Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
There are VP's moving between the plates and VP's moving outside the plates and there are more of them outside the plates, creating more VP "pressure" outside the plates than inside the plates. No areas experience "negative pressure".
Click to expand...
I may be stating the woefully obvious, but there were no metal plates in the early universe.
 
D'rok said:
And that's rhetorical trick #2: "If I can't get my hands dirty in a lab, the phenomenon is self-evidently made up".
Click to expand...

From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.

That's only slightly less transparent and pathetic than the conflation tactic. It really only demonstrates the limitations of your own technique, not the limitations of the discipline you are attacking.
Click to expand...

Woah. First of all, as it relates to your original statement concerning the Casimir effect specifically, I agree with you completely. There is no reason I should not "understand" this process as well as any "believer" in "negative pressure in a vacuum".

That is quite different however from something like "inflation" or "dark energy" or something I *cannot* empirically verify. You must accept that there is a difference here between these two different things.

Expertise first; criticism second. Or be prepared to forgo all credibility.
Click to expand...

I'll state again that as it relates to a *known and demonstrated phenomenon* like the Casimir effect, sure I need "expertise" first. As it relates "inflation" however, my skepticism stems from the lack of empirical support that it even exists in nature or that it has some effect on nature. No amount of "expertise in the math" is going to address my basic skepticism of the idea at the level of empirical physics. I don't need to know the math that relates to an electrical discharge to believe they occur in nature. I can observe them here on my desk anytime I want to see them in action. I can observe them in nature during an electrical storm. I have *empirical evidence* that EM fields influence nature. I have no *empirical evidence* that inflation does anything to monopoles, electrons, protons, etc.
 
Michael Mozina said:
From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.
Click to expand...
We have a (comparatively) simple mathematical model of inflation and its effects. If you have a simple mathematical of God, suitably qualified theologians would I'm sure be delighted to test it.
 
edd said:
I may be stating the woefully obvious, but there were no metal plates in the early universe.
Click to expand...

The point of our Casimir debate is that the VP's provide "kinetic pressure" on *both* sides of the plates, not just one. The VP's just provides more pressure on one side than the other. No area inside the chamber experiences "negative pressure".

As it relates to Guth's inflation theory, an all pervasive weak EM field around Guth's near singularity would only provide constant "inward kinetic pressure" on his near singularity, and as you point out, it would likely have no effect at all. Under no circumstances will we get "negative pressure" from the "vacuum", just 'kinetic transfers of energy" inside the vacuum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.



Woah. First of all, as it relates to your original statement concerning the Casimir effect specifically, I agree with you completely. There is no reason I should not "understand" this process as well as any "believer" in "negative pressure in a vacuum".

That is quite different however from something like "inflation" or "dark energy" or something I *cannot* empirically verify. You must accept that there is a difference here between these two different things.



I'll state again that as it relates to a *known and demonstrated phenomenon* like the Casimir effect, sure I need "expertise" first. As it relates "inflation" however, my skepticism stems from the lack of empirical support that it even exists in nature or that it has some effect on nature. No amount of "expertise in the math" is going to address my basic skepticism of the idea at the level of empirical physics. I don't need to know the math that relates to an electrical discharge to believe they occur in nature. I can observe them here on my desk anytime I want to see them in action. I can observe them in nature during an electrical storm. I have *empirical evidence* that EM fields influence nature. I have no *empirical evidence* that inflation does anything to monopoles, electrons, protons, etc.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually expect to breach your defences. I just wanted to highlight the obvious for other lurkers like me.

I encourage you to carry on with your tactics. I'm actually learning a lot from the knowledgeable people who continue to try to engage you.
 
edd said:
We have a (comparatively) simple mathematical model of inflation and its effects. If you have a simple mathematical of God, suitably qualified theologians would I'm sure be delighted to test it.
Click to expand...

I'll just blatantly pilfer your inflation math and call it "God energy". :)
 
D'rok said:
And that's rhetorical trick #2: "If I can't get my hands dirty in a lab, the phenomenon is self-evidently made up".
Click to expand...

