actually address his criticisms, whereas the rest of this crew seems to be in pure denial at this point. Objects in motion sort of expansion *can* explain this redshift phenomenon without any sort of 'space expansion'. From an occum's razor perspective, you don't have a let to stand on IMO and that paper demonstrates this point mathematically.

Apparently, the author can't distinguish between DeSitter space and empty space. I made it through page 3 before I realized it was word salad.

ETA: If you don't think space is tangilbe, why do you insist on it being testable in a laboratory experiment???

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
How about it?

Would you care to answer my question now? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Sure, pick up a plasma ball at Walmart. I'll show you how do demonstrate both the existence of gravity and demonstrate that electricity and EM fields can move plasma for under $30, simple control mechanisms and everything. Pick up a nine volt battery while you are there and I'll even demonstrate what electricity "feels" like on the top of your tongue.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

derekmcd said:
Apparently, the author can't distinguish between DeSitter space and empty space. I made it through page 3 before I realized it was word salad.

I would like a *specific* criticism where he introduced an error. This handwave stuff is getting old. You all use a different handwave argument and there is never a specific criticism. At least Tim seems to have some idea on how papers are supposed to be critiqued and how to be "specific" in his criticisms.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the *critics* belief systems, and no time at all being the least bit focused on, or critical about the fact that you can't empirically demonstrate that your inflation deity isn't a figment of your imagination.

[...]

Yes, that seems about right ...

As I thought I explained, very near the beginning on my posting history in this thread, the question posed in the title of this thread ("Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?") was answered, in the negative, by about the end of the first page.

From about that time onward, the only JREF Forum member presenting a contrary opinion was the OP, namely you yourself Michael.

From then, it seemed to me, the only (or perhaps main) question of any interest was why? As in "why do you, MM, hold the view - apparently quite strongly - that contemporary LCDM models are scientific woo?"

I outlined - explicitly - my approach to trying to answer this question; I interpreted your response to mean you were personally quite offended by that approach*. Subsequently, I adopted a different approach.

My research - google is your friend! - has, so far, turned up a great many posts by "Michael Mozina" in many internet discussion fora. My random sampling of those posts showed - informally - very similar content and style to yours here, in this forum.

I am in the process of drawing up testable hypotheses concerning the (or some) key (?) criteria that you use to assess the acceptability of ideas/models/theories/whatever as part of cosmology, as a science, in your own, personal, view of cosmology.

To give you some snippets: "empirical" to MM has a quite different meaning than it has to other participants in these discussions (LOTS of hard data on that!); there is a strong religious/personal belief system component to MM's approach to cosmology; consistency (to be more precisely defined) has a relatively low value in MM's view of the nature of cosmology (as science).

Oh, and re "you can't empirically demonstrate that your inflation deity isn't a figment of your imagination"? I already did (sans the "deity", whatever that is):

DeiRenDopa said:
Most easily ... in an earlier post I referenced a recent paper on WMAP results, the abstract of which includes a reference to "inflation": "We constrain the physics of inflation via Gaussianity, adiabaticity, the power spectrum shape, gravitational waves, and spatial curvature."

* links to the key posts re this available upon request.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

What can I pick up at the store for you to demonstrate inflation for me? I'll give you $50 dollar budget. Keep in mind I can demonstrate the real effects of gravity and EM fields on real objects for under $30.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Sure, pick up a plasma ball at Walmart. I'll show you how do demonstrate both the existence of gravity and demonstrate that electricity and EM fields can move plasma for under $30, simple control mechanisms and everything. Pick up a nine volt battery while you are there and I'll even demonstrate what electricity "feels" like on the top of your tongue.

OK, got one (not from Walmart though ... does that invalidate the MM test?)

Also have on hand a nine volt battery (I tested it with my multimeter; it's not *exactly* 9.00000000000 volts - does that matter?).

Next?

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Yes, that seems about right ...

As I thought I explained, very near the beginning on my posting history in this thread, the question posed in the title of this thread ("Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?") was answered, in the negative, by about the end of the first page.

