Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Pfft. Your side has nothing to complain about on that score. The insults alone are enough to make me want to barf.
Click to expand...


You have shown time and time again that you are a liar, Michael. I've pointed it out probably a dozen times in just the past half dozen pages, your abject ignorance notwithstanding. Look at all the times other people have reminded you that you're dishonest. I don't even have to bring up previous incidents because catching you in a lie in nearly every post you make is child's play.

And as for insults, every time you invoke the name of legitimate scientists like Birkeland you're spitting in their faces. Every time someone takes the time to explain something to you carefully and in simple terms, you kick them in the teeth by stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything they say. Then you have the gall to ask them to explain it again. You are spitting in their faces, too. And as long as you continue to religiously cling to an unsupportable a position that merits nothing but ridicule, you can be certain people will remind you that it's ridiculous. Insults? Your incessant lying and crackpottery are insults to the good name of science and scientists everywhere.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Not even close. To begin with, we already know for a fact that electromagnetic forces cannot be responsible.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6270538&postcount=3439
Because "dark energy" is by definition the "anything" which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. If it is a problem with GR, then "dark energy" is that problem with GR. If it is electromagnetism, then "dark energy" is that electromagnetism. If it is a repulsive term in Einstein's equations, then "dark energy" is that repulsive term. How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?
Click to expand...

You've told me tons of times that you don't know what the empirical cause might be Tim. Which is it? Do you know or not? What's with the sudden change of heart?

I have already discussed this many times, but since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion,
Click to expand...

Tim, it is you that are not interested in an "honest" discussion. You constantly go after the individual rather than the issue. That's not "honest" debate Tim, that's a stupid villianization technique.

it is no surprise that you always ignore it (see Dark Energy and Empirical Science II and the classical electromagnetism links therein).
Click to expand...

All you links *ASSUME* a closed system ( a locked house). You can't *ASSUME* that Tim.

But more generally, since when is anything that Birkeland did, right or wrong, at all relevant to the dark energy problem anyway?
Click to expand...

Did you say a few days ago you didn't know what it was and *IF* it was EM fields responsible that too would be "dark energy"? The posturing around here is dizzying. You folk eliminate the EM carrier particle yet point at the same thing as evidence of negative pressure in a vacuum. You claim it *COULD* be EM fields one day, but it can't be EM fields the next. Which is it? How do you even know it's a "closed" system in the first place?

Birkeland was interested in trying to figure out what caused aurorae, and postulated a flow of charged particles from the sun as an explanation. But cosmological dark energy is not logically connect to the aurorae in any way, nor to the solar wind, nor to any flow of charged particles. So the whole idea you present here is illogical at best.
Click to expand...

Baloney. EM field are *THE* most likely candidate to explain "acceleration". You dark energy god is entirely impotent around plasma but EM fields move plasma around at will. There isn't a "more likely" cause of "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe than EM fields Tim.

Not even close, but since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion, it is no surprise that you systematically reject the controlled laboratory experiments in which magnetic reconnection is observed to happen (see Dark Energy and Empirical Science VI and the magnetic reconnection links therein).
Click to expand...

You mean "circuit reconnection"" happens Tim. Magnetic reconnection is "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory and your "reconnection" doesn't work without "circuits". More telling it's the "circuits" that reorient themselves, not simply the magnetic lines. You still have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you can't tell a circuit from a magnetic line.

Whether or not dark energy has an observable effect here on Earth is not even relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

That sounds remarkably like a theist claiming it's not relevant to the discussion that God has no observable effect on Earth. BS.

As for empirical demonstrations, that has already been done. But, since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion,
Click to expand...