One of the many problems with MM is that he holds the (delusional) belief that theories of cosmology cannot be tested empirically. In the world the rest of us live in, astronomers make observations and use them to test theories, discarding those that fail and refining those that don't. While the specific challenges and limitations observational astronomers must face are different than those faced by experimental physicists in labs, the methods they use are more or less identical, and their ability to test theories is at least broadly equivalent.

Both inflation and dark energy are more or less required by the data. To be more precise, no one up to this point in time has found a valid theory which can account for observational data and doesn't include them. At the same time, both are falsifiable - very easily so - by any of a myriad of potential observations. As such they obviously meet the definition of empirical science, and I would not be at all surprised if the Nobel committee recognizes some of the more important players in either or both in the near future. In fact, the discoverers of inflation have already been awarded a Dirac medal.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The point of our Casimir debate is that the VP's provide "kinetic pressure" on *both* sides of the plates, not just one. The VP's just provides more pressure on one side than the other. No area inside the chamber experiences "negative pressure".

As it relates to Guth's inflation theory, an all pervasive weak EM field around Guth's near singularity would only provide constant "inward kinetic pressure" on his near singularity, and as you point out, it would likely have no effect at all. Under no circumstances will we get "negative pressure" from the "vacuum", just 'kinetic transfers of energy" inside the vacuum.
Click to expand...

MM. I keep saying this but it isn't sinking in. Please read this carefully.

There is no 'around'. The universe is the same everywhere. There's no outside and inside. There's just high density everywhere.

There is no kinetic pressure forcing things to move in or out from some central location.

The effect of the pressure is gravitational, and is important in how the energy density varies with volume, not in directly moving any physical object through physical impacts.

The relevance of the Casimir effect is solely in the fact that it is an example of negative pressure. It may have a deeper connection to a vacuum energy responsible for cosmic evolution but it isn't clear at this point.
 
sol invictus said:
One of the many problems with MM is that he holds the (delusional) belief that theories of cosmology cannot be tested empirically. In the world the rest of us live in, astronomers make observations and use them to test theories, discarding those that fail and refining those that don't. While the specific challenges and limitations observational astronomers must face are different than those faced by experimental physicists in labs, the methods they use are more or less identical, and their ability to test theories is at least broadly equivalent.

Both inflation and dark energy are more or less required by the data. To be more precise, no one up to this point in time has found a valid theory which can account for observational data and doesn't include them. At the same time, both are falsifiable - very easily so - by any of a myriad of potential observations. As such they obviously meet the definition of empirical science, and I would not be at all surprised if the Nobel committee recognizes some of the more important players in either or both in the near future. In fact, the discoverers of inflation have already been awarded a Dirac medal.
Click to expand...

Thanks to contributions from you and others in this thread, I'm actually starting to get a layperson's grasp of these things. Ironically, MM is the fly in the ointment that has made this possible! If you were just talking amongst yourselves in your professional capacity, I would be lost.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The point of our Casimir debate is that the VP's provide "kinetic pressure" on *both* sides of the plates, not just one.
Click to expand...

A minor curiosity: the term "kinetic pressure" actually has a distinct meaning, separate from ordinary pressure: namely, the kinetic energy per unit volume of a fluid. It's called a "pressure" because it's got the same dimensions as pressure, but actual pressure is not equal to kinetic pressure. For nonrelativistic non-interacting particles, actual pressure turns out to be 2/3rds of the kinetic pressure, and for relativistic non-interacting particles, actual pressure will be 1/3rd of kinetic pressure. For interacting particles, all bets are off.
 
edd said:
The relevance of the Casimir effect is solely in the fact that it is an example of negative pressure.
Click to expand...

MM can't even wrap his head around negative pressures in liquids, even though they can be easily and directly measured in a lab. There's really no hope that we can get him to understand the Casimir effect.
 
D'rok said:
Thanks to contributions from you and others in this thread, I'm actually starting to get a layperson's grasp of these things. Ironically, MM is the fly in the ointment that has made this possible! If you were just talking amongst yourselves in your professional capacity, I would be lost.
Click to expand...
Seconded. This has been a great introduction to the topic.
 
sol invictus said:
One of the many problems with MM is that he holds the (delusional) belief that theories of cosmology cannot be tested empirically.
Click to expand...

One of the many problems with sol and this crew is that they hold the (delusional) belief that astronomers should have a "free pass" when it comes to empirically supporting their beliefs. Somehow it's "ok" to posit hypothetical entities like "dark energy" and "inflation" and SUSY particles galore and call the whole thing a "physics theory". Only 4% of this theory is based on actual "physics" and 96% of it is purely "made up" stuff that nobody can empirically demonstrate.

Birkeland didn't approach astronomy like that. He demonstrated that one *can* explain solar wind, high temperature discharges in the solar atmosphere, jets, aurora around planets, etc, all via standard forces of nature. This was all done in a lab over 100 years ago. It took the mainstream more than 60 years to finally comes to grips with the idea that Chapman's math was flawed and Birkeland's ideas had merit. I'll be dead If I wait around for them to figure out solar wind.

The mainsteam sees a Birkeland current in space and ignorantly refers to it as a "magnetic slinky" because none of their theories really "predict" or expect such a thing and they *refuse* to revisit Birkeland's emprical work.
 
Ziggurat said:
MM can't even wrap his head around negative pressures in liquids, even though they can be easily and directly measured in a lab. There's really no hope that we can get him to understand the Casimir effect.
Click to expand...

I just see no comparison to "bond tension" and "negative pressure in a vacuum". Guth didn't say squat about "liquids", he needs negative pressure in a vacuum.
 
edd said:
MM. I keep saying this but it isn't sinking in. Please read this carefully.

There is no 'around'. The universe is the same everywhere. There's no outside and inside. There's just high density everywhere.
Click to expand...

In terms of actual "physics", *what* is there is a high density of?

There is no kinetic pressure forcing things to move in or out from some central location.
Click to expand...

Ok.

The effect of the pressure is gravitational,
Click to expand...


What does that mean? Where does the "gravitational pressure" come from and which direction is the "pressure" coming from? What does the term "pressure" apply to, and where does it come from?

What "pressure" are you talking about if this is not "kinetic" in nature?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I just see no comparison to "bond tension" and "negative pressure in a vacuum".
Click to expand...

You also don't know how to define pressure. And for some strange reason you still refuse to acknowledge that liquids really can be at negative pressure, which is related to your inability to define pressure.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Knowing from an empirical standpoint is something I also appreciate and "crave" just as much as you do. I simply see the difference between empirical truth, and "wishful thinking'. If you could empirically demonstrate your claims had merit, my "skepticism" would be removed, and I would be happy to embrace empirical illumination and empirical wisdom.
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, they're not my claims (at least, not the ones about inflation). Secondly, people have empirically demonstrated inflation has merit. They've made predictions from the theory and those predictions have turned out, through empirical measurements, to be accurate.

What we have here however is a theory based on three different hypothetical entities based on a kludged together ad hoc bunch of "buddies", most recently "dark energy" which now presumably makes up 75% of the whole universe!
Click to expand...
Dark energy is basically just the words used to describe the fact that empirical observations seem to show the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

I'm afraid I do not see that as "finding out" anything. I see that as way to "create a mythos" that sounds pretty cool and comes with nifty math, but that is not a form of empirical truth. It requires *multiple* acts of faith on the part of the "believer".
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. That's the whole point. It is empirically testable. Which means it certainly isn't an act of faith.

Birkeland did things by the book. He could explain "Birkeland currents" in space and we see "cosmological examples" of such structures all the time.
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/


It's not a "magnetic slinky, it's a "Birkeland current".
[qimg]http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/helical_orion-2.jpg[/qimg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
All very nice. But not of any relevance here.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland didn't approach astronomy like that. He demonstrated that one *can* explain solar wind, high temperature discharges in the solar atmosphere, jets, aurora around planets, etc, all via standard forces of nature.
Click to expand...


No, he didn't. And it doesn't matter how often you repeat this lie, it will not become true.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The EM field applies 'force' or pressure to the plates, sure, but it is simply kinetic energy in motion that does this "pushing", not "negative pressure in a vacuum".
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "kinetic energy in motion". That makes no sense to me.