Huh? The fact something is published and written about does not demonstrate it has scientific merit. People write about numerology all the time and just like you, they can't demonstrate their math has any useful predictive value whatsoever when it comes to predicting the outcome of controlled experimentation. Since then, it's been 10+ more pages of tap dancing, and not one demonstration that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination. It is purely made up just like any other mythos.

From about that time onward, the only JREF Forum member presenting a contrary opinion was the OP, namely you yourself Michael.

But I'm not the only one in the world who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory!
http://cosmologystatement.org/

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
OK, got one (not from Walmart though ... does that invalidate the MM test?)

Also have on hand a nine volt battery (I tested it with my multimeter; it's not *exactly* 9.00000000000 volts - does that matter?).

Next?

If you touch both terminals of the battery to the top of your tongue, you'll feel the tingle of the electrical current as it runs through your tongue. That is "electricity" and it has an effect on the plasma in the plasma ball.

Plug in the plasma ball and turn it on. When you turn it on you can watch the electrical currents (like the one that ran through your tongue) created filamentary shapes in the plasma and light up those filaments. Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand. As you let go of the ball, gravity will cause the ball to fall into your other hand, and yet the currents will still be moving and flowing inside the ball. Turn off the switch on the side of the ball and notice how the filaments disappear inside the plasma ball. Turn it back on again and watch what happens. In this case the control mechanism to demonstrate gravity exists in nature is you hand that releases the ball. The effect of gravity causes the ball to fall. You can repeat this process as many times as you like if you doubt gravity will cause the ball to fall. Likewise you can turn the switch on and off (with the ball plugged in of course) and control the flow of electricity inside the plasma.

Care to demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination now? Keep in mind my experiment cost $30 and demonstrates gravity and EM fields are not a figment of my personal imagination.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

derekmcd said:
ETA: If you don't think space is tangilbe, why do you insist on it being testable in a laboratory experiment???

Nothing cannot expand. If you believe "space" expands, I want to see you demonstrate it. It's your claim, not mine.

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I would like a *specific* criticism where he introduced an error. This handwave stuff is getting old. You all use a different handwave argument and there is never a specific criticism. At least Tim seems to have some idea on how papers are supposed to be critiqued and how to be "specific" in his criticisms.

The abstract alone is riddled with errors and misconceptions. I'll address them tomorrow night if I have time. Remind me if I forget.

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
What can I pick up at the store for you to demonstrate inflation for me? I'll give you $50 dollar budget. Keep in mind I can demonstrate the real effects of gravity and EM fields on real objects for under $30.

So, if we throw your plasma toy out the widow, does that equal a "theory of everything"?

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Nothing cannot expand. If you believe "space" expands, I want to see you demonstrate it. It's your claim, not mine.

I'm confused... I though you weren't objectifying 'space'.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I think you missed my point. He not only came up with a way to explain the aurora, but solar activity as well.

Huh?!?

As I read Birkeland (again, many thanks to IT for his excellent compilation), Birkeland's "explanation" is, by today's standards, quite modest ... and his "explanation" of "solar activity" amazingly limited (again, by today's standards ... goodness, he didn't even mention solar neutrinos, much less the gamma ray spectrum of solar flares!).

The mainstream took more than 60 years to accept *some* of his ideas related to aurora because they like Chapman's math better.

That may, or may not, be so.

However, it also took mere decades for "the mainstream" (is that a river?) to conclude that *some* of his ideas related to aurora were, empirically, wrong.

At the rate they are going, it could them them another 60 years for them to realize that Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity.

Or it could take "them" (you sound like a conspiracy theorist) forever, or 10 days, or ...

Why not put "the mainstream" out of its misery, by writing a paper which shows, once and for all, in great clarity and quantitative detail, how "Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity"? You don't even have to submit it to any relevant peer-reviewed journal, simply add it to your website, and then post a link to it here!

I'll be dead by then! Just because an idea is correct or accurate does not mean that the mainstream is immediately going to recognize it. They don't work that way. Look how long they clung to Chapman's math? It's probably still in use today.

So, to bring this back to the thing I'm interested in ...

... how, exactly, in the MM view of "empiricism" does one show that "an idea is correct or accurate"? In the field of cosmology of course, however you choose to define it.

Recognition is more than about 'awards', it's about giving him the credit he was due, and accepting his "explanations" for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*.

So, how about this for a plan:

You write up a paper (or papers) showing - in considerable, quantitative detail - just how good/accurate/right/etc Birkeland's "explanations" "for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*" are. You then put it up on your website and let us all know about it. One (or more) of us will then take that material, make some trivial edits to it, change the name of the author, and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal. When the phone call from Stockholm comes, we promise to give you (and Birkeland) full credit for the ideas, in our acceptance speeches.

Sound like a plan to you?

That "evolution" you describe is but a series of never ending "fudging with the numbers" because you never intend to empirically demonstrate any of it. The moment the theory fails, you just modify it here, snip a little from there, tuck a bit over there, and viola, it's "evolved" not into a "prediction machine" capable of predicting anything, anywhere, anytime.

And you can, being a true empiricist, show this - objectively, etc - by first describing this prediction machine, then making it demonstrate that the Moon is made of green cheese, that colourless green dreams sleep furiously, and that the morm raths outgrabe (but only on the sixth Sundays in February).

Holy cow, with a theory that's 96 percent fudge factor, what can't it explain? Oh ya, those "dark flows". I guess inflation will "evolve" again pretty soon eh?

(bold added)

I must have missed this one - can you explain please?

I'm simply noting that your inflation deity isn't mathematical "no show" deity in town. I'm frankly more interested in your reaction to that last paper I cited and it's "explanation" of redshift *without* expanding space. You and I both seem to be willing to entertain an objects in motion sort of expansion, and no other type of expansion seems to be required in the first place.

This is not addressed to me, but ...

... I'm interested in why you haven't - yet - poured scorn on that last paper, for failing the oft-mentioned MM tests of empirical science.

derekmcd · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Huh? The fact something is published and written about does not demonstrate it has scientific merit.

Oh, the hipocracy...

You are a hoot, Michael.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Huh? The fact something is published and written about does not demonstrate it has scientific merit.

Indeed.

People write about numerology all the time and just like you, they can't demonstrate their math has any useful predictive value whatsoever when it comes to predicting the outcome of controlled experimentation.

Thanks for this.

It gives me an idea of how to quantify the MM approach to describing the key criteria for assessing acceptability in cosmology, as a science.

Of course, in terms of its correspondence with empiricism in (most/much of) modern science, I guess one could say that coincidences do happen ...

For avoidance of doubt: the "useful predictive value" of almost all of modern LCDM models is demonstrated in a substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, possibly a large majority.

Care to discuss this further?

Since then, it's been 10+ more pages of tap dancing, and not one demonstration that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination. It is purely made up just like any other mythos.

Not.

Relatively early on I posted a link to the arXiv preprint of a major WMAP5 paper.

I note that you have, not once, referenced either my posts on that or the paper itself.

Why?

But I'm not the only one in the world who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory!
http://cosmologystatement.org/

Indeed.

However, you are the only one "who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory" who is posting in this thread (at least, as far as we know ... it is entirely possible that DRD is also such a person

).

Perpetual Student · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
But I'm not the only one in the world who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory!
http://cosmologystatement.org/

That is a strong statement and an impressive list of people. Many of the signatories are physicists, cosmologists and people with other strong scientific credentials. I find that quite an attention getting development and very compelling. Do any of MM's adversaries have anything to say about that statement and its signatories?

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If you touch both terminals of the battery to the top of your tongue, you'll feel the tingle of the electrical current as it runs through your tongue. That is "electricity" and it has an effect on the plasma in the plasma ball.

Yeah, I certainly feel a 'tingle'.

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

Next?

Plug in the plasma ball and turn it on. When you turn it on you can watch the electrical currents (like the one that ran through your tongue) created filamentary shapes in the plasma and light up those filaments.

OK, turned it on, and I can see some nice colours (though I know a relative of mine would call them horrible) which have some interesting shapes; the coloured shapes move about.

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand.

OK, did that.

As you let go of the ball, gravity will cause the ball to fall into your other hand,

Surely you jest, Michael!