That is such BS Tim. You NEVER showed any empirical demonstration. Your dark energy deity is entirely impotent in the lab. It doesn't DO anything. You won't even be honest about the actual weakness of your argument, you attack individuals rather than the issue, and you have the nerve to question my honesty Tim? Really? Get over yourself. If you had even admitted to the glaring problem in your theory at least I'd know you were "honest" about it. Your dark energy deity is impotent. It's not "real". Its a name you made up Tim, nothing more. It represents nothing but human ignorance, and probably in the end a dozen of so "specific" metaphysical hypotheses about mythical negative pressure energies.

it is no surprise that you have never even bothered to look at it (see Empirical Evidence for Dark Energy).
Click to expand...

All you have Tim is evidence of acceleration, and not a lick of empirical evidence that your impotent dark energy had anything at all to do with it. Unlike a powerful Em field that CAN and DOES accelerate plasma in a lab, your dark energy deity is an empirical weakling and epically fails to show itself empirically.

[QUOTE[Falsifiability does not require laboratory experiments, nor does empirical science in general. [/QUOTE]

Notice your logic. You first claim that 'dark energy' is by "definition" *ANYTHING* that might cause acceleration. EM fields certainly do that. Gravity can do that too. By your own "definition", "dark energy" could be either of these things too. You don't know. You don't even have a clue whether this is an open or closed universe. You have no idea.

I guess I'll stop here since the rest looks to be pure character assassination from the guy that fancies himself to be an 'honest' debater. Sheesh.
 
Reality Check said:
Finally you get something almost right!
The Casimir effect is an example of negative pressure in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Then EM fields can can be the cause of "negative pressure" RC. You cannot have it both ways. Either the carrier particle of the EM field *DOES* create negative pressure, and therefore it *CAN* be a "cause" of acceleration, or the Casimir effect is not an example of negative pressure in a vacuum. It's most likely an example of "charge attraction" between the two surfaces based on the synchromized movement of electrons inside the material.

That is where you go totally wrong as usual.
It is totally irrational to ignore that the situations are different.
  1. The universe is not a few micrometers wide.
  2. The universe is not bounded by 2 parallel metallic plates.
Click to expand...

Charge attraction and gravitational attraction are not limited to a few micrometers RC. The universe *COULD* in fact be OPEN in which case that same "attraction" to another set of matter could in fact generate "acceleration". It's absolutely amazing to me that you *ASSUME* a closed system and then rant about how it CANNOT be anything like the example your tying to claim is an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum". If the EM carrier particle can attract the plates and that can be considered "negative pressure', then charged mass outside of this physical universe could certainly have the same effect. It's only because you're so emotionally attached to a nice, tidy creation event that you can't see the parallels RC.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the EM field CAN produce "negative pressure" then it CAN be your missing 'dark energy' too. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Sad, but true.
Click to expand...

The sad but true part is that none of you have even admitted or accepted that the mainstream theory has a serious weakness. If anyone doubted that EM fields can actually "cause" acceleration they can easily go into any lab and demonstrate it to themselves. It's only these religions that require "faith in the unseen" that always require a free pass when it comes to empirical laboratory physics. It's sad you folks can't just be honest and admit that mainstream theory has serious flaws and move on.
 
Can you imagine being a physics professor with Mozina in the class? :eek:
The only satisfying aspect might be giving him a big bad F.:D
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, because I am real and your dark deities are impotent. That's the physical difference.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence in a lab that you are real and so according to your logic you are not real :)!

We have observed the effects of the "dark Michael Mozina deity". But this "dark Michael Mozina deity" is impotent in a lab and does not exist. :rolleyes:

Your ignorance that dark energy has nothing to do with a religious deity is still astounding through. This persistent delusion is just confirming that the answer to Are you aware that you are still showing the symptoms of a crank? remains no.

As for dark energy not showing in a lab - that is your your own personal obsession stemming from your ignorance of the properties of the cause of the acceleration. Any one with 2 brain cells who can read knows that dark energy cannot be tested for:
Since it is not very dense — roughly 10^−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory.
Click to expand...
Scientists know that there are things that will never be tested in any conceviable experiemt, e.g. stars. See Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? 20th May 2010 - your silence suggests that you must by your logic think that stars do not exist :jaw-dropp.
Any one who can read knows that empirical measurments include observations (thus stars and dark energy exist).
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Can you imagine being a physics professor with Mozina in the class? :eek:
The only satisfying aspect might be giving him a big bad F.:D
Click to expand...


If I recall correctly, many years ago on another forum, I offered to reimburse Michael his tuition if he would take a first level physics course at his community college and pass with a B or better. Might be that he never saw the offer since he did turn and run from that discussion. Or was he banned for refusing to answer direct relevant questions about his crackpot conjecture? It was, after all, a long time ago.

This speaks to Michael's lack of ability or willingness to defend his own criticisms of the dark energy hypothesis with legitimate science, as opposed to just more of the same dishonesty, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance, or by providing a rational scientific alternative.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
If I recall correctly, many years ago on another forum, I offered to reimburse Michael his tuition if he would take a first level physics course at his community college and pass with a B or better.
Click to expand...

No amount of math is going to make up for the fact that your mythical dark energy is *at least* as empirically impotent on Earth as any god of the sky. It's pathetically weak and can't manifest itself on Earth. No amount of "math" will ever change that "fact".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sometimes you say things that are simply so outrageous they make me laugh out loud. :) Thanks for the giggle. :)
Click to expand...
There is a serious undercurrent to that joke.

You have your own personal definition of empirical that is not shared by scientists in general. This definition seems to be only things that can be detected in a lab can exist. That ignores the fact that empirical includes observations such as the stars in the sky

So I pointed out the following post that you are still ignoring: Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? (asked on 20th May 2010).
This points out the logical inconsistency in your position
Reality Check said:
Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist?

According to his definiton of science, only things that can be tested in experiments in labs exist. We have never had a star in a lab and so according to MM they cannot exist!



Maybe that is too strict an interpretation of his personal definition of science. He may deduce that stars exist despite not being detected in labs because
  • We observe bright lights in the sky.
  • Our knowledge of physics tells us that the cause of these bright lights is some form of light emitting objects.
  • We call the cause "stars".
But of course the same logic tells scientists dark energy exists despite not being detected in labs because
  • They observe that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
  • Our knowledge of physics tells us that the cause of this increase is some form of energy.
  • They call the cause "dark energy" (because "energy" is already taken).
So if MM states that dark energy does not exist because some kind of a logic error then he is also stating that stars do not exist.
Click to expand...

Of course there are many other things that exist in the universe that we have never had in a lab, e.g.
  • planets
  • comets
  • galaxies
  • the interstellar medium
  • the intracluster medium
According to your logic these do not exist either. According to your rather naive and personal defintion of empirical, nothing exists outside of the Earth unless we have a chunk of it :eye-poppi !
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You mean "circuit reconnection"" happens Tim. Magnetic reconnection is "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory and your "reconnection" doesn't work without "circuits". More telling it's the "circuits" that reorient themselves, not simply the magnetic lines. You still have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you can't tell a circuit from a magnetic line.
Click to expand...


Hey Mozie! Still waiting for your detailed model of your "circuit reconnection" and how it e.g. applies in the Earth's magnetotail. Anytime soon, we are going to get that or is it only words and claims and nothing of substance?
 
Vorpal said:
MM is a living incarnation of a strange attractor.
Exact behavior unpredictable, but it still goes round and round the same points with no end in sight...
Click to expand...

There really is just one key point, specifically the lack of a demonstration of real empirical cause/effect relationships. It's the same flaw in most religions. Anyone can point at the sky and claim their invisible entity did it. It's another thing entirely to demonstrate it physically in controlled experimentation. All the round and round stuff seems to be directly related to their collective inability to simply admit that their theory has a gaping empirical flaw, three of them actually, two in Lambda-CDM.

There is no cause/effect demonstration that "dark energy" actually causes acceleration. It's was a *DEFINITION* of their sky god. It simply goes down hill from there from the perspective of empirical tangible physics. Their aversion to all things "circuit" oriented is like having an extra heavy set of blinders on, and their *INSISTENCE* that the system *MUST BE* closed prohibits them from looking outside the box. It's a "religion' that requires faith in the unseen. Unfortunately, based on the impotence of their entities, and the way they claim it works, it's simply physically impossible for a human being to *EVER* physically verify their claims related to 'cause/effect" relationships.

GM's mindset is fascinatingly parallel to any zealous religious evangelist. In his mind the 'dark energy" entity *must* exist by 'definition'. He really hasn't a clue what the empirical cause might be, but he and Tim *INSIST* that "by definition' dark energy is the 'cause" of acceleration. It's a blind faith in something that's never been done, and something that has no empirical connection to acceleration. They could have called it "sky god energy". They could have called it "ignorance on a stick energy'. They could have called it anything and everything and *INSTANTLY* that "name" becomes "real' and their 'name" becomes the "cause". He also personally attacks anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint with all the veracity of any religious zealot. It's fascinating from the standpoint of religious psychology, but sad that it is being applied to what is supposed to be a field of 'empirical physics".
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
Hey Mozie! Still waiting for your detailed model of your "circuit reconnection" and how it e.g. applies in the Earth's magnetotail. Anytime soon, we are going to get that or is it only words and claims and nothing of substance?
Click to expand...

Why wait for me? Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it. I'm not your math mommy. Didn't your friend write that solar atmospheric paper that had a circuit orientation? I'm sure he could help you out if you can't figure it out by yourself. Have you read any of Alfven's papers on those circuits? Why do you need *ME* to do this stuff for you anyway since Alfven wrote about it extensively?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
 
Reality Check said:
There is a serious undercurrent to that joke.

You have your own personal definition of empirical that is not shared by scientists in general. This definition seems to be only things that can be detected in a lab can exist. That ignores the fact that empirical includes observations such as the stars in the sky
Click to expand...

But RC, I can shake your hand, take you to dinner, buy you a beer and prove to you that I'm real. Your dark energy entity can't do that for you. The sun can heat your skin in the morning. You can tangibly feel it's effect on your skin. You can see and feel the energy emanating from it in physically tangible ways. Your dark energy entity is so weak as to be immeasurable on Earth. There is a significant empirical difference between me and dark energy RC and you will have to accept that sooner or later. :) At least I can actually respond to you. :)

I really don't have any problem with you scaling up anything you can find on Earth to any size that seems appropriate. What you can't do is point at the sky and claim "my invisible entity did it' without demonstrating any cause/effect relationships between your entity and the observation in question.
 
Michael Mozina said:
There really is just one key point [...]
Click to expand...


And that key point, as you continue to stress, is your argument from incredulity and ignorance.

[* Ranting arguments from incredulity and ignorance snipped. All rational criticism of contemporary dark energy theory, all alternative explanations, and all legitimate scientific commentary left intact. *]
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
But RC, I can shake your hand, take you to dinner, buy you a beer and prove to you that I'm real. Your dark energy entity can't do that for you. The sun can heat your skin in the morning. You can tangibly feel it's effect on your skin. You can see and feel the energy emanating from it in physically tangible ways. Your dark energy entity is so weak as to be immeasurable on Earth.
Click to expand...


Where do you think the labs are where they've observed and measured the accelerating expansion of the Universe?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Why wait for me? Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it. I'm not your math mommy.
Click to expand...
You aren't even a distant cousin. Your posts bear no relationship to math at all. What's more, you have displayed no knowledge of physics.

According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0

Combine that with one of Maxwell's equations that your preposterous substitution leaves untouched, and we get ρ=0.

Congratulations, Michael. You have just told us there is no electric charge anywhere in the universe.

Yes, folks, Michael Mozina says there is no such thing as electricity. All that electric universe/plasma cosmology theory must be pure bunkum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. That was you own strawman Mr. Spock. :)
Click to expand...
Not mine. Yours. You're the only person in this thread who has ever suggested substituting E for B.

Your suggestion was stupefyingly ignorant, so there was no way any of us could have known you were only kidding. When you want to say something stupid but don't want us to think you're serious, you should use a smiley face (as in the quotation above).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Their aversion to all things "circuit" oriented is like having an extra heavy set of blinders on, and their *INSISTENCE* that the system *MUST BE* closed prohibits them from looking outside the box.
Click to expand...

Wow. How... ignorant.

You know why astrophysicists don't use a "circuit" picture? Because it's too limited. In a circuit, current only flows in fixed wires, because solids have a work function. Plasmas don't, so current is NOT similarly constrained. Circuits are closed. Space isn't. Your understanding is exactly backwards: it is a circuit picture which puts blinders on you, using Maxwell's equations directly constitutes a broader view.

GM's mindset is fascinatingly parallel to any zealous religious evangelist.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony.

The kicker here, Michael, is that not only are you completely wrong in your understanding of the theories you object to, you don't even understand freshman physics. Yet you sail ever onward into the storm of your own ignorance, never worrying that your failure to grasp basic physics concepts (like what pressure actually is) might have any impact at all on your understanding of advanced topics.

It's fascinating from the standpoint of religious psychology, but sad that it is being applied to what is supposed to be a field of 'empirical physics".
Click to expand...

That's quite true. Of you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Why wait for me? Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it. I'm not your math mommy. Didn't your friend write that solar atmospheric paper that had a circuit orientation? I'm sure he could help you out if you can't figure it out by yourself. Have you read any of Alfven's papers on those circuits? Why do you need *ME* to do this stuff for you anyway since Alfven wrote about it extensively?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
Click to expand...

Just replacing B with E does not a circuit representation make. Eugene Parker and Tony Lui, in their papers on the case for Ej or Bv paradigm explicitely write that down, that taking the Bv model and transforming it to the Ej model does not create a circuit representation (I am sure you have both papers). A circuit representation is a "long wavelength approximation of the plasma physics" I am sure Alfvén writes that too when he introduces circuit theory.
"My friend" was writing about oscillations of magnetic loops, which can well be described by circuits (because ... ) but it has nothing to do with reconnection.
Yes I have read Alfvén's papers and books, but nothing there that describes reconnection. There is only the paper on "exploding double layers" and "unwinding of a flux tube through a double layer" which don't describe anything that can even remotely describe what Cluster (10 year anniversary right now) has measured in great detail.
As I have no idea what you mean with induction, there is no way I can write down your model, and if I did understand what you mean, I still would not do it, because that is your model, not mine. But apparently there is no such "circuit model" of reconnection, otherwise you would have long presented it to show your supremacy.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I really don't have any problem with you scaling up anything you can find on Earth to any size that seems appropriate.
Click to expand...
Lets confirm this:
You are now saying that we do not need to have a chunk of dark energy (or a star) in a lab to deduce that it exists?

Guess what - that is what scientists have been doing for centuries!
We can use the laws of physics that we measure to deduce things from observations.
For example we measure gravity, describe it using GR and so can use GR to deduce things like a non-zero cosmological constant would cause an acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.



In that case:
  1. Stars exist!
    The demonstrated cause/effect relationship between light and the observations of stars is a well tested theory called QM.
  2. Dark energy exists.
    The demonstrated cause/effect relationship between dark energy and the observations (there is not only the supernova data) is a well tested theory called GR.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
What does that observation have to do with your mythical impotent form of "negative pressure" energy?
Click to expand...
GeeMack's post has everything to do with the little fact that effects of dark energy are detected in labs.

Your post has everything to do with your continued and persistent ignorance that
Dark energy is not impotent - it is measured to accelerate the universe :jaw-dropp!
​
 
E and B

Well, Mozina did say ...
Michael Mozina said:
Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it.
Click to expand...
And Clinger did respond ...
W.D.Clinger said:
According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding ...
Click to expand...
To which Mozina further responded with ...
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. That was you own strawman Mr. Spock. :)
Click to expand...
So here is where we stand: Mozina says "convert all the B's to E's" and then claims it is a straw man for Clinger to say he said it. I trust the interested reader can understand how it is possible to doubt Mozina's sincere support for simple honesty.
 
What is "Empirical" Science? VII

Consider this exchange of comments:
Michael Mozina said:
Tim Thompson said:
Falsifiability does not require laboratory experiments, nor does empirical science in general.
Click to expand...
Notice your logic. You first claim that 'dark energy' is by "definition" *ANYTHING* that might cause acceleration. EM fields certainly do that. Gravity can do that too. By your own "definition", "dark energy" could be either of these things too. You don't know. You don't even have a clue whether this is an open or closed universe. You have no idea.
Click to expand...
Notice that Mozina quoted me, but then in his response totally ignores it. What's going on here? There is no logical connection between the passage of mine that he chose to quote and the response he chose to make.

However, a bit later we do find this:
Michael Mozina said:
Reality Check said:
There is a serious undercurrent to that joke. You have your own personal definition of empirical that is not shared by scientists in general. This definition seems to be only things that can be detected in a lab can exist. That ignores the fact that empirical includes observations such as the stars in the sky.
Click to expand...
But RC, I can shake your hand, take you to dinner, buy you a beer and prove to you that I'm real. Your dark energy entity can't do that for you. The sun can heat your skin in the morning. You can tangibly feel it's effect on your skin. You can see and feel the energy emanating from it in physically tangible ways. Your dark energy entity is so weak as to be immeasurable on Earth. There is a significant empirical difference between me and dark energy RC and you will have to accept that sooner or later. :) At least I can actually respond to you. :)

I really don't have any problem with you scaling up anything you can find on Earth to any size that seems appropriate. What you can't do is point at the sky and claim "my invisible entity did it' without demonstrating any cause/effect relationships between your entity and the observation in question.
Click to expand...
Mozina once again ignores the real point that he has dramatically re-defined the entire concept of "empirical". And there is no getting around the point that he has done exactly that:
Tim Thompson said:
Emphasis mine:
Michael Mozina said:
Anything that doesn't show up on Earth on any scale is a horse of a different color (non empirical color).
Click to expand...
There you have it, about as explicit as anything gets. As far as Mozina is concerned, if it does not show up in a controlled laboratory experiment here on Earth then it is not empirical. According to Mozina astronomy is neither empirical nor science. Mozina must be the only person in the entire world who thinks that is what the word empirical means. See my previous post Dark Energy and Empirical Science and other posts cited therein.
Click to expand...

It is well established in the world of science ex-Mozina that laboratory experiments are not the sole determinant of empiricism. Do remember my earlier post:
Tim Thompson said:
Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?
Click to expand...

While Mozina did respond to question 1 above, he did not ever respond to, or acknowledge in any way, the remaining question, so far as I can remember or find in the page or 2 after my post. I followed up with What is "Empirical Science"? IV, but to no avail. There was no further movement from Mozina on this point.

Now let me make myself clear: I think that Mozina is not capable of engaging in an honest discussion, and this is an exact case in point: He will not acknowledge that he has in fact re-defined the entire concept of "empirical" away from its common use in science, so as to conform to his own personal prejudice. He could at least drum up the minimum level of integrity required to admit it, but he can't do it. He side-steps or simply ignores the real issue ever single time. My opinion of this behavior is clear & obvious and I trust the interested reader (or lurker) understands my point, even if perhaps disagreeing with it.
 
Reality Check said:
GeeMack's post has everything to do with the little fact that effects of dark energy are detected in labs.

Your post has everything to do with your continued and persistent ignorance that
Dark energy is not impotent - it is measured to accelerate the universe :jaw-dropp!
​
Click to expand...

You know RC, after reading that quote from Hawking about getting something from nothing, it's pretty darn clear that your entire industry and your entire argument is based upon a series of non-sequitur fallacies.

There is no "cause/effect' link between the observation of acceleration and 'dark energy'. That's a term you simply 'made up' to essentially cover up your own ignorance. There's no link between acceleration and your imaginary "dark energy" entities except in your head. Your dark entity is impotent RC.

It has not measurable tangible effect on Earth. It's at least as impotent here on Earth as any religious sky deity that only has an effect "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to. The whole thing is based upon 'blind faith" in impotent invisible entities.
 
Reality Check said:
Lets confirm this:
You are now saying that we do not need to have a chunk of dark energy (or a star) in a lab to deduce that it exists?
Click to expand...

Let's try this again. You can "see" a star. You can 'feel' the energy coming from it. You can measure it. You can move something toward that object, or around that object to measure it from various points. It exists in nature. I don't have to "take it on faith", I can watch the sun come up over the horizon every single day.

Your mythical magical dark energy entity has no measurable effect on me whatsoever. It's like a pantheon god, imaginary and impotent. It's not real. It's a name you literally "made up". It has no more substance than any pantheon god. It's a figment of human imagination and it's not the 'cause' of anything other than massive confusion.

The statement "acceleration happens, therefore dark energy exists" is a non-sequitur fallacy, nothing more.
 
tusenfem said:
Just replacing B with E does not a circuit representation make.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate that statement empirically. Which of the empirical MR "experiments" (and I agree there are empirical experiments) require no "circuit' and no "current flow"? Which of these experiments does *NOT* involve a change in the topology of the current flow of moving charged particles?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Wow. How... ignorant.

You know why astrophysicists don't use a "circuit" picture? Because it's too limited.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary Zig. Without it MHD theory is "too limited". Alfven taught *TWO* different methods of MHD theory, one related to the 'field' (B) orientation of Maxwell's equations, and one method related to what he called the "particle" or E orientation. You guys only do the B orientation and you utterly and completely (well almost completely) ignore the E orientation. As a result, your solutions are limited. They essentially have nothing to do with nature in the end, because in nature the E and B are inseparable. You're the only one that has an 'emotional need" to separate them as though they are somehow independent of one another. You have the B cart in front of the E horse too. The Earth's atmosphere generates gamma rays and x-rays. They are *CAUSED* by something called an "electrical discharge". We see that same process occurs on other bodies inside the solar system, and size matters. Somehow you look at the sun emitting gamma rays from it's atmosphere and you "imagine" that they are caused by "magnetic reconnection". That's exactly like claiming a lightening bolt is a "magnetic reconnection" event. It's only because you cannot look beyond the B orientation of MHD theory that you *IMAGINE* it to be related only to the magnetic field, or that it is "caused by" the magnetic field. The magnetic field is simply a byproduct of the discharge, it's not the "cause' of the process.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Not mine. Yours. You're the only person in this thread who has ever suggested substituting E for B.
Click to expand...

No, I did not use the word "substitute". Here are the words I actually used:

"Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it."

First off I suggested you start with a paper on MR theory, not Gauss's Law. By the term "convert" I *ASSUMED* that an intelligent individual like yourself would immediately understand that you would need to USE MAXWELL"S EQUATIONS to convert from one orientation to the other (B->E). I didn't say:

"According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0"

If I had said "Start with Gauss's law and *REPLACE* all the B's with E's, *THEN* and only then would your statement make any sense. Since I said nothing of the sort, your statement is a strawman of your own creation. Do you see the difference between my statements and your statement Mr. Spock?
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
Mozina once again ignores the real point that he has dramatically re-defined the entire concept of "empirical".
Click to expand...

That is complete nonsense Tim. Your argument is a non-sequitur. There's no empirical connection between acceleration and your mythical magical "dark energy". The connection only exists in your head. It's no more empirically real or tangible just by virtue of giving your ignorance a "name".

EM fields are "empirical". They show up here on Earth and cause "acceleration" of plasma in real experiments with real control mechanisms. They show up in consumer products as well. You're therefore welcome to point at the sky and claim EM fields did it.

Your dark energy entity is completely impotent in the lab because its a "name" that you invented to cover up your ignorance. It's not real. It has no tangible effect on anything in the lab. Pointing at the sky and claiming your dark energy entity did it is no better than me pointing at the sky and claiming some pantheon god did it. BS. The phrase "Acceleration happens, therefore "dark energy" did it" is a non-sequitur. It's exactly like claiming "Acceleration happens, therefore Zeus did it."
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You know RC, after reading that quote from Hawking about getting something from nothing, it's pretty darn clear that your entire industry and your entire argument is based upon a series of non-sequitur fallacies.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance does not indicate a flaw in the contemporary scientific understanding of cosmology.

There is no "cause/effect' link between the observation of acceleration and 'dark energy'. That's a term you simply 'made up' to essentially cover up your own ignorance. There's no link between acceleration and your imaginary "dark energy" entities except in your head. Your dark entity is impotent RC.
Click to expand...


This cause/effect has all been explained to you. For you to continue lying about it shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity.

It has not measurable tangible effect on Earth. It's at least as impotent here on Earth as any religious sky deity that only has an effect "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to. The whole thing is based upon 'blind faith" in impotent invisible entities.
Click to expand...


This empirical observation and measurement thing has all been explained to you. For you to continue lying about it shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity. Again. Still.

Hey, Michael, I asked you many posts ago if you'd have the decency to knock off the lying. It's pretty obvious to me, and pretty much everyone else too, since most other participants have stated they see your argument as dishonest, that you don't intend to honor that request.

But maybe you can tell us what logic you find in trying to support an inane crackpot conjecture or to discredit the well supported contemporary view of cosmology by lying. Do you suppose Birkeland was a liar? Alfvén? Bruce? Do you think those heroes of yours were liars, Michael? Do you suppose if they were, like you are, they'd have gotten any traction in the world of science?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I did not use the word "substitute". Here are the words I actually used:

"Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it."

First off I suggested you start with a paper on MR theory, not Gauss's Law. By the term "convert" I *ASSUMED* that an intelligent individual like yourself would immediately understand that you would need to USE MAXWELL"S EQUATIONS to convert from one orientation to the other (B->E). I didn't say:

"According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0"

If I had said "Start with Gauss's law and *REPLACE* all the B's with E's, *THEN* and only then would your statement make any sense. Since I said nothing of the sort, your statement is a strawman of your own creation. Do you see the difference between my statements and your statement Mr. Spock?
Click to expand...


But, Michael, your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school child have been challenged, and you have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. So pretty much everything you've said above is pulled out of your... uh... thin air. Everyone here knows it, and you know it, too! :p
 
GeeMack said:
This cause/effect has all been explained to you.
Click to expand...

I've had astrology "explained" to me before too. So what? What they (and you) never do is SHOW ME that it actually works in controlled experimentation. Ditto on your invisible impotent entities. They have as much effect on me as Zeus and astrology.

For you to continue lying about it shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity.
Click to expand...

For you to lie and not acknowledge the non-sequitur fallacy of your argument shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity on your part. Look in the mirror. You dark entity is all in your head. It has no tangible or measurable effect. It's a "sky god", and entirely impotent on Earth.

This empirical observation and measurement thing has all been explained to you.
Click to expand...

Ya, and the non-sequitur fallacy of your argument has been explained to you too. Your invisible entities are impotent. They aren't the empirical "cause" of anything other than human confusion. They are not real. They are figments of your imagination.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom