Are you gonna stop with all this strawman rubbish or am I gonna have to compile another list of quotes?
Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
Are you gonna stop with all this strawman rubbish or am I gonna have to compile another list of quotes?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Cosmology and Science - Why Cosmology is not Woo.
I have yet to see you raise any scientifically significant objection to the standard, concordance cosmology. For instance ...
The whole point of learning about new physics is to abandon that which you already know, when you know it does not work, and reach out to new ideas. This is the critical lesson of 20th century physics, that ordinary, "common sense" physics does not work on scales of time and space far removed from the Newtonian scales. Your demand that everything always appeal only to the old things we already know would freeze all science right where it is and bring an end to discovery.
So, yes, the theory is crafted to fit the observations, but is there a theory out there somewhere that is not crafted to fit observations? The fact that a theory is consistent with observations is by itself all that is needed to reject the "woo" label, and since we know, and even you admit, that the theory is consistent with observations, then we must all agree that is is not "woo".
I trust you realize that one of the "everything" that I said was ...
- Question: Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
- Answer: Certainly not
I have yet to see you raise any scientifically significant objection to the standard, concordance cosmology. For instance ...
Far from being a reasonable "criticism" this is in fact a strength of standard cosmology and not a weakness. All theories of anything are always "curve fitting exercises". All theories, always. So if you are going to argue that this is some kind of "weakness", or that it makes standard cosmology in some way unscientific, then you must reject all theories of everything, including your own theories, all of which are equally "curve fitting exercises", bar none.
So what? This is not a significant criticism, and certainly has nothing to do with an argument that standard cosmology is "unscientific". Since when are all explanations supposed to be based on things that have already been physically demonstrated? Don't you realize that the entire discipline of quantum physics came about by appealing to effects that had not previously been physically demonstrated? Neither had general relativity already been "physically demonstrated" before Einstein came up with it, so does that make Einstein wrong?
The whole point of learning about new physics is to abandon that which you already know, when you know it does not work, and reach out to new ideas. This is the critical lesson of 20th century physics, that ordinary, "common sense" physics does not work on scales of time and space far removed from the Newtonian scales. Your demand that everything always appeal only to the old things we already know would freeze all science right where it is and bring an end to discovery.
Inflation can be empirically tested, and I already made that point clear elsewhere, ...
But you just dismissed it with a wave of the hand. You have consistently rejected all observations, and/or controlled laboratory experiments, for no good reason at all, if and when they conflict with your pre-conceptions. So what good is it to even suggest the possibility of empirical verification, we all know you will ignore and/or simply reject it.
Not at all. Inflation and dark energy are entirely empirical in origin, quite the contrary to what you think. Both came about only after observation had revealed weaknesses in the standing theories. The whole point of the "curve fitting exercises" that you reject, but are in fact essential to science as we know it, is to improve theories by eliminating the parts that don't work, or add new features so it will work better.
So, yes, the theory is crafted to fit the observations, but is there a theory out there somewhere that is not crafted to fit observations? The fact that a theory is consistent with observations is by itself all that is needed to reject the "woo" label, and since we know, and even you admit, that the theory is consistent with observations, then we must all agree that is is not "woo".
It is not necessary to ever identify what dark matter, or dark energy, actually are. It is only necessary to distinguish between competing explanations by virtue of fidelity with observations. In the case of dark matter, this is the degenerate problem of either (a) extra mass (dark matter) or (b) a modified theory of gravity (i.e., MOND). Once we are able to reject modified forms of gravity by observation, then dark matter is the only idea left standing and the winner by default. There are laboratory exercises, and astronomical observations, working to identify what dark matter physically consists of. It would be nice to know, but we can confidently hold that the idea is delightfully scientific, even if we never find out.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Magnetic Reconnection Redux II
So is that it? Did you attempt to read any of the papers or review any of the laboratory experiments? I know you complained about one because they did not measure some electric field. I find such an argument without merit. There is a reason why it's called electromagnetism in one word. You can't measure one without getting the other.
In case you have lost track of things, see my earlier post Comments on Magnetic Reconnection for the references.
That would be Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008, the abstract for a talk given at an AGU meeting, so there is no paper to go along with it, only the abstract is published. The abstract includes this sentence: "J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents." So, Mozina responds ...
One might be excused for coming to the conclusion that English is not your first language. No, in other words magnetic field reconnection is observed, between the currents, as they approach each other. Now I know that field reconnection between currents has already been explained to you by somebody else, but I can't recall where or by whom. The guilty party is welcome to step forward.
So is that it? Did you attempt to read any of the papers or review any of the laboratory experiments? I know you complained about one because they did not measure some electric field. I find such an argument without merit. There is a reason why it's called electromagnetism in one word. You can't measure one without getting the other.