It's not "gravity" which causes this to happen!

It's the inflation deity!!

and yet the currents will still be moving and flowing inside the ball. Turn off the switch on the side of the ball and notice how the filaments disappear inside the plasma ball. Turn it back on again and watch what happens.

OK, did that; the pretty coloured shapes came back, but they were different than last time.

In this case the control mechanism to demonstrate gravity exists in nature is you hand that releases the ball. The effect of gravity causes the ball to fall. You can repeat this process as many times as you like if you doubt gravity will cause the ball to fall. Likewise you can turn the switch on and off (with the ball plugged in of course) and control the flow of electricity inside the plasma.

I believe the technical term for this is tautology.

Or perhaps it's just an example of a definition ("gravity" is the name MM gives as the answer to my question "why does the plasma ball fall from one hand to the other when I let it go?").

In any case, there is no mention of "EM fields", so does my turning on (and off) of the switch, watching pretty coloured shapes, and dropping the plasma ball from one hand to the other constitute a controlled experiment demonstrating that EM fields do NOT exist in nature?

Care to demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination now? Keep in mind my experiment cost $30 and demonstrates gravity and EM fields are not a figment of my personal imagination.

Easy.

Repeat the steps you described in your post, with your own plasma ball.

In particular: Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand. As you let go of the ball, inflation will cause the ball to fall into your other hand.

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

derekmcd said:
The abstract alone is riddled with errors and misconceptions. I'll address them tomorrow night if I have time. Remind me if I forget.

Of all the people I've met on the internet, I trust your personal grasp of GR more than anyone else I've ever met, probably myself included on some aspects. I would very much appreciate your insights.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
That is a strong statement and an impressive list of people. Many of the signatories are physicists, cosmologists and people with other strong scientific credentials. I find that quite an attention getting development and very compelling. Do any of MM's adversaries have anything to say about that statement and its signatories?

I'm not sure if I fall into the category of "MM adversary", but here's an idea:

Why don't we do a "Project Steve" on this topic?

(Are you familiar with the original Project Steve, PS?)

Perpetual Student · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
I'm not sure if I fall into the category of "MM adversary", but here's an idea:

Why don't we do a "Project Steve" on this topic?

(Are you familiar with the original Project Steve, PS?)

I'm not sure what your response means. Yes, there are lists of creationists with resumes of one kind or another. I made the point that the list MM showed includes a good number of physicists, astronomers and cosmologists. Only the occasional oddball-crackpot biologist embraces creationism.
Furthermore, evolution is a foundational theory. I would hope you would admit that modern cosmology is in its infancy and may undergo many modifications before anything "foundational" is established.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Yeah, I certainly feel a 'tingle'.

So what do you figure caused that tingle?

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

Next?

Er, you missed an important point there. Moving electrons made your tongue tingle. They exist in nature. You measured the voltage of the battery with your meter. Consumer products run on "electricity" and they measure EM fields. You mentioned that your meter for instance read 9 volts. If it read 8 volts instead of nine, you would know that the battery was defective and you would have had a right to complain to the manufacturer who claimed it was 9 volts.

How do I go about "measuring" inflation in a controlled experiment? What consumer product can I purchase the runs on "inflation"?

OK, turned it on, and I can see some nice colours (though I know a relative of mine would call them horrible) which have some interesting shapes; the coloured shapes move about.

Those nice colors are caused by the flow of electricity inside the plasma. That electron flow that made your tongue tingle, and made your volt meter register a voltage also causes the plasma to move and flow into tornado like filaments inside the plasma. The pretty colors are caused by charged particles emitting photons. It's basically the same process that occurs in lighting strikes on Earth, and electrical energy and current flow is quite common in nature.

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

OK, did that.

Surely you jest, Michael!

It's not "gravity" which causes this to happen! It's the inflation deity!!

Er no, that would have to fly UP and hit the ceiling for Nereid the inflation deity to be involved, at least according to your math.

OK, did that; the pretty coloured shapes came back, but they were different than last time.

What's the "power source" that you're plugged into by the way, and what happens when you unplug it from the wall instead of turning off the switch?