The difference is there are photons doing the "pushing" rather than atoms doing the "pushing", but it's all "positive kinetic energy in motion" that "pushes the plates together". There is no "negative pressure" involved, it's pure kinetic energy in motion. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Just so we're clear, how would you calculate the kinetic energy of a photon?


You're simply describing the "force per unit area of the carrier particle of the EM field! It is a simple "force" of nature that "pushes" (from the outside) the plates together because the "pressure" of the particles on the outside is "greater than" the "pressure" from the particles on the inside of the plates.
Click to expand...
Loosely speaking.

At no time is there any "negative pressure" doing any work inside the chamber, and there cannot ever be "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" as Guth needs to make his theory fly.
Click to expand...
How not?

Even if you claim there is an EM field "pushing" on his near singularity thingy, all the arrows will be pointed directly *into* the near singularity, not "away from" the near singularity, unless of course you claiming that it is "discharging towards" some external "nearsingularitymagnetosphere" of some sort?
Click to expand...
No idea what you're talking about here.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I want to "empirically know" what, if anything created this universe just like you do. I don't want to "make up" stuff on a whim like pixies, slap on some math and "make a wild guess".
Click to expand...
And yet you're the only one bringing up pixies and wild guesses. I can't even begin to imagine how much hard work went in to the "wild guess" of inflation to make it both compliant with existing observations and succesfully predict others. And this coming from a man who tried to explain the Casimir effect with neutrinos and the expanding Universe by reference to the solar wind!

Inflationdidit is no better than Goddidit at the level of empiricism as it relates to demonstrating "cause/effect" relationships.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. We can make predictions from inflation and we see that they are matched by real empirical observations. That makes inflation infinitely better than Goddidit. If you cannot see that theories which make predictions which are supported by empirical observations are better than those which do not then you clearly have no idea what empiricism is.

No but I'm going to point out to you that there is no empirical basis for your creation mythos, inflation, dark energy or SUSY particles.
Click to expand...
a) They're not mine. b) Yes there is. Sol Invictus gave you a hold long list of them a long long long time ago. c) "creation mythos" really isn't help you here in the "not being the antithesis of a scientist" stakes.

You didn't "find out" anything, you "made it all up" based on multiple things you cannot empirically support. Inflationdidit is not "empirical truth".
Click to expand...
I did no such thing. And neither did anybody else.

Well, I admit I probably do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder at this point due to the way I've seen empirical physics treated by this industry.
Click to expand...
You don't know what empiricism is. I'll repeat:
"If you cannot see that theories which make predictions which are supported by empirical observations are better than those which do not then you clearly have no idea what empiricism is".

I've seen Birkeland's empirical lab work be scoffed at for long enough now. I guess after seeing enough threads entitled "Is PC theory woo", one starts to wonder if you guys even understand the difference between empirical physics that works in a lab and "woo" that only works in myths and legends and is shy around a lab. How exactly does one decide what is "woo" other than what can be shown to work empirically and what cannot, and what can usefully predict the outcome of a physical experiment and what cannot?
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with cosmology.

Inflation is pure woo because it has no useful predictive value when it comes to determining the outcome of any physical experiment.
Click to expand...
We can make predictions from it. And then test them against observation. And its done pretty well so far. So defo not woo by any definition I've ever heard of.

Dark energy is "woo" as well.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Universe's expansion appears to be accelerating has been verified by independent empirical observations. What definition of woo makes this concept woo?

SUSY theory is "speculative" at best, but at least we might have some hope of physically "testing" that one.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Rather elegant, however (to the extent that I understand it). Not that that makes it right. I think a lot of people would like it to be though.

None of these do anything to anything in an experiment.
Click to expand...
They explain empirical observations and make predictions. Predictions which match up well with empirical observation.

MDH theory works in a lab.
Click to expand...
So? Do you have an MHD theory that can explain the cosmological observations as well As LCDM. No! (Well, if you do you're keeping it very well hid).

After awhile of watching EU theory being disregarded in a callous and hostile fashion, I guess I am getting a bit "disgruntled" as it relates to your popular mythos and your industry's lack of respect for empirical physics.
Click to expand...
Well, if EU theory could explain cosmological observations as well as LCDM it wouldn't be ignored. But it doesn't. So it is.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
In terms of actual "physics", *what* is there is a high density of?
Click to expand...
I can answer this: There was a high density of everything that there is in the universe at the start of the BBT (Guth's near singularity thingy).
To make it simple for you MM:
Now the universe is big and full of stuff.
Then the universe was small and still full of the same stuff.
Stuff that is in a big volume and was in a small volume was at at high density at that time in the past.

P.S. Did you read my previous posting? Do you have an answer to the question?
 
Tubbythin said:
Well, if EU theory could explain cosmological observations as well as LCDM it wouldn't be ignored. But it doesn't. So it is.
Click to expand...


True. In fact, if EU could explain cosmological observations to any significant extent, even if not as well as the LCDM model, it would be given some consideration. But it doesn't. So it isn't.
 
edd said:
The relevance of the Casimir effect is solely in the fact that it is an example of negative pressure. It may have a deeper connection to a vacuum energy responsible for cosmic evolution but it isn't clear at this point.
Click to expand...

Some large prime number of pages ago the Casimir effect was raised as an example of negative pressure because MM couldn't/wouldn't/won't grok gravity being negative.

What seems like an eternity later, here we are.

MM, if you're going to ignore all my other questions, could you at least define vacuum?
 
Tubbythin said:
Well, first of all, they're not my claims (at least, not the ones about inflation). Secondly, people have empirically demonstrated inflation has merit.
Click to expand...

No, people have *alleged* that inflation has merit *in spite of the fact* that there is *no* empirical support of the idea and there never *can be* empirical support of that claim.

They've made predictions from the theory and those predictions have turned out, through empirical measurements, to be accurate.
Click to expand...

Inflation has made "postdictions" that have been falsified since the very first paper Guth wrote.

Dark energy is basically just the words used to describe the fact that empirical observations seem to show the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.
Click to expand...

Why not call it "acceleration"?

No it doesn't. That's the whole point. It is empirically testable. Which means it certainly isn't an act of faith.
Click to expand...

You guys/gals do not understand the meaning of "empirically testable". Gravity is empirically testable. EM fields are empirically testable. Inflation is not empirically testable and neither is "dark energy".
 
Reality Check said:
I can answer this: There was a high density of everything that there is in the universe at the start of the BBT (Guth's near singularity thingy).
To make it simple for you MM:
Now the universe is big and full of stuff.
Click to expand...

You mean it is big and full of positive energy.

Then the universe was small and still full of the same stuff.
Click to expand...

You mean it was once "physically smaller" but it still had a positive energy density.

In other words that notion that this is a "zero net energy" scenario is totally bogus, it's *always* been a *positive energy* scenario? Is that it?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
No, he didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes he did and he wrote all about it.

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

And it doesn't matter how often you repeat this lie, it will not become true.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.
 
Tubbythin said:
What do you mean by "kinetic energy in motion". That makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Translational_motion.gif


That is a macroscopic example of kinetic energy in motion. At the level of subatomic particles, it's simply a smaller particle and it isn't necessarily stopped by any walls. At the level of the Casimir effect, it's simply the carrier particles of the EM field in motion.

Just so we're clear, how would you calculate the kinetic energy of a photon?
Click to expand...

The kinetic energy of a photon is calculated based upon it's wavelength. Gamma rays have more kinetic energy that photons in the visual spectrum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, people have *alleged* that inflation has merit *in spite of the fact* that there is *no* empirical support of the idea and there never *can be* empirical support of that claim.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. SOl gave you a whole long list of the stuff.

Inflation has made "postdictions" that have been falsified since the very first paper Guth wrote.
Click to expand...
Specifically?

Why not call it "acceleration"?
Click to expand...
Why not refer to the force of gravity simply as force?


You guys/gals do not understand the meaning of "empirically testable". Gravity is empirically testable.
Click to expand...
Sure, eg good old wiki:
"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical"
We can make empirical observations and compare them to eg the predictions of an inflationary Universe. Thus inflation is empirically testable.

EM fields are empirically testable. Inflation is not empirically testable and neither is "dark energy".
Click to expand...
Yes it is. See above.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Translational_motion.gif[/qimg]

That is a macroscopic example of kinetic energy in motion. At the level of subatomic particles, it's simply a smaller particle and it isn't necessarily stopped by any walls. At the level of the Casimir effect, it's simply the carrier particles of the EM field in motion.
Click to expand...
Right, so thats opposed to the kinetic energy of standing still?


The kinetic energy of a photon is calculated based upon it's wavelength. Gamma rays have more kinetic energy that photons in the visual spectrum.
Click to expand...
Well, since this is independent of both mass and velocity (at least in a vacuum) I wouldn't call it kinetic. I'd just call it energy. But whatever turns you on.
Now, since you've just shown us all that the photons energy is not related to its mass and is independent of its speed (ie is completely non-classical), perhaps you could tell us all why you insist on using the ideal gas law that is an approximation for a classical gas?
 
Michael Mozina said:
From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.
Click to expand...

I know you will ignore this post but I am hopefull:

God did it, what are the observable traits that match the model of god?

Infaltion did it, what are the observable traits that match the model of inflation?

Remember that inflation, just like elctrons is not a thing it is a set of ideas that try to explain something. IE an approximate model. There are no electrons, neutrons or protons. These are semantic idiomatic self refencing labels that refer to coherent theories and hypotheses.

They are not the behaviors they describe, they are attempts to describe the behavior.

Gravity does not exist, it is a thought label that is applied to observation, just as the 'law of gravity' does not exist, it ia model that tries to describe observations.

You keep getting hung up on the words, it is not the words that matter, it is the ability to model observations.

The cosmological expansion of space is one model to approximate the red shift phenomena. Edd says that you can use doppler shift if you want but it runs into some sort of difficulty.

So here you are saying
"EM forces didit."

Which is great except for one thing this requires that there be something driving the expansion and causing the recession of objects. So you don't like the cosmological expansion of space.

Great, fine, wonderful.

How does 'EM firlds/forces didit" work?

Wouldn't that require the the universe show a majority of say one polarity of charge? Say negative and that all the galaxies and galaxies cluster show a negative charge? Or something like that? Other wise if the universe is neutral, why does it expand?

They are all made up ideas MM, if you don't like the current model of expanding space time, then how does you EM model work?

Again the same request made early on in this thread:

1. State your model.
2. What predictions does your model make?
3. What observation match the predictions of your model?

So what charge would a star have?
What charge would a galaxy have?
What charge would a galaxy cluster have?
Why if the EM force decreases with distance do things recede faster the farther away they are?
Does this mean that farther objects have greater charges?

How does your model work?

:)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No, people have *alleged* that inflation has merit *in spite of the fact* that there is *no* empirical support of the idea and there never *can be* empirical support of that claim.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you clearly do not understand cosmology without inflation. You cannot possibly understand it with inflation and thereby understand what constitutes empirical support for it.

You are out of your depth.
 
Tubbythin said:
Right, so thats opposed to the kinetic energy of standing still?
Click to expand...

I suppose you could look at it as the kinetic energy of what *is not standing still* in the vacuum as compared to the lack of energy it would posses if nothing flowed inside vacuum.

Well, since this is independent of both mass and velocity (at least in a vacuum) I wouldn't call it kinetic. I'd just call it energy. But whatever turns you on.
Click to expand...

Well, even photons have kinetic energy and are able to generate motion in electrons in a solar panel.

Now, since you've just shown us all that the photons energy is not related to its mass and is independent of its speed (ie is completely non-classical), perhaps you could tell us all why you insist on using the ideal gas law that is an approximation for a classical gas?
Click to expand...

I used it to approximate the "pressure" in a vacuum to demonstrate to you that the lowest level energy state of a "pure vacuum" in terms of atomic kinetic energy is "zero", not "negative a whole physical universe". The kinetic energy of the carrier particles of the EM field and neutrinos are also important forms of kinetic energy, but they are still just forms of kinetic energy albeit on a smaller scale than the atomic.

The whole universe is a moving sea of positive energy flow at the atomic and subatomic spectrum. In no way could we reach even a "zero" pressure state in a vacuum, and it is physically impossible to create a "negative pressure" in a vacuum. There is positive, moving kinetic energy flowing *though* and *inside* the vacuum at all times. A pure vacuum would be a zero pressure environment. A "vacuum" as we experience it is *full of kinetic energy and "positive pressures" (some higher on one side than the other) caused by the movement of particles.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I suppose you could look at it as the kinetic energy of what *is not standing still* in the vacuum as compared to the lack of energy it would posses if nothing flowed inside vacuum.
Click to expand...
The point was that you said "kinetic energy of motion" when kinetic energy is, by definition, the energy of motion.

Well, even photons have kinetic energy and are able to generate motion in electrons in a solar panel.
Click to expand...
Photons have energy. I wouldn't usually refer to it as kinetic but, like I said, whatever turns you on.

I used it to approximate the "pressure" in a vacuum to demonstrate to you that the lowest level energy state of a "pure vacuum" in terms of atomic kinetic energy is "zero", not "negative a whole physical universe".
Click to expand...
All it does is tell us that the gas pressure is zero. That is all. The Coulomb force between uncharged objects is zero. This doesn't mean there is neccesarily no force between said objects. There could be, for example, gravitational attraction. Similarly, telling us that the gas pressure in a vacuum is zero doesn't mean the actual pressure is zero.

The kinetic energy of the carrier particles of the EM field and neutrinos are also important forms of kinetic energy, but they are still just forms of kinetic energy albeit on a smaller scale than the atomic.
Click to expand...
Smaller scale of what quantity?

The whole universe is a moving sea of positive energy flow at the atomic and subatomic spectrum.
Click to expand...
Yes and if I can stand on my head and sing the Swedish national anthem then I can allign my Chakras.

In no way could we reach even a "zero" pressure state in a vacuum, and it is physically impossible to create a "negative pressure" in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
No, the Casimir effect for two conducting plates is an example of negative pressure in a vacuum.

There is positive, moving kinetic energy flowing *though* and *inside* the vacuum at all times. A pure vacuum would be a zero pressure environment.
Click to expand...
A pure vacuum would be a zero gas pressure environment. But the Casimir effect has nothing to do with gas pressure.

A "vacuum" as we experience it is *full of kinetic energy and "positive pressures" (some higher on one side than the other) caused by the movement of particles.
Click to expand...
The Casimir effect is not an artefact of an imperfect vacuum!
 
Last edited:
edd said:
I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you clearly do not understand cosmology without inflation.
Click to expand...

You might argue I can't understand it without expansion, but inflation is entirely optional and wasn't even in the cosmology curriculum until maybe the late 80's.

You cannot possibly understand it with inflation
Click to expand...

I could if you could demonstrate inflation wasn't a figment of your collective imagination. One quick demonstration of concept in a real experiment with real control mechanisms would make it easy to "understand" at the level of empirical physics.

and thereby understand what constitutes empirical support for it.
Click to expand...

In no other branch of science do I have any trouble understanding the meaning of "empirical support". That is because only in astronomy do you find any confusion between "empirical support" and "mathematical support".

You are out of your depth.
Click to expand...

Ya, and I'm evidently out of my depth in numerology and astrology and every other useless bit of "woo" on the planet that has proven itself to be utterly useless at predicting the outcome of a real science "experiment" with real "control mechanisms".

This conversation is coming full circle in a way. First I was told this was a "net zero" energy process, and now it's compact energy with "pressure" manifesting itself (without kinetic energy mind you) in GR, even before mass exists. You folks make this up as you go, particularly as we get closer to T=0. What "form" of energy are we talking about in real physics? Nobody knows. What "holds" the heat? Nobody knows. What "causes" inflation to take over? Nobody knows. What was the size of the universe prior to expansion? It depends on whom you ask. If I'm out of my depth it's only because you are out of your depth too, you just don't like to admit it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You might argue I can't understand it without expansion, but inflation is entirely optional and wasn't even in the cosmology curriculum until maybe the late 80's.
Click to expand...
My point is you do not understand 1980s cosmology, let alone that of 20 years further observation and development. In fact you do not even understand 1920s cosmology.