In case you have lost track of things, see my earlier post Comments on Magnetic Reconnection for the references.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I see now that DRD has directly presented some of the issues to MM, heis changing goal posts, it is not "Birkeland presented the model of solar loops", but "BIrkeland did experiments that I think relate to solar loops".
So now MM admits that all the tens of posts stating "Birkeland did this, and Birkeland did that", come down to MM making false claims allegations and outright deception.
Still the same old drum beat still lacking models , data and predictions.
"Electrons" and not the sole part of the 'solar wind', but please MM, the fact that you won't answer direct questions shows you are a poseur, a wannabe and a charlatan.
TT put the issue to rest long ago. MM is so obsessed he doesn't even know it.
So now MM admits that all the tens of posts stating "Birkeland did this, and Birkeland did that", come down to MM making false claims allegations and outright deception.
Still the same old drum beat still lacking models , data and predictions.
"Electrons" and not the sole part of the 'solar wind', but please MM, the fact that you won't answer direct questions shows you are a poseur, a wannabe and a charlatan.
TT put the issue to rest long ago. MM is so obsessed he doesn't even know it.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, I agree that my personal opinion, and even Alfven's person opinions on this topic do not constitute "evidence" that Lambda-CDM theory is "woo". What makes it "woo" is the fact you cannot empirically demonstrate any of the following things exist or are simply not "fudge factors" of literally "epic' proportions. Inflation, DE, DM, expanding space, etc.
"Belief" one way or the other is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you can empirically demonstrate these ideas. The answer is no, it cannot be done, starting with inflation. You just all agreed that Guth's inflation theory was falsified, but then there you go resurrecting a new one to take it's place rather than letting it die a natural death. The term "dark energy" isn't even physical defined. It's not "explained" in any empirical sense. "SUSY" oriented "dark matter" is about as physically credible (i.e. shows up in a lab) as Guth mythical monopole. Without these items, Lambda-CDM theory is useless at "predicting" anything, and these ad hoc ad-on's were never empirical "predictions" in the first place.
At least Birkeland could physically and experimentally recreate the effect he was trying to "explain", even if it was later replaced by a "better" understanding of some aspects over time.
Not all of them are based upon dead/non existent entities. Inflation theory is in a class by itself in that sense.
I don't mind you "curve fitting" based on *demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature. When however the 'curve fit' is done with something that presumably no longer exists in nature, we've moved beyond "science" and straight to mythological dogma.
Sure it does. You created a new force of nature that is *supernatural* in origin and supernatural in capabilities. Light and EM fields not not retain constant density and know other *demonstrated* force of nature behaves this way. Come on. You've stepped outside of ordinary "science" and straight into "myth making with math". If there were other known and demonstrated forces of nature that behaved like this your story wouldn't sound so "made up". As it stands, Guth made it up. It was falsified, and resurrected from the dead again.
Up, that's not quite true. It came about by appealing to things that came be observed in *active experimentation*, and could be 'duplicated' in controlled condition, over and over again.
His math might eventually be replace with a quantum field explanation for all I know. Will that make him "wrong"? I can at least hope to physically experiment and test some of his beliefs with multiple precision clocks in space, etc. Gravity is something I experience here and now. Whether his math is "right', or it is a "close and useful approximation" that will later give way to something else is irrelevant. I can have some hope of physically testing gravity theories. I can't physically observe inflation ever do anything to a single atom, but you expect me to believe it "inflated a whole universe"?
How does does "inflation did it" separate itself from ordinary "religion"?
That's certainly not true. QM theories are "testable" in every physical sense. That was a terrible analogy IMO. Science did "freeze up', it got creative about ways to "test" ideas in a lab. The obvious contrast here is that there is no *hope* of *ever* empirically demonstrating that inflation actually 'inflates' anything here on Earth or anywhere else human might ever physically reach. It is for all intents and purposes a dead and useless idea that has been falsified over and over again. I guess we'll take a peek under the hood of the "current" version and see how it's fairing with recent observations.
You're essentially handing me a "curve fit" that utterly ignores those 'dark flows' we observe, that utterly ignores the fact that Guth's theory was already falsified, and that utterly ignores that no theory that keeps "morphing" by adding things like "dark energy' to the process when it otherwise "fails" can ever actual be "falsified' in any ordinary manner.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html
Inflation never predicted that observation. Oooops?
Pffft. In that case even God is quite empirical in nature because people also believe in God in the absence of empirical evidence. Inflation was "made up" in Guth's head. It was "hacked" by Linde, and it still fails key "predictions".
When we can't actually "test" anything, it not "physics" anymore, it's "mythology". You're essentially saying, well, if Guth's purely "made up" "inflation" won't work correctly, let's "fix it" by adding some additional ad hoc properties! None of this can actually be physically "tested" in a controlled experiment to verify any of these ad hoc properties Linde might kludged into Guth's model. The beautiful part from the standpoint of pure mythology is that it can *never* actually be falsified in a conventional physics formula, so maybe someone can come up with a "hairy inflation" that leads to "dark flows". It can morph into a thousand different unfalsifiable variations.
There are many theories like Birkeland's theories that may be "curve fit" to fit observations, but he did so with *known and demonstrated* forces/curvatures of nature. Guth and Linde just patched together a collective imaginary friend and a new religion was reborn from the ashes of the old dead inflation theory. How could this idea *ever* be falsified if those "dark flows" won't do it?
Birkeland's ideas might be right or wrong, but they can never be "woo", because they work in a lab, even if not in space. Inflation is woo because it never worked in a lab, only on paper, and only after 'revisions galore'. It will always be "woo" because it will forever have exactly the same empirical "predictive value" as numerology or astrology.
Here is where you and I definitely part company on the concept of "science". If you can't physically "explain' "dark energy' or dark matter, then your theory is meaningless IMO. It has no merit at all at the level of actual "physics", particularly and especially at the level "useful empirical physics". I have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics. What's the point? It's no better than religion IMO. At least EU theory has promise at being able to 'explain' real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. It has real "predictive' value in a lab.
Last edited:
Do you even know what "empirical" means?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Um, no, these were things *Birkeland* and his friends believed were related to solar activity. Birkeland even included a number of drawings and observations that he attempted to address with this experimental observations, but alas you'd actually have to do some real reading.
Huh? Where did MM "admit" anything of the sort? Have you totally lost your mind? Better yet, have you actually read any of his work for yourself yet, or do you typically just follow the herd and never educate yourself directly?
Excuse me? I've answered *hundreds* of questions now, and I will continue to do so. The fact I take a day or two off once in a while demonstrates that I have a real life even if you do not. Get over yourself.
If I am "obsessed", I am obsessed with empirical physics. I am also interested in keeping religion out of the classroom under the guise of "science".
Electrons show up in a lab. They can be shown to influence the movement of positive ions of plasma too.
Inflation is a dead entity and has no influence on nature today, and never did have any influence on nature. It was an idea that had some influence on Guth, Linde and their subsequent followers. I guess we'll have to look at what Linde did to 'fix' Guth's theory. Why don't you show us your superior understanding on this topic and explain for us *exactly* what Linde did to fix Guth's non-reheating inflation theory?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Yes, do you? Electricity is empirical science. It shows up in a lab with real control mechanisms and everything. Besides cooler math models, do you have any idea what *empirically* separates inflation from numerology as it relates to experimental science?
So why is the Universe flat, and how is the horizon problem solved in a consistent manner with other cosmological observations?
The fact that empirical observations match the predictions associated with a Universe that underwent inflation.
Define "physically "explain'".
It has no merit at all at the level of actual "physics", particularly and especially at the level "useful empirical physics". I have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics. What's the point? It's no better than religion IMO. At least EU theory has promise at being able to 'explain' real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. It has real "predictive' value in a lab.[/QUOTE]
EU can be used to make predictions about the cosmos. Unfortunately for EU, these predictions have a nasty habit of being completely and utterly inconsistent with empirical observations.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
I'm not sure it was intended, but this part of your post, MM, is richly ironic.
Especially in light of the posts you and I have exchanged re the Birkeland photograph and Yohkoh image.
For starters, the Yohkoh image is, itself, heavily processed data (as I discovered when I finally tracked down the source - more later), and its representation as an image is - at heart - nothing more and nothing less than curve fitting!
But more critically, the turn of the 19th century was about the last time any serious physics could be done without curve fitting^, in the sense that "*demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" do so only through the mediation of "curve fitting".
And I must say I'm a little surprised to read what you wrote (the parts I'm quoting) ... after all, your name, as author, is on a published paper whose key content includes nuclear physics!
I'm intrigued ... would you care to describe how any particular nuclear transition that I may choose to specify (i.e. a 'physical entity') can be "*demonstrated*" (in the lab, in controlled experiments) without curve fitting? Ditto, wrt *demonstrating* that such a nuclear transition has "*physical* effects in nature"?
^ and, if you you want to be strict about this, it's hard to make a case that any serious physics was done since the time of Galileo, without 'curve fitting'
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A long posting from MM so I will make a few points:
For some reason you have been obsessed with Guth's old inflation theory rather than addressing the theory that is actually used.
As already stated: Inflation theory has not been falsified.
As already stated: Dark flows are a single unconfirmed analysis using statistical methods (I would call this extreme "curve fitting"). Even if they were confirmed they would just put upper limits on inflation. Inflation would be falsified if these limits were too low.
As for the Lambda-CDM theory "morphing" - that is the scientific method. As an example there was a certain theory that morphed from using flat space and time to using a curved spacetime (perhaps you can name it
).
How can a theory that you have stated is all "postdictions" have any predictions?
You seem to be forgetting about a key part of science: It is a process by which things that are unknown are explained physically.
Dark matter and dark energy are at the same point that cathode rays were in the 1870's. They have been observed. Their properties are being explored. But no one knows what they are. It took 30 years before cathode rays were determined to be electrons.
Ordinary, everyday physics has the promise of being able to explain real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. No "EU theory" non-science is needed.
Last point:
If you (in your humble opinion) "have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics" then why did you start this thread? Why are you wasting your time posting in it?
No one here that I noticed said that Guth's "old inflation" theory was falsified. It had a problem with reheating for a period of about a year until Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt solved it, thus creating the actual inflation theory that is used in the Lambda-CDM theory.
For some reason you have been obsessed with Guth's old inflation theory rather than addressing the theory that is actually used.
A little thing called the scientific method.
That is right: Oooops - science does actually make new observations of the universe.
As already stated: Inflation theory has not been falsified.
As already stated: Dark flows are a single unconfirmed analysis using statistical methods (I would call this extreme "curve fitting"). Even if they were confirmed they would just put upper limits on inflation. Inflation would be falsified if these limits were too low.
As for the Lambda-CDM theory "morphing" - that is the scientific method. As an example there was a certain theory that morphed from using flat space and time to using a curved spacetime (perhaps you can name it
).Please list the failed key predictions and tell us how you distinguished between these and the non-key predictions?
How can a theory that you have stated is all "postdictions" have any predictions?
You seem to be forgetting about a key part of science: It is a process by which things that are unknown are explained physically.
Dark matter and dark energy are at the same point that cathode rays were in the 1870's. They have been observed. Their properties are being explored. But no one knows what they are. It took 30 years before cathode rays were determined to be electrons.
Ordinary, everyday physics has the promise of being able to explain real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. No "EU theory" non-science is needed.
Last point:
If you (in your humble opinion) "have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics" then why did you start this thread? Why are you wasting your time posting in it?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Is Astronomy Empirical?
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism
There is nothing about this definition which implies the the word "empirical" should refer only to controlled laboratory experiments. Meanwhile, the legendary Wikipedia says: "The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to theoretical", but also gives a "variation" which reads: "In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. ... "
So this leads to the obvious question. Are astronomical data "empirical", or are they not? The Merriam-Webster definition clearly says that astronomical observations as empirical. The Wikipedia use of the word "experimental", in "" marks, is ambiguous and one could interpret astronomical observations as "experimental", I think. In any case, the answer to this question is crucial, and here is why.
It all boils down to this. If you accept that astronomical data are empirical, then all of your arguments are dead. You can only deny the empiricism of inflation, dark energy, dark matter, and expanding space, if you deny the empiricism of astronomy altogether. And if you do that, then you really do stand in the shadow of your own personal definition of "science" and "empirical", and probably a lot of other words as well.
From the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism
So this leads to the obvious question. Are astronomical data "empirical", or are they not? The Merriam-Webster definition clearly says that astronomical observations as empirical. The Wikipedia use of the word "experimental", in "" marks, is ambiguous and one could interpret astronomical observations as "experimental", I think. In any case, the answer to this question is crucial, and here is why.
If astronomical data are empirical, then we can demonstrate, and have in fact already demonstrated all of the above empirically. If astronomical data are not empirical, then we have indeed not demonstrated any of the above empirically. But if astronomical data are not empirical, can we continue to accept astronomy as a science at all?
It all boils down to this. If you accept that astronomical data are empirical, then all of your arguments are dead. You can only deny the empiricism of inflation, dark energy, dark matter, and expanding space, if you deny the empiricism of astronomy altogether. And if you do that, then you really do stand in the shadow of your own personal definition of "science" and "empirical", and probably a lot of other words as well.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
An honest "I don't know" is "better than" "inflationdidit" IMO. The universe is simply "flat" because it has always been flat for all I know know. I don't see the "big deal" in a "postdiction" of a flat universe. You can begin with the notion the universe is simply flat and go from there. So what? Birkeland actually "predicted" a host of various possible solar observation via good old "trial and error' by changing the control variables of his experiments as recording their effects on his terella experiments. That's an actual "empirical prediction". Saying "the universe is flat" is not a "prediction", it's an observed fact as far as we can tell. Guth didn't "predict" this, he "postdicted" this as a requirement of his creation mythos.
How big was Guth's "near singularity" thingy?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'm not sure it was intended, but this part of your post, MM, is richly ironic.
Especially in light of the posts you and I have exchanged re the Birkeland photograph and Yohkoh image.
For starters, the Yohkoh image is, itself, heavily processed data (as I discovered when I finally tracked down the source - more later), and its representation as an image is - at heart - nothing more and nothing less than curve fitting!
It's more of a "photon observation" process actually, but sure there are "processing routines" involved.
But more critically, the turn of the 19th century was about the last time any serious physics could be done without curve fitting^, in the sense that "*demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" do so only through the mediation of "curve fitting".
And I must say I'm a little surprised to read what you wrote (the parts I'm quoting) ... after all, your name, as author, is on a published paper whose key content includes nuclear physics!
I'm intrigued ... would you care to describe how any particular nuclear transition that I may choose to specify (i.e. a 'physical entity') can be "*demonstrated*" (in the lab, in controlled experiments) without curve fitting? Ditto, wrt *demonstrating* that such a nuclear transition has "*physical* effects in nature"?
^ and, if you you want to be strict about this, it's hard to make a case that any serious physics was done since the time of Galileo, without 'curve fitting'
You still seem to be overlooking the one obvious difference between a curve fitting exercise based on known forces of nature, vs. curve fitting exercises with inflation elves. I don't mind you "scaling' something to size, or using mathematical models based on controlled known forces of nature. When you start slapping math to invisible made up stuff, then I'm no longer interested. A good example of how far your industry takes this idea is the notion that Dark Matter has various "properties", like "invisibility" as it relates to photon interaction and it's ability to "decay" or emit gamma rays. You're industry is making this stuff up as it goes without any empirical support of concept. It's purely a point at the sky exercise devoid of any actual physics or physical control mechanisms.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Empirical physics
This is not a serious criticism. As I have already said, when that which is known fails, then you appeal to new ideas. All you can do is resort to insulting references to "Elves" simply because you actually have no argument with substance, and we all know it. Assuming that the unknown "inflation" is responsible is absolutely valid science in every sense, except perhaps in your own private version of science.
Nonsense. Neutrinos are "invisible" as it relates to photon interaction, so that is not being "made up". And it is not just common, but almost mandatory that all massive particles decay; high energy physics is full of decaying particles. So why should "dark matter" particles be any different? In fact, quite the contrary to what you think, "invisibility" as relates to photon interaction, and decay, are both standard particle physics, very much typical of controlled laboratory experiments, and are chosen specifically to avoid going any farther into the realm of new ideas than the empirical data require. They are both not made up, but chosen to force dark matter particles to act like any other particle would. Every property alleged of dark matter particles is already found in empirical particle physics, nothing made up anywhere.
On the contrary, it is all actual physics involving previously established control mechanisms from well known particle physics. On this argument you are not just wrong, but extremely so.
Right... so we can either take the observation that the Universe is flat, use to construct a theory that makes predictions and then test those predictions against empirical observations. Or we can say "I don't know, I don't want to know and I'm gonna hurl abuse at anybody who does". Now... which is the more scientific.
The fact that you have to resort to phrases like "creation mythos", "elves" "deities" etc is a clear sign to everybody that you are not arguing with science. You're arguing against the little strawmen you made up in your head. This is a particularly pathetic form of debate.
This is hilarious. You're now objecting to the fact that "dark matter" has a "property" of being dark. The mind boggles as to how someone could possibly think this is a legitimate objection.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Uh, sure , right Michael, you don't answer direct questions, that is well established.
So you can explain the 'solar wind' being composed of all three kinds of partciles, sure you can!
That is why you have avoided answering it.
Whatever.
There is no conspiracy to supress your ideas, they just don't work.
Still want to explain how your theory of the solar wind defies known physics, come to the PC thread.
Now you have another chance to avoid explaining your model.
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
If this were true there would be no C in "CDM".
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist
I think this is a pretty excellent review of good alternatives to dark energy - and I think the existence of good alternatives and the science that's being planned to test these and dark energy models shows that LCDM is not woo.
I think this is a pretty excellent review of good alternatives to dark energy - and I think the existence of good alternatives and the science that's being planned to test these and dark energy models shows that LCDM is not woo.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No Tim. Your whole premise is based on an "inflation of the gaps" argument. Your argument seems to be that If I cannot "explain" something to your personal liking this gives you an automatic free pass to stuff the gaps of our mutual ignorance with "inflation". This doesn't fly. You can't just "make up" stuff on a whim and add math.
Inflation does not exist in nature and never will exist in nature anymore than elves exist in nature. Slapping on some math to a new metaphysical label doesn't justify the concept. Ditto on "dark energy". Acceleration doesn't need a "dark mysterious label name". Purely hypothetical SUSY particles are now being assigned various "properties" by astronomers that are being "studied" in space, without ever verifying anything at all here on Earth. The whole theory is one giant series of ad hoc assertions built upon more ad hoc assertions, and it is devoid of actual "explanations" in terms of physics. What *is* "dark energy"?
God did it must be "ok" then as well. If you cannot ever justify your ad hoc assertion in an empirical experiment here on Earth, what differentiates your beliefs from a religious belief?
I have pointed out that anything *known to exist* is fine by me. When however you don't have any 'experiments' to justify any of your claims, *then* it's a problem. SUSY particle physics theory is a *non standard* brand of particle physics theory. It has no empirical support in a lab in controlled experiments. We have never seen any such particles. It is irrational to simply *assume* they have various "properties", and even more ridiculous to be pointing at the sky and claiming SUSY particles did it!
Why should they not show up in a lab if they are "no different'?
Except the particles themselves you mean? Come on Tim. Lambda theory has invisible friends pushing around other invisible friends that were all pushed apart by deceased invisible friends. Only 4% of that theory is based on *tested* empirical physics.
That would be fine except the small fact that you have no evidence that they actually exist in nature!
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That's a bunch of baloney. It's your side that won't answer anything useful, like the size of the near singularity thingy, the "trigger" that made it "blow/inflate" one fine day, etc. When I ask for a physic physical demonstration of concept, I get a big run around and a bunch of math assignments. I can just see some guy coming to my door trying to sell me a vacuum cleaner that runs on "inflation" and dark energy". "Sure Mr. Mozina, I'll be happy to turn on the vacuum and demonstrate that it works as advertised for you but first you'll have to do this calculus problem for me......." Ya right.
Huh? Have you ever even bothered to read the sig line at the bottom of all my posts? I can certainly explain how electrons cause protons to be carried away from the sun. I can explain how charge separation creates full sphere emissions from a sphere in a vacuum. It's been done.
Answering "what" exactly? The only thing I have "avoided" here is being sucked into a black hole of a million threads on separate topics that I can't keep up with.
Electricity "works" in a lab. It has been *shown* to heat plasma to millions of degrees here on Earth. It has been *shown* to emit gamma rays in the atmosphere of Earth. It has been *shown* to exist in nature.
Right or wrong, any theory that combines gravity and electricity isn't "woo". It might be "wrong" obviously, but it can never be "woo' because it is based upon known laws of physics. Inflation does not exist in nature. It will never exist in nature. Acceleration is not caused by "dark energy" because "dark energy" does not exist in nature. SUSY particles are hypothetical particles related to a *non* standard brand of particle physics theory, and even there you're betting on the dark horse of "science". At best case, only 4% of this Lambda-CDM "hypothesis" is based on actual physics. It will forever remain "woo" because you folks can never demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination, and "dark energy" is not physically "explained".
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
But if I start by saying the universe is flat because it is flat, and it has electrical current running through it, somehow your theory is "superior"?
Didn't you guys hurl abuse at PC/EU theory before I even got here? How many views does the PC (is woo) thread have now? Did you think your own theories were somehow immune from or above criticism?
You aren't arguing with "science" either, your arguing with words you made up like "inflation" and "Dark energy".
Trying to ignore the fact that Lambda theory is based on 3 different hypothetical entities, none of which can be empirically demonstrated is rather pathetic IMO too. I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. I could not compare elves to EM fields or to gravity, or to kinetic energy, or anything that exists in nature because these things show up in nature, and in the lab. The only reason I can compare inflation to elves is because both of these items have exactly the same "predictive" value when it comes to determining the outcome of controlled experimentation, and neither exists in nature.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Indeed.
And what, are "photons"?
Why they are figments of the imagination, the only way they can be "*demonstrated*", as "physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" is via curve fitting.
So the Yohkoh image is curve fitting applied to curve fitting applied to curve fitting ...
(bold added)
You've said this - or something like - many, many times in the life of this thread.
Several folk have tried to explain that the difference is neither obvious nor non-scientific.
I think it's fair to say that no one has yet explained this sufficiently well that you are able to grok it, much less accept it ... and I'm curious to understand why.
I went back and re-read parts of the this thread, and I think I have a better grasp of why you find it so hard to even comprehend what people have been saying.
The clue, to me, comes from the apparent ease with which you elided from Birkeland photographs to Yohkoh images, apparently seeing consistency galore, and being (apparently) quite blind to amazing assumptions you were making.
That, and 'curve fitting'.
Let's review some of the earlier posts, shall we? Bold added unless otherwise noted.
MM (#254): "Here is a Yohkoh image (orange) next to a black and white image of coronal loops (and polar jets) simulated by Birkeland in his lab"
DRD (#458): (quoting Peratt) "He then shot clouds of electrons towards this simulated Earth to produce light phenomena that looked like aurora. (We now know that the solar wind also consists of positive ions, as well as negative electrons.) [...] While the actual process is somewhat more complicated than he envisioned [...], his results were surprisingly good."
MM (#463): "Even with relatively low technology [Birkeland] *explained and simulated* what still seems to mystify your entire industry to this day. Ditto on coronal loops, jets, plasma filamentary structures, etc."
DRD (#479): "One problem (of several) is that [Birkeland] was lucky in his simulations ... for example, the solar wind is quite different from the stream of electrons in his terrella, in terms of density and speed, and the mismatch persists even after one applies the well-known plasma scaling rules (due to Alfvén?)."
MM (#488): "Why can't you "explain" or "simulate" something Birkeland was able to both explain and simulate over 100 years ago? [...] He created coronal loops in his lab and wrote all about them! [...] 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"
DRD (#504): "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"? [...] 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? [...] Surely the most potent blow you could deal to "the mainstream" would be to put fingers to keyboard and show us all what is apparently so blindingly obvious to you?"
(suggestion repeated in #654)
MM (#656): "Er, they'd give a Nobel to some guy that rides Birkeland's coattails and is himself 100 years late to the party? Wow, what a "discovery' I made by actually reading Birkeland's work. [...] Birkeland did me one better already. Have you bothered to even read his work?"
So, a month or more ago, MM stated, as clearly as could be, that the 994-page Birkeland document provided all the data, math, logic, etc that anyone - including a certain committee in Stockholm - could ever ask for regarding a complete and fundamental explanation of the solar wind, coronal loops, and polar jets (and, no doubt, much more). Further, all these were, in fact, actually simulated in Birkeland's lab.
However, since then some active contributors to this thread have actually gone and read that 994-page document, and have concluded that MM's claims are inconsistent with the facts.
And one active contributor - DRD - with the support of several others (e.g. GM, DD, TT), has shown that the only logical basis for MM's claims is "looks-like-a-bunny science" (to quote GM)^.
Now we can remove one more plank in MM's repeated assertions: "known forces of nature".
Recall that "curve fitting" is OK if is based on such a thing as a "known force of nature", doubly so if such a known force can be empirically demonstrated in real experiments in real labs under controlled conditions.
Now most of us accept gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong (nuclear) force, and the weak (nuclear) force as "known forces of nature" ... and MM apparently does too.
But what if these have this exulted status only by benefit of "curve fitting"?
It would appear, from all that MM has written - including the falling plasma ball from Tesco and the 9v battery on the tongue - that these known forces of nature come first and the curve fitting comes second.
But how can that be? For example, how can there be a weak and a separate strong force independent of "curve fitting"? Using MM logic, aren't the existence of two separate (nuclear) forces merely elaborate mathematical contrivances, curve fitting par excellence? Or, perhaps, simply convenient shorthand ways of describing the results of a very large number of interesting experiments and observations?
Quite some time ago, several folk tried to get MM to show how even the Newtonian formula for gravity could be empirically demonstrated in the lab, using controlled experiments, within a century or two of Newton's publication of it. IIRC, MM simply ducked and weaved and didn't answer any of the questions (I may be wrong; if so, please someone set the record straight). So even gravity becomes curve fitting!
Which brings me to electromagnetism ...
Is electromagnetism one known force of nature? or two? or more??
Key question for MM: how can you answer, other than by an elaborate exercise in curve fitting?
(bold added)
In light of what I wrote above, in this post, it should be much clearer to all readers where the deep disconnect is, in your approach MM ...
^ well, there are still various i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, ...
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
(bold added)
You can?
If so, then you admit that you can do much more than Birkeland could do?
And that you can, by building on what he wrote - in that 994-page document - provide a complete explanation for all the observed properties of the solar wind, coronal loops, and (solar) polar jets? An explanation that you have asserted, many times, continues to elude space scientists today?
And the reason you have not written a paper on this, much less got one published, is because ...?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'd like to see you physically explain the "cause" of "acceleration".
That is totally and completely *untrue*. Birkeland predicted that high speed solar wind particles from the sun were the "cause" of aurora. He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis. He observed high energy discharges in his solar terrella atmosphere, and we *observe* them in modern satellite images. He predicted "jets", particularly near the poles, and indeed we observe these phenomenon.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
(bold added)
Really?
I thought you stated, earlier, that Birkeland did not make images in the soft x-ray band?
I thought you also stated, earlier, that the work necessary to show that the Birkeland simulations do, in fact, correspond to the physical conditions of the solar corona has not been done (certainly not by you)?
And so on.
So, without all the hard work to actually show - empirically - that there is even a feasible correspondence between Birkeland's photographs and what's "in modern satellite images" (based on "known forces of nature", of course), then perhaps one may say this of what you wrote: that is totally and completely *untrue*?
Oh, and I note that there's a certain, um, change in the language you use wrt these assertions MM; shall I make a side-by-side comparison to highlight them?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,209
He also hypothesized that planets formed by such solar wind particles condensing over time.
Except his method is simply wrong. The sun is not a highly charged sphere with a 6x108 volt potential. Hell, even the sign of his proposed net charge is wrong: it should be weakly positive, not strongly negative. Its actual maximum charge is closer to 100 Coulombs, but Birkeland would require a charge many orders of magnitude larger. Doing the calculations to show what would happen with such absurdly large voltages isn't hard. Any guesses as to what would happen with this large a voltage?
Oh, and he also thought that the earth's atmosphere may have formed from radioactive decay of heavier elements on earth.
Birkeland was very wrong about a lot of stuff involving the sun. And that, frankly, should surprise no one. Before we knew about fusion, any theories about the sun were bound to be at least a little bit screwy.
Its not my theory. How many times do you need to be told this to comprehend such a simple fact?
Look. We have this theory of gravity which is called General relativity. GR tells us that space can have positive or negative curvature or it can be flat. Empirical measurements of the curvature of space have been done and they show that the Universe is very very near to being flat. But without inflation there is no particular reason (that I know of) why it should be damn near flat. So a testable, falsifiable theory which can account for this and matches the other cosmological data is better than one cannot.
I don't recall anyone who completely failed to understand even the most basic grasp of PC/EU throwing abuse, no.
I dunno. How many?
Er, no.
I didn't make up either of these words. The first was around before I was born! The fact that you cannot understand that theories like inflation can make predictions that can be then compared with new observations is no problem of mine.
You don't seem to have any idea of what "empircal" means.
Along with "definition" and "cosmology".
I don't see why not. These elves are, after all ficticious things you make up in your head.
So, if your so sure inflation never happened... explain the flatness problem and the horizon problem. Go on! That be an awesome way to shut me up.
Acceleration of what? And, define "physically explain".
I was talking about cosmological observations (this is, after all, a thread on cosmology). Try again.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The first sentence is correct (if a bit inexact - how fast is "high speed"?).
But then you go into your usual mistakes.
- He demonstrated an experimental analogy (his words) whereby a metal sphere could emit high speed negatively charged particles in paths that look like the emissions form the Sun.
This as now known to be an model of a system that does not exist since the Sun emits both electrons and protons. Protons are positively charged particles. - He observed high energy discharges in visible light.
You keep comparing his visible light images to satellite images (actually only one) that are in the soft x-ray band. Birkeland would never make this elementary mistake. - This has of course nothing to do with cosmology of any sort.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
And the list of "mathematical abstractions that are far from definitive" are?
There is only one "mathematical abstraction" in Lambda-CDM theory. That is the scientific theory of inflation. This started as a hypothesis to explain the known problems with BB. It made testable, falsifiable predictions. These predictions were tested and confirmed. That makes into a scientific theory.
Everything else is an observation: dark matter, dark energy and all of the evidence for an expanding universe.
Actually its balanced upon general relativity and some of the most advanced observations of space made my mankind. But don't let that spoil a good PC lie.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
(bold added)
What are your criteria for determining whether some theory is "a non scientific crackpot theory", Z?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Astronomy is a science
You never explicitly answered my question, but this will do. I presume therefore that you deny that astronomy is a science, and you deny that astronomical data are empirical.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
The Yohkoh image, in post #254 in this thread, is from Yohkoh's SXT, on 1 Feb 1992; the filter used is the AlMg one. It's actually a composite image, comprising 2 separate images. Considerable processing was involved.
You can find it from the Yohkoh Legacy data Archive, by choosing the year and then the date.
There's also a 'white light' image of the Sun taken on the same day (within hours of the Yohkoh image) in the archive ... rather a lot of sunspots are obvious; however, there is no sign of any coronal loops or polar jets, and certainly none bright enough to make the Sun's surface dark by comparison.
You can find it from the Yohkoh Legacy data Archive, by choosing the year and then the date.
There's also a 'white light' image of the Sun taken on the same day (within hours of the Yohkoh image) in the archive ... rather a lot of sunspots are obvious; however, there is no sign of any coronal loops or polar jets, and certainly none bright enough to make the Sun's surface dark by comparison.
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,322
Sounds a lot like the bib bang theory so I call woo 
I've read a lot of MM's work or post's at least, and he's interpretation of Birkelands work is on the money!
pity some people here have trouble understanding Birkelands work! but that's not MM's fault.
Any theory that does not take into account plasma/electrical effects as the dominant force are bound to wind up like the BB or Lambda-CDM in serious trouble!
I've read a lot of MM's work or post's at least, and he's interpretation of Birkelands work is on the money!
pity some people here have trouble understanding Birkelands work! but that's not MM's fault.
Any theory that does not take into account plasma/electrical effects as the dominant force are bound to wind up like the BB or Lambda-CDM in serious trouble!
- Status