In any case, there is no mention of "EM fields", so does my turning on (and off) of the switch, watching pretty coloured shapes, and dropping the plasma ball from one hand to the other constitute a controlled experiment demonstrating that EM fields do NOT exist in nature?

No, it demonstrates the electron flow and gravity show up here on Earth, unlike your Nereid who didn't make the ball fly up and hit the ceiling.

Easy.

Repeat the steps you described in your post, with your own plasma ball.

In particular: Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand. As you let go of the ball, inflation will cause the ball to fall into your other hand.

Sorry, but if that were so, you're "smaller than a breadbox" thingamabob would never have gone "bang". Your inflation deity is dead.

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

I can demonstrate that there are real consumer products that claim to run on electricity, generate and detect EM fields and and detect gravity. Can you show me one consumer product that claims or reports to run on inflation?

IMO this only demonstrates how irrational your argument has become. While I have no problem providing you with ample consumer product based on EM fields and the manipulation of EM fields, you've got squat. You've got a numerology gig that never "predicted" the "dark flows" you keep ignoring. Hoy.

Next week you'll probably assign Nereid the inflation deity new and improved "dark flow" features and you'll then tell me to bow down to your new and improved Nereid, the ever imaginary and ever changing inflation/dark energy/dark flow deity of outer space! You folks really are a goofy cult.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
For avoidance of doubt: the "useful predictive value" of almost all of modern LCDM models is demonstrated in a substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, possibly a large majority.

So by your definition we must accept the existence of any deity due to "popularity" and the fact that people write about said deity and it gets published. Sorry, that won't fly with anyone here.

However, you are the only one "who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory" who is posting in this thread (at least, as far as we know ... it is entirely possible that DRD is also such a person ).

That is irrelevant. The onus of responsibility is on the one making the claim. If you wish to claim inflation exists in nature, I want to see it demonstrated *before* you start whipping up math formulas. A really simple demonstration of concept is acceptable, but pure math is not. Whole virtual worlds can be can be created in software that have no physical connection to reality as we know it.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
I'm not sure what your response means. Yes, there are lists of creationists with resumes of one kind or another. I made the point that the list MM showed includes a good number of physicists, astronomers and cosmologists. Only the occasional oddball-crackpot biologist embraces creationism.
Furthermore, evolution is a foundational theory. I would hope you would admit that modern cosmology is in its infancy and may undergo many modifications before anything "foundational" is established.

When a discussion about the scientific merit - or otherwise - of a particular model (or, in this case, a class of models) descends into drawing up lists of who's 'for' and who's 'agin', it's time to call it a day.

If you - or any other JREF Forum member reading this - thinks that the answer to the question that this thread poses is "Yes, contemporary LCDM models are scientific woo", then please say so.

If you do so say, please explain your answer, in as much detail as you feel comfortable with.

If you have doubts - that the answer may be "yes", for example - then please say so, and express those doubts as clearly and cogently as you can.

On a personal note, if you think you understand what MM's key criteria are - for assessing acceptability wrt cosmology, as a science - please say so, and please, please summarise what you think those criteria are. I think the record of my posts in this thread is quite clear - I have tried quite hard to understand that those criteria are, but have had essentially no success with my first approach. Asking you, PS, is a third approach (of course, I extend my invitation to all JREF Forum members reading this post to also post your understanding of what those criteria are).

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Relatively early on I posted a link to the arXiv preprint of a major WMAP5 paper.

I note that you have, not once, referenced either my posts on that or the paper itself.

Why?

I must have missed it, and frankly it sounds like another point at the sky and add math exercises. I'd first like to see you demonstrate that the inflation deity exists and has some effect on nature *before* you claim she does tricks in the sky.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
When a discussion about the scientific merit - or otherwise - of a particular model (or, in this case, a class of models) descends into drawing up lists of who's 'for' and who's 'agin', it's time to call it a day.

But when you "predict" it's going to get published by a who's who list that's ok? Sheesh.

If you - or any other JREF Forum member reading this - thinks that the answer to the question that this thread poses is "Yes, contemporary LCDM models are scientific woo", then please say so.

YES!

If you do so say, please explain your answer, in as much detail as you feel comfortable with.

You can't demonstrate your deity does anything to anything.

On a personal note, if you think you understand what MM's key criteria are

*Empirical physics!*

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

Out of curiosity....

Did your WMAP paper you mentioned deal with the "dark flow" observation? If so, could you please post the link again? If it didn't deal with that observation of dark flow, why not?

temporalillusion · Feb 22, 2009

sol invictus said:
On a personal note, if you think you understand what MM's key criteria are - for assessing acceptability wrt cosmology, as a science - please say so, and please, please summarise what you think those criteria are.

Wal Mart Cosmology™ - Must be demonstrated with $50 or less of equipment or it doesn't exist

DeiRenDopa · Feb 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

For avoidance of doubt: the "useful predictive value" of almost all of modern LCDM models is demonstrated in a substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, possibly a large majority.

Click to expand...

So by your definition we must accept the existence of any deity due to "popularity" and the fact that people write about said deity and it gets published. Sorry, that won't fly with anyone here.

No.

Obviously, my post was insufficiently clear if that is how you interpreted it; let me try again.

I'm going to start my clarification by quoting from an earlier post by ben m, in this thread (extracts):

ben m said:
Inflation is a hypothesis. [...]

With inflation, we do exactly what we're supposed to do with hypotheses: make predictions and try to verify or falsify them using all available means. [...]

There is no actual scientific-method objection to the fact that inflation is a hypothesis, nor to the observational model-testing apparatus that appears to confirm it. Nor would there be any objection to a non-inflation hypothesis which also passed such tests. (Not that you have suggested one.)

So, what is the "useful predictive value" of inflation?

Hypothesis formation.

Specifically, the extent to which the concept can be used to formulate clear, quantitative, testable hypotheses.

That - the formulation of clear, quantitative, testable hypotheses (and their subsequent testing) - is the essential core of empiricism.

A substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, are the empirical demonstration of the "useful predictive value" of inflation.

However, you are the only one "who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory" who is posting in this thread (at least, as far as we know ... it is entirely possible that DRD is also such a person ).

Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. The onus of responsibility is on the one making the claim. If you wish to claim inflation exists in nature, I want to see it demonstrated *before* you start whipping up math formulas. A really simple demonstration of concept is acceptable, but pure math is not. Whole virtual worlds can be can be created in software that have no physical connection to reality as we know it.

Thank you, Michael.

Let's remind ourselves of what the question posed in the OP is, shall we?

It is: "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?"

Let's, for now, leave aside the fact - yes, fact - that "inflation" is not, strictly speaking, part of "Lambda-CDM theory" (a fact pointed out quite early in this thread).

Let's, also for now, leave aside the fact - yet, fact - that there is no such thing as "Lambda-CDM theory" (also pointed out quite early in this thread).

Instead, let's focus on what the claim is, made in the OP, by the OP.

In essence, that claim is "contemporary LCDM cosmological models are scientific woo".

And who is making this claim, in this thread? Only Michael Mozina.

Now, had the OP - and its question - been something like "what is the empirical support for the concept of inflation, in modern cosmology?", perhaps your objection would be pertinent.

But it wasn't, and so it isn't.

"The onus of responsibility is on the one making the claim." Indeed.

The claim is being made by Michael Mozina, so it is he who has the onus of responsibility.

Michael Mozina · Feb 22, 2009

temporalillusion said:
Wal Mart Cosmology™ - Must be demonstrated with $50 or less of equipment or it doesn't exist

Real things that run on real physics tend to show up at Walmart. You only seem to need a "specialist" when it comes to taro card readings, numerology or inflation. EM fields show up in Walmart products. In fact pretty much all fields and forces and curvatures of nature show up in products at Walmart. I can't think of too many that don't in fact. Those that do not, tend to be related to issues of national security, or financial limitations.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Student

Master Poster

Student

Master Poster

Master Poster

Student

Student

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Student

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Student

Student

Student

Master Poster

Student

Master Poster

Illuminator

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Technical Admin

Master Poster

Banned