If you do not understand the most basic and fundamental principles of it you cannot understand the details and you cannot criticise them based on your misunderstandings.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You might argue I can't understand it without expansion, but inflation is entirely optional and wasn't even in the cosmology curriculum until maybe the late 80's.
Click to expand...
Well. We don't really have an explanation for the horizon or flatness problems without it (at least not that I know of).

I could if you could demonstrate inflation wasn't a figment of your collective imagination. One quick demonstration of concept in a real experiment with real control mechanisms would make it easy to "understand" at the level of empirical physics.
Click to expand...
The fact that you can't understand it is not a problem of the theory.

In no other branch of science do I have any trouble understanding the meaning of "empirical support". That is because only in astronomy do you find any confusion between "empirical support" and "mathematical support".
Click to expand...
No, only with Michale Mozina do we find someone who can't tell the difference between empirically testable by observation and not empirically testable by observation.

Ya, and I'm evidently out of my depth in numerology and astrology and every other useless bit of "woo" on the planet that has proven itself to be utterly useless at predicting the outcome of a real science "experiment" with real "control mechanisms".
Click to expand...
It predicts the outcome of real observations. That makes it real science.

This conversation is coming full circle in a way. First I was told this was a "net zero" energy process, and now it's compact energy with "pressure" manifesting itself (without kinetic energy mind you) in GR, even before mass exists. You folks make this up as you go, particularly as we get closer to T=0. What "form" of energy are we talking about in real physics? Nobody knows. What "holds" the heat? Nobody knows. What "causes" inflation to take over? Nobody knows. What was the size of the universe prior to expansion? It depends on whom you ask. If I'm out of my depth it's only because you are out of your depth too, you just don't like to admit it.
Click to expand...
Are you actually a human parody Michael? You were the one who was claiming the Casimir effect was down to neutrinos. Then it was an imperfect vacuum. Then it was because of virtual photons (hey, you seemed to be getting a vague hint of the idea till you bought in the ideal gas equation), now you've gone back to the imperfect vacuum theory again. Talk about going round in circles.
 
edd said:
My point is you do not understand 1980s cosmology, let alone that of 20 years further observation and development. In fact you do not even understand 1920s cosmology.

If you do not understand the most basic and fundamental principles of it you cannot understand the details and you cannot criticise them based on your misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

Given his rejection of empirical observations I'd be surprised if he understood 17th century astronomy!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes he did and he wrote all about it.
Click to expand...


Oddly enough, whenever you've been asked to point out specifically where Birkeland wrote all about those solar winds, high temperature discharges in the solar atmosphere, jets, etc., you've never been able to do it. Yes, you wave around a document and a few looks-like-a-bunny pictures, but you obviously don't know enough about your hero Birkeland to actually quote him or point out his specific claims about those things. Okay, it's not oddly enough. It's just how you are.

It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.
Click to expand...


No. That's what a photo of one of Birkeland's aurora borealis experiments looks like next to a filtered image of the Sun. The aurora borealis is a phenomenon that occurs on Earth. Coronal loops occur on the Sun. Apples and oranges. You see how miserably you fail when you try to apply that silly looks-like-a-bunny science?

But I'm still curious about why you fail. Why do you think that you haven't been able to sway any real physicists to accept your version of cosmology, Michael? Do you think it's because they're all too stupid to get it? Do you think maybe you're just doing a lousy job of communicating? Do you ever stop to consider that you might just be wrong? Is it a worldwide conspiracy to deny you your rightful place as a legitimate scientist? Really, why is it that you're not making any headway at all?
 
Tubbythin said:
The point was that you said "kinetic energy of motion" when kinetic energy is, by definition, the energy of motion.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. He said "kinetic energy in motion", which is even more nonsensical.

Photons have energy. I wouldn't usually refer to it as kinetic but, like I said, whatever turns you on.
Click to expand...

At one point he called the energy stored in a static magnetic field "kinetic energy" as well. He is deeply confused.

Similarly, telling us that the gas pressure in a vacuum is zero doesn't mean the actual pressure is zero.
Click to expand...

You know that, and I know that. But MM has some very strange notions about what pressure means. Anything which he can't fit into that little animated picture somehow becomes something other than pressure for him. That's why he can't even define pressure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom