Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, ya, one more bonus question for you Zig:

According to the theory in question (and bonus questions), how old is the universe?
 
Oh, ya, one more bonus question for you Zig:

According to the theory in question (and bonus questions), how old is the universe?
And this question demonstrates that LCDM cosmological models are "woo" how, exactly?

I'm having great difficulty following your logic, MM; perhaps you could take a little time to define what, exactly, you mean by "woo"?

After all, that's what this thread is about, whether LCDM cosmological models are (scientific) woo or not.

Once you've done that, perhaps you'd like to write down what you think these models are (or, if you agree with the title of the thread, what "Lambda-CDM theory" is). In your explanation, please provide some references - papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - where any interested reader can go to check for themselves just what these models (or this theory) actually is.

Otherwise, aren't you just attacking strawmen?
 
No, you're the one moving the goalposts. There is *ZIP* in the way of "observational evidence' for "non baryonic' forms of 'dark matter' or 'CDM'. In other words your "CDM" has been 'debunked" (your terms) in the lab on every occasion.

Once again, logic fail. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well, If I could wake you up to the mass flows involved in "current flows" it wouldn't be so darn "dark" anymore.

Indeed, it wouldn't be. Such current flows should be visible, because they should interact strongly with electromagnetism, for obvious reasons. But they aren't. That IS evidence of absence.

Unless you want to propose dark charges. That would be rather ironic.

The fact you 'refuse to see' simply makes it more difficult to have a real discussion.

Oh please.

You're so busy chasing dark invisible aether bunnies that you forgot all about empirical physics.

Sorry, Michael, but given your refusal to quantify your own solar model or discuss the empirical physics which indicate it's impossible, this accusation simply has no credibility.

What exactly is it going to take to kill your dead metaphysical creation myth?

I just told you.

You do realize that only creationism and Lambda-CMD theory *require* faster than light expansion, right?

Yet again, you reveal your ignorance by assuming this to be a problem. It isn't.

There is no physics behind your theories

Sure there is: general relativity. You just don't understand it.

Your BB theory *failed* to correctly predict the existence of those "mature" galaxies we see way back in time

Again, you are assuming facts not in evidence, namely that cosmology is wrong, not galactic evolution models. How do you think we know that those galaxies are "mature", Michael? Because we have models of how we expect galaxies to age. If those models are wrong, then the galaxy in question may not really be mature. What we have here is NOT a conflict between observation and theory, what we have is a conflict between two theories. So one of them may be wrong. That doesn't mean it's the BB model which is wrong.

Your dark matter buddy is evidently a "no show' in the lab

Which puts a limit on how strongly it can interact with normal matter through non-gravitational means. But it does not prove it isn't there.

How did that particle get from the sun and into space according to this theory?

Wow, you really are clueless. Dark matter shouldn't start in the sun, so why would it need to "get from the sun and into space" in the first place? And since it interacts almost exclusively via gravity (or it wouldn't be dark), almost all dark matter that does hit the sun should simply pass through it.
 
And this question demonstrates that LCDM cosmological models are "woo" how, exactly?

It has *ZERO* actual "predictive" capabilities. It's all been postdicted and cobbled together in a purely ad hoc manner based on metaphysical pigs and pretty red math. It's numerology with lots of "published papers" on the topic.

I'm having great difficulty following your logic, MM; perhaps you could take a little time to define what, exactly, you mean by "woo"?

Woo is stuff that doesn't show up in the lab, like your dead inflation deity. Woo is stuff that fails to useful or meaningful in terms of actual physics, like your "dark energy" stuff that never does anything useful and can't be measured by humans directly. It's evidently shy around objects bound by gravity. Woo is stuff that never actually appears when put to the empirical test, like that mythical brand of exotic dark matter that just got falsified (again).

What's it going to take to get you to admit that inflation was an ad hoc creation? What's it going to take to get you to admit that 'dark energy' is "gap filler' to support an otherwise falsified theory? What's it going to take to get you to wake up to electricity in space?

Otherwise, aren't you just attacking strawmen?

It seems to me that inflation, DE and DM are "strawmen" by design. They are not "real". They don't have any physical effect here and now on anything here and now. You can't demonstrate that any of your three metaphysical friends actually exist or ever existed in nature based on controlled experimentation here on Earth. Instead you point at the sky and claim "my metaphysical friend of choice did it" and toss in some math. It's pointless woo with pretty math, just like numerology. Like numerology it actually has no real predictive capabilities as those two glaring failures this week alone can and do demonstrate.

Your 'gap' now where you can evidently stuff back in those dark matter elves is something like 80 protons massive. Don't you think we would have noticed something that massive before now?

I'm sorry, but mainstream theory isn't just predicted on *one* type of "woo", but upon three different forms of woo that are all "no shows" in the lab. What else can it be except "woo", when only 4% of the whole theory is based on actual empirical physics?
 
Last edited:
Once again, logic fail. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Kind of a god-of-the-gaps argument eh?

Indeed, it wouldn't be. Such current flows should be visible, because they should interact strongly with electromagnetism, for obvious reasons. But they aren't. That IS evidence of absence.

That million mile per hour solar wind, and those million degree coronal loops are evidence you're blind. :)

Sorry, Michael, but given your refusal to quantify your own solar model or discuss the empirical physics which indicate it's impossible, this accusation simply has no credibility.

You don't understand the term "empirical". That term means we can physically get it to do something here and now. Electrical current is physically real. It exists here and now in the present moment and has an effect in the present moment on real things in real experiments. It is an "empirical" form of energy. Photons are another "empirical" form of energy. They are real. They show up in real experiments. Inflation isn't "real". It's "non existent" even by your own definitions in the "here and now". It has no physical effect on any physical experiment. Dark energy is not "real". It never shows up in the lab, and evidently it will never show up in the lab because it's evidently too weak to be observed on Earth, but somehow it accelerates a whole physical universe of planets and suns. The "woo" is so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut through it all.

Sure there is: general relativity. You just don't understand it.

I understand that I liked it better before you started stuffing it full of metaphysical entities and still calling it "GR".

That doesn't mean it's the BB model which is wrong.

Your whole theory is predicated upon the concept of "aging", on "old" and "new" galaxies, on "old" and "new" stars, on "old" and new "galaxy clusters". It turns out however that there is no evidence whatsoever of "old" and "new" in terms of distance/time. Instead there are simply newer and older stars and galaxies everywhere we look.

Birkeland FYI actually "predicted" an eternal universe. His theories seem to be holding up to scrutiny whereas BB theory has not. Honestly Zig, he was *WAY* ahead of his time, and he got a lot more right than history has so far given him credit for.

Which puts a limit on how strongly it can interact with normal matter through non-gravitational means. But it does not prove it isn't there.

Another "dark matter of the gaps" approach to science.

Wow, you really are clueless. Dark matter shouldn't start in the sun, so why would it need to "get from the sun and into space" in the first place?

I wasn't talking about your model, I was talking about Birkeland's model. The answers were "iron" and "electricity". :) Fail. :)

And since it interacts almost exclusively via gravity (or it wouldn't be dark), almost all dark matter that does hit the sun should simply pass through it.

You have magic stuff passing through walls Zig. Unfortunately it was supposed to interact with that xenon experiment and it didn't. What now? Shall we just deny it ever failed to show up in the first place? It would have to be something like 80 times the size of a proton to have not showed up in that experiment. When is enough enough already, and when is a theory falsified once and for all? The only theory on the whole planet that requires that exotic brand of matter is your faster than light speed expansion, creation mythos. Don't you think it's time to rethink the value of the mythology in light of these two recent and glaring failures?
 
Last edited:
Kind of a god-of-the-gaps argument eh?

No, Michael. Just elementary logic. Which you still don't get.

That million mile per hour solar wind, and those million degree coronal loops are evidence you're blind. :)

:rolleyes:

You don't understand the term "empirical". That term means we can physically get it to do something here and now.

No, Michael. Observations are empirical. Even observations of distant galaxies.

Is "empirical" already on that list of words you don't understand? I think so.

Electrical current is physically real. It exists here and now in the present moment and has an effect in the present moment on real things in real experiments. It is an "empirical" form of energy.

Indeed. Too bad you can never quantify any of it.

Inflation isn't "real". It's "non existent" even by your own definitions in the "here and now".

You are the only one obsessed with "here and now".

Dark energy is not "real". It never shows up in the lab

You are wrong. We have been over this before. The Casimir effect is a form of dark energy, and it shows up in the lab.

Your whole theory is predicated upon the concept of "aging", on "old" and "new" galaxies, on "old" and "new" stars, on "old" and new "galaxy clusters".

No, Michael, it isn't. Cosmological measurements are based on distance, from which age is derived.

It turns out however that there is no evidence whatsoever of "old" and "new" in terms of distance/time. Instead there are simply newer and older stars and galaxies everywhere we look.

Funny how one cluster turned into "everywhere". And even if it were, again, this points to a conflict between ages estimated by two different theories (cosmology and galactic evolution). It does not indicate which theory is right and which is wrong.

Birkeland FYI actually "predicted" an eternal universe. His theories seem to be holding up to scrutiny whereas BB theory has not.

So tell me, Michael: where in all your "here and now" empiricism has energy conservation and the 2nd law of thermodynamics been violated? Because that's what your eternal universe theory requires. For you to object to standard cosmology because of its inclusion of things we can't measure on earth is quite laughable when you're relying on violations of such fundamental physical laws. Birkeland's belief is excusable because he didn't know enough to make sense of available data. But we know so much more now than Birkeland knew (fusion, general relativity, deep space astronomy, etc). So it's hardly surprising that the things Birkeland knew the least about (what powers the sun, how old the universe is, even what the universe looks like) turn out to be completely different than what he guessed. YOUR ignorance is not so easily excused.

Honestly Zig, he was *WAY* ahead of his time

True: the free energy cranks are quite cutting edge.

You have magic stuff passing through walls Zig.

Neutrinos are magic? Who knew?
 
No, Michael. Just elementary logic. Which you still don't get.

I didn't "get it" when Rumsfeld used that very same exact argument and logic to bomb Iraq either. I still don't get it.

No, Michael. Observations are empirical. Even observations of distant galaxies.

Claims that "my favorite flavor of inflation did it" are not 'observations" Zig. Those are CLAIMS that are devoid of empirical support.

Indeed. Too bad you can never quantify any of it.

What difference does it make anyway? You "quantified" the BB theory based on 'woo' from the very start. Your "quantification" never matters anyway, because every time it "fails" you simply add more woo (dark energy) and away you go again. What's the math really good for anyway since you never actually use it to "falsify" anything in the first place!

You are the only one obsessed with "here and now".

I'm simply cognizant of the difference between empirically real things, and stuff you made up in your head.

You are wrong. We have been over this before. The Casimir effect is a form of dark energy, and it shows up in the lab.

Then you just demonstrated that the carrier particle of the EM field is your actual "dark energy'. Welcome to EU theory. :)

No, Michael, it isn't. Cosmological measurements are based on distance, from which age is derived.

You sort of glossed over the problem there didn't ya? Your "age" thing didn't work out well in terms of what your theory "predicts" about galaxies and the maturity of those galaxies.

Funny how one cluster turned into "everywhere".

If it's there, it's probably everywhere. When we put up the next gen telescope, I think you're going to be very surprised at what we see, specifically "mature" galaxies as far as the eyes and telescopes can see.

And even if it were, again, this points to a conflict between ages estimated by two different theories (cosmology and galactic evolution). It does not indicate which theory is right and which is wrong.

Your galactic evolution theories are based directly upon your "creation mythos". If the evolution isn't happening, then your creation mythos doesn't 'predict' anything useful in terms of galaxy ages. Again, one more "predictive failure" from a theory based on three different forms of woo.

So tell me, Michael: where in all your "here and now" empiricism has energy conservation and the 2nd law of thermodynamics been violated? Because that's what your eternal universe theory requires.

That's simply your own strawman. The laws of physics insist that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply changes forms, so an eternal universe is not a violation of any laws of physics.

YOUR ignorance is not so easily excused.

Birkeland's theories have stood the test of time Zig.

I am not ignorant of the failures of your cosmologies theories. I am not ignorant of the fact that Guth literally 'made up" inflation in his head. What's harder to excuse IMO is the fact you refuse to acknowledge the failures of your own theory. It failed two important "tests", this week alone, one of them *IN THE LAB*. What exactly is it going to take to get you to believe that "absence of evidence" sometimes is 'evidence of absence'?

Neutrinos are magic? Who knew?

Neutrinos show up in real "experiments" Zig, unlike those mythical magic exotic dark matter gnomes that must now be considered to be at least 80 times more massive than a proton, and somehow have escaped detection from all those scientists on Earth trying to find it. Who knew?
 
Last edited:
I didn't "get it" when Rumsfeld used that very same exact argument and logic to bomb Iraq either. I still don't get it.

Wow. I really wasn't expecting you to Upchurch this thread.

Then you just demonstrated that the carrier particle of the EM field is your actual "dark energy'. Welcome to EU theory. :)

No, Michael. I showed that the vacuum expectation value of the electromagnetic field is a form of dark energy. I'm sure you'll choose to ignore the distinction, but it matters. Oh, and welcome to believing in dark energy.

You sort of glossed over the problem there didn't ya? Your "age" thing didn't work out well in terms of what your theory "predicts" about galaxies and the maturity of those galaxies.

No, I didn't gloss over anything at all. There is indeed a problem. I acknowledged that rather explicitly. But you're completely wrong about the nature of that problem, and you still don't show any signs of having figured it out.

Your galactic evolution theories are based directly upon your "creation mythos". If the evolution isn't happening

Who said anything about galactic evolution not happening? Nobody. Your link suggests that it may not be happening the way we thought it happens. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Again, basic logic fail on your part.

That's simply your own strawman. The laws of physics insist that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply changes forms, so an eternal universe is not a violation of any laws of physics.

Since you don't seem to understand the violation of energy conservation required, let's focus on entropy. If the universe is infinitely old, why isn't it heat dead? Why is it in a low entropy state, not a high entropy state? How does the universe keep violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Neutrinos show up in real "experiments" Zig

Yes they do. And they have properties that you find unbelievable. Which is a pretty good indicator that your incredulity is of zero significance.
 
The more I think about it, the more puzzled I am by your extreme need for "quantification" when in fact it seems to be a pointless exercise. It's not like any of your math related to inflation has turned into anything useful here on Earth or ever will have any effect on Earth. It's not like "dark energy" has any effect on anything on Earth either. You have that little metaphysical friend caged in "deep space" where humans can never find it or measure it. Your "dark matter" theories have been a complete dud in the lab. Not a single one of your theories can be falsified based on math as the "dark energy" ad hoc add-on demonstrates.

There nothing even particularly useful about any of your math in terms of what it has produced on Earth, or will ever produce on Earth. There is nothing particularly useful about those numbers in terms of falsifying your theories either, because you're continuously adding in more invisible friends to fill every mathematical gap that we might find in the old calculations.

So what exactly is that math useful for? Newton's math got us to the moon. GR has no been so kludged now with 'dark energies" and mythical friends that it's not even a form of empirical physics anymore. What good is GR if you're going to kludge it with metaphysics, and never use any of the numbers you get from that metaphysical Frankenstein to falsify anything? It's a pointless waste of math if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Huh? When did Birkeland ever talk about 'free energy'? That was kind of a low blow there don't you think?

No, I don't think it's a low blow. His eternal universe requires violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you can do that, you can get free energy. He may not have understood this (thermodynamics was new at the time), but it's still true.
 
The more I think about it, the more puzzled I am by your extreme need for "quantification" when in fact it seems to be a pointless exercise.

Of course it seems pointless to you. You don't believe in the importance of quantification at all. All it ever does is foul up your own theory, so that makes it axiomatically useless. No point in using numbers for anything when we can just look at pretty pictures and just interpret them.
 
No, Michael. I showed that the vacuum expectation value of the electromagnetic field is a form of dark energy.

Big time fail! EM fields already have a valid scientific name Zig. They are not "dark energy".

No, I didn't gloss over anything at all. There is indeed a problem. I acknowledged that rather explicitly. But you're completely wrong about the nature of that problem, and you still don't show any signs of having figured it out.

You only acknowledged half of the problem! The whole concept of 'evolution' is based upon a *NEED* you have to justify your 'creation date'. It seems you can't do that based on more recent observations. Your NEED to see galaxies evolve is directly related to your "creation mythology". Without "assuming" a 'creation date' then there is no need to "predict" immature galaxies at a larger distance. The "need" for evolution flows from and comes from your creation myth, not the galaxy formation theory itself.

Who said anything about galactic evolution not happening? Nobody. Your link suggests that it may not be happening the way we thought it happens. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Again, basic logic fail on your part.

It can 'happen' without it being limited to an "age" and that's the part you seem to keep ignoring. In other words, galaxies might 'mature', but some of them can have been mature forever. You're the only one that needs them to be "younger' in the past. That whole concept is being laid to waste in observation after observation. There is no merit to the idea since every new observation keeps pushing back the boundaries of when they first formed.

Since you don't seem to understand the violation of energy conservation required, let's focus on entropy. If the universe is infinitely old, why isn't it heat dead?

Because it's a closed system? Because it has more total energy than we imagine.

Yes they do. And they have properties that you find unbelievable. Which is a pretty good indicator that your incredulity is of zero significance.

No Zig, your exotic DM bit the dust. Neutrinos were "predicted' from real "controlled experiments". Your exotic brand of DM is based on "point at the sky" and make a claim with math concept. It's not surprising they found neutrinos since the new the source. It's not surprising the didn't find your magic matter because you can't even tell me where it comes from let alone what it's made of!
 
Last edited:
What difference does it make anyway? You "quantified" the BB theory based on 'woo' from the very start. Your "quantification" never matters anyway, because every time it "fails" you simply add more woo (dark energy) and away you go again. What's the math really good for anyway since you never actually use it to "falsify" anything in the first place!
Erm. Changing your theory when it doesn't work is what the game is all about. You don't just leave it wrong in the face of experiment, or stick your fingers in your ears in the face of data.
 
Of course it seems pointless to you. You don't believe in the importance of quantification at all. All it ever does is foul up your own theory, so that makes it axiomatically useless. No point in using numbers for anything when we can just look at pretty pictures and just interpret them.

But you don't use them for anything! If you falsified a theory with them, that might be useful, but since you instead filled the gaps with more mathematical woo, what's the point?
 
Erm. Changing your theory when it doesn't work is what the game is all about. You don't just leave it wrong in the face of experiment, or stick your fingers in your ears in the face of data.

You don't just stuff the gaps with "dark magic energy" either, but that seems to be exactly what you've done in the past. What kind of information would actually falsify your beloved Lambda-CMD theory if not either of these two recent revelations? Honestly, what's it going to take?
 
Can we go ahead and start calling these undetectable, unobservable thunderbolts that power the electric sun dark currents already?

Michael Mozina, fervent promoter of dark current theory.
 
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation and Real Science (copy2)

Originally from the thread Iron sun with Aether batteries I am re-directing the post to this thread so as to avoid off-topic derailment of the sun thread. I also posted a copy in the [split thread] Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology, but evidently Mozina chose to gravitate towards this thread and away from that one, so I put it here. Now I must have posted a copy just about everywhere it might be relevant.

So the only way your paper can present "evidence" for CNO reactions is to arbitrarily assume in advance that there are such reactions, and then claim that those reactions are the most likely source for the electrons, positrons and neutrons, so naturally there must be CNO reactions going on. Very circular reasoning.
:) You mean like *ALL* the astronomy papers ever written on the topics of "dark energy", ""dark matter", and "inflation" don't use that same circular logic you just accused me of?

No they don't. None of the papers on dark energy, dark matter or inflation use circular logic. You are the only one who does that.

Dark Energy
There is nothing even close to circular about dark energy. We observe that there is an inconsistency between the brightness and distance of type Ia supernovae, based on the standard expanding universe cosmology. We realize that the inconsistency can be eliminated by modifying the cosmology to replace the old standard of decelerating expansion with a new standard of accelerating expansion. We also determine that making this change does not cause any other fundamental inconsistency between cosmology and the physics upon which the cosmological models are based. We do not know what the cause of the acceleration is, but we know it is there. So we give it a name, dark energy. There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. I draw the reader's attention to Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe; Frieman, Turner & Huterer, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46: 385-432, 2008. This is a good, recent review of the science & observational evidence in the dark energy problem. Another reliable source is TASI Lectures on Cosmic Acceleration; Rachel Bean, Lectures from the 2009 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute at Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, March 2010.

Dark Matter
There is nothing even close to circular about dark matter. We observe that the rotation of spiral galaxies, and the motions of individual galaxies in clusters are not consistent with the dual assumptions that (1) all of visible matter is all the matter there is, and (2) the law of gravity is correct. We do know, of course, that there are many forms of normal matter that are hard to see. The dark matter problem (originally the "missing mass" problem) has been around since the 1930's and it was certainly reasonable at that time to simply assume that there is more ordinary matter that escaped attention by being below the observability threshold of the technology of the times. But that assumption is no longer valid; we now know that we have the technological ability to see matter that was invisible to astronomers of the 1930's, even the 1950's or 1970's & etc. Observation is now limiting the dark matter, if there is any, to the realm of more esoteric non-baryonic dark matter. However, we already know that esoteric non-baryonic dark matter does in fact exist, just not enough of it (neutrinos definitely exist and definitely are non-baryonic dark matter). So in reality, the assumption that so far unseen non-baryonic dark matter is responsible for the observed effect is no more esoteric than the assumption that there is more of what we already have, just in a form that escapes observation by today's (but no necessarily tomorrow's) technology. Meanwhile, there is plenty of active research in the realm of the law of gravity, and we do not in fact know that the correct solution to the problem will not be a modification of the law of gravity. But the majority of scientists in the community feel that the assumption "there is more of what we already have" is more sensible than "the law of gravity is wrong", hence the majority opinion favors non-baryonic dark matter. There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. There are also good recent reviews on the science of dark matter, e.g., TASI 2008 Lectures on Dark Matter; Dan Hooper, Based on lectures given at the 2008 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute, January 2009; Dark Matter Astrophysics; D'Amico, Kamionkowski & Sigurdson, July 2009, Based on lectures given by MK at the Villa Olmo School on "The Dark Side of the Universe," 14--18 May 2007 and by KS at the XIX Heidelberg Physics Graduate Days, 8--12 October 2007.

Inflation
There is nothing even close to circular about inflation. We know that there is an inconsistency between the observed properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the fundamental physics of pre-inflationary big bang cosmology. The inconsistency is that the CMB shows a strictly thermal spectral energy distribution (SED) over the entire sky, and very nearly the same temperature over the entire sky (there are other problems addressed by inflation but I will stick to this one alone for simplicity). This observed fact requires that the source of CMB is in thermal equilibrium. This fact implies that the infant universe must have been small enough for long enough for all parts to reach the same temperature, for the entire universe to reach thermal equilibrium, before expansion begins. The standard physics of pre-inflationary cosmology does not allow for the universe to be as large as it is given the requirement for thermal equilibrium. However, exponential expansion after equilibrium is reached solves the problem (and also the other problems I have set aside for simplicity). There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. A good recent review of inflation is Inflationary Cosmology; Andre Linde, Lecture Notes in Physics 738, 2008 and citations thereto. Linde's 362 page book Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology is also available online via the arXiv server.

I have also posted on the title topics numerous times in other threads. Here is a list of relevant posts for all my fans out there who might have missed them first time around: Dark Matter II, Dark Matter and Science, Inflationary cosmology & science, What is "dark energy", really?, Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant II, Inflationary cosmology is real science, Dark Matter and Ultra Faint Dwarf Galaxies, Dark Matter: Direct Detection?, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant III, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant IV, Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism V. As one might guess, Mozina's arguments concerning cosmology are as pathetic as are his arguments concerning the sun. The science of dark matter, dark energy and inflation is sound & solid.

This line of discussion is not relevant to the topic of this thread, which is supposed to be the iron surface of the sun and consequent physics. But I put it here because many interested readers might not be following the cosmology threads, where all of this has been worked over before (e.g., Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?, Lambda-CDM theory, woo or not?, [split thread] Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology). I will post a copy of this message to the dark matter, inflation and cosmology thread as well, and strongly suggest that followup messages go in that thread and not in this thread, in order to avoid distraction from the topic of the sun. If Mozina wants to come after me on this topic, let him do it there in the appropriate thread.
 
Dark Energy
There is nothing even close to circular about dark energy. We observe that there is an inconsistency between the brightness and distance of type Ia supernovae, based on the standard expanding universe cosmology. We realize that the inconsistency can be eliminated by modifying the cosmology to replace the old standard of decelerating expansion with a new standard of accelerating expansion.

In other words: Epic fail on the deceleration prediction. Now will it die a natural death?

We also determine that making this change does not cause any other fundamental inconsistency between cosmology and the physics upon which the cosmological models are based.

In other words your ad hoc assertions have to "fit" with your other stuff, otherwise it's useless to you. Got it.

We do not know what the cause of the acceleration is, but we know it is there.

So how did you make that leap from "acceleration" to "dark energy". That's got to be quite a leap of faith....


So we give it a name, dark energy.

So you might have just made that up Tim. Where is your empirical test of concept? When did "dark energy" ever cause acceleration?

There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics.

What hogwash. It's not only "circular", it's "made to order" in a purely ad hoc fashion so you could "make it fit"! If we do not "accept" that "acceleration=dark energy" your whole argument falls apart. I think I'll pick these apart one at a time, because they are all unique forms of woo.
 
Looks like a non sequitur to me. I don't think anyone suggested that you needed to have cosmic wires. Where are the currents that power the sun? Surely you have observed them.

I am not personally of the impression that the sun has an "external" power source per se. It may electrically interact with other suns in a full "circuit", but I would expect the sun(s) to be the primary energy source, not something external to the sun.
 
Big time fail! EM fields already have a valid scientific name Zig. They are not "dark energy".

Wow, a semantic argument. How terribly powerful.

And irrelevant. The vacuum expectation value of the electromagnetic field is a form of dark energy. It's perfectly acceptable to have overlapping definitions of words.

You only acknowledged half of the problem! The whole concept of 'evolution' is based upon a *NEED* you have to justify your 'creation date'.

No, Michael. It's based upon the rather simple concept of conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Stars output energy. Therefore their internal energy must be changing. That requires changes over time, ie, evolution. Galaxies are also not in thermal equilibrium. They are constantly increasing in entropy. That requires changes over time, ie, evolution. Regardless of how you formed them in the first place, galaxies MUST evolve. To deny that galaxies evolve is to deny both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The pathetic thing is that you don't even understand why it's a violation.

Because it's a closed system?

The fact that it's a closed system is the whole reason that we can conclude the entropy should always increase, Michael.

Because it has more total energy than we imagine.

That won't save it from a heat death. That'll just make the heat death hot rather than cold. You REALLY don't have a clue about thermodynamics.
 
I am not personally of the impression that the sun has an "external" power source per se. It may electrically interact with other suns in a full "circuit", but I would expect the sun(s) to be the primary energy source, not something external to the sun.

So where are the currents? Show me the money.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
And this question demonstrates that LCDM cosmological models are "woo" how, exactly?
It has *ZERO* actual "predictive" capabilities. It's all been postdicted and cobbled together in a purely ad hoc manner based on metaphysical pigs and pretty red math. It's numerology with lots of "published papers" on the topic.
But it surely has "*ZERO* actual "predictive" capabilities" only if you completely disregard the math and the quantification, right?

I may be seriously misunderstanding you here MM, but it seems to me that you have just declared all of physics, since at least the time of Galileo and Newton, to be "woo".

Please set me straight.

I'm having great difficulty following your logic, MM; perhaps you could take a little time to define what, exactly, you mean by "woo"?
Woo is stuff that doesn't show up in the lab, like your dead inflation deity.
And like [OIII], electron degenerate matter, nuclear degenerate matter, Mozplasma, Mozodes, Mozeparation, Mozcharges, Mozwind, ... ?

And neutrinos, from ~1930 to 1957?

Or helium between its detection in the solar spectrum and discovery here on Earth? Or nebulium?

Woo is stuff that fails to useful or meaningful in terms of actual physics, like your "dark energy" stuff that never does anything useful and can't be measured by humans directly.
Like neutrinos, from ~1930 to 1957?

Or positrons, from Dirac to PET scanners?

Or quarks?

Or helium?

It's evidently shy around objects bound by gravity. Woo is stuff that never actually appears when put to the empirical test, like that mythical brand of exotic dark matter that just got falsified (again).
So, I presume you can cite a paper - preferably by an astrophysicist - which predicted the properties of CDM that have not been detected (so far) by XENON?

If not, how could the XENON results possibly "falsify" CDM?!?

I must say that you seem to be continuing to use perfectly good, standard terms in highly idiosyncratic ways; why?

What's it going to take to get you to admit that inflation was an ad hoc creation?
What's woo about "ad hoc creations"?

I accept that you have a view of the nature of science (or perhaps just physics) that is radically different from that of (all?) scientists, possibly since the time of Newton, but using "ad hoc creations" as a criterion for deciding something is scientific woo immediately makes your very own solar "model" woo, doesn't it? I mean, what could possibly be more ad hoc than the Mozode and Mozplasma?

What's it going to take to get you to admit that 'dark energy' is "gap filler'
Nothing; it's a placeholder term, with several different meanings.

to support an otherwise falsified theory?
We're back to a fundamental, possibly irreconcilable, difference in views of the nature of science.

Perhaps it would be more productive, given this dramatically different set of views, to concentrate on the inconsistencies of your own view? For example, "What's it going to take to get you to admit that 'Mozplasma' is "gap filler' to support an otherwise falsified model?"

What's it going to take to get you to wake up to electricity in space?
Meaningless question; there are thousands of papers on "electricity in space"

It seems to me that inflation, DE and DM are "strawmen" by design.
No doubt (it does seem so to you); however you seem to having enormous difficulty in explaining why you think this, in terms of ideas that are logical and consistent, especially when examined in light of your very own solar "model"!

Does logic and consistency count for naught in your worldview (this is a serious question)?

They are not "real". They don't have any physical effect here and now on anything here and now. You can't demonstrate that any of your three metaphysical friends actually exist or ever existed in nature based on controlled experimentation here on Earth. Instead you point at the sky and claim "my metaphysical friend of choice did it" and toss in some math. It's pointless woo with pretty math, just like numerology. Like numerology it actually has no real predictive capabilities as those two glaring failures this week alone can and do demonstrate.
And yet, and yet ...

If we choose Mozplasma, the Mozode, Mozeparation, Mozwind, Mozcharge, and Moztronium as things "they" refer to, the exact same thing applies, doesn't it?

So why is it OK for you to accept the reality of Moztronium (to pick just one example), but reject the reality of CDM?

Your 'gap' now where you can evidently stuff back in those dark matter elves is something like 80 protons massive. Don't you think we would have noticed something that massive before now?

I'm sorry, but mainstream theory isn't just predicted on *one* type of "woo", but upon three different forms of woo that are all "no shows" in the lab. What else can it be except "woo", when only 4% of the whole theory is based on actual empirical physics?
Well, you can pretty much guess what I'm going to write now, can't you?

The MM solar "model" isn't just predicated on *one* type of "woo", but upon *at least six* different forms of woo that are all "no shows" in the lab. What else can it be except "woo", when 0% of the whole "model" is based on actual empirical physics?
 
Dark Matter
There is nothing even close to circular about dark matter.

:) I love these proclamations that are actually the antithesis of "fact". The term "dark matter" used to refer to "stuff we can't see with our primitive technology'. The new and improved "non baryonic" brand is whole different ballgame. That was "made to order" just like "dark energy".

We observe that the rotation of spiral galaxies, and the motions of individual galaxies in clusters are not consistent with the dual assumptions that (1) all of visible matter is all the matter there is, and (2) the law of gravity is correct.

It that "Gravity" with or without "dark energy"? :)

What makes you sure you have properly identified all the "normal" mass?
 
You don't just stuff the gaps with "dark magic energy" either, but that seems to be exactly what you've done in the past.
Yep, just like neutrinos, positrons, helium, Neptune, quarks (esp the top quark), [OIII], nuclear degenerate matter, Fermi gas, ...

What makes you, MM, so supremely confident you know what the next ten/fifty/hundred/thousand years of experimental and observational (astro)physics will turn up?

Are you an oracle?
 
Inflation
There is nothing even close to circular about inflation.


The obligatory (and false) proclamation. :)

We know that there is an inconsistency between the observed properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the fundamental physics of pre-inflationary big bang cosmology.

An you have no empirical connection between that and "inflation". In fact you don't have *ANY* empirical connection between inflation and anything because Guth made it up entirely in his head! There's no 'consistency' gained by adding "inflation" to anything! it's a purely ad hoc creation from the mind of a single individual and I can even name the individual! The whole thing was on big "leap of faith" based on "negative pressure vacuums" not less! Give it up Tim, you'll never demonstrate that inflation wasn't "made up". I even know the guy that did it.
 
Yep, just like neutrinos, positrons, helium, Neptune, quarks (esp the top quark), [OIII], nuclear degenerate matter, Fermi gas, ...

What makes you, MM, so supremely confident you know what the next ten/fifty/hundred/thousand years of experimental and observational (astro)physics will turn up?

Are you an oracle?

That's rich! You're the clairvoyant one that expects and even predicts that we will find all new forms of matter and energy! :) Irony meter overload!
 
The Northern Lights. Seriously? This is your evidence of an electric sun in an electric universe?

Well, yes as a matter of fact. That is one "prediction" that is directly related to a "cathode solar theory".

The northern lights are your mysterious cosmic currents that flow through your galactic circuit?

No, they are a physical manifestation of an electric sun. There are a 'prediction' related to Birkeland's cathode solar model and theory. Again, I'm not trying to "power" the sun externally.
 
Well, yes as a matter of fact. That is one "prediction" that is directly related to a "cathode solar theory".



No, they are a physical manifestation of an electric sun. There are a 'prediction' related to Birkeland's cathode solar model and theory. Again, I'm not trying to "power" the sun externally.

Ok. So where are the currents? Show me the money.
 
In other words: Epic fail on the deceleration prediction. Now will it die a natural death?
In other words: You did not understand what you read.

In other words: Epic success in applying the scientific method by changing a theory (the univere expands at a constant rate) when empirical evidence shows that the universe expands at an increasing rate.

In other words your ad hoc assertions have to "fit" with your other stuff, otherwise it's useless to you. Got it.
You have it right for once :jaw-dropp !
A consistent set of theories have to be .... consistent!

So how did you make that leap from "acceleration" to "dark energy". That's got to be quite a leap of faith....
No it is not.
Your religious belief that there is no cause of the observed acceleration is a leap of faith.
Scientists know that an effect has a cause.
Scientists use what the universe tells us (i.e. the laws of physics) to explore the properties of the cause. In this case, that cause is
  • Not seen.
  • Acts as if it was an energy, e.g.
    • a non-zero cosmological constant ("vacuum energy").
    • Quintessence
    • something else
Thus: dark energy
The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. 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. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.
Negative pressure
Independently from its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (i.e. effects, acting repulsively) in order to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe.
According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

So you might have just made that up Tim. Where is your empirical test of concept? When did "dark energy" ever cause acceleration?
That is just stupid, Michael Mozina - dark energy is whatever causes the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe.

If you do not like the name then call it "green peppers" but do not expect anyone to know what you are talking about.

What hogwash. It's not only "circular", it's "made to order" in a purely ad hoc fashion so you could "make it fit"! If we do not "accept" that "acceleration=dark energy" your whole argument falls apart. I think I'll pick these apart one at a time, because they are all unique forms of woo.
What hogwash. Where is the "circular" in:
  1. Observe that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
  2. Observe that the cause of that is not seen.
  3. Observe that the cause of that needs to be an energy to fit in with how the universe acts.
  4. Give that cause an easily understood placeholder name: dark energy.
What a unique form of woo. Nobody acccepts that "acceleration=dark energy". For a start, energy is not acceleration :eye-poppi ! You are merely continuing your delusion that dark energy is the actual cause of the acceleration. It is not. The acutual cause is still to be determined, e.g.
  • a non-zero cosmological constant ("vacuum energy") or
  • Quintessence or
  • something else.
 
You don't just stuff the gaps with "dark magic energy" either, but that seems to be exactly what you've done in the past. What kind of information would actually falsify your beloved Lambda-CMD theory if not either of these two recent revelations? Honestly, what's it going to take?

Well I don't think it's so productive to try to 'falsify' a theory in a standalone sense. I like to run theories off against each other and pick the best. So for me, any theory that fitted observations either with enough extra accuracy (which given the state of observations is actually quite hard - when the experimental errors don't give you distinguishing power you have a tough time doing this) or with fewer parameters. All you have to do is give me a theory that does either or both of those.

That said, something that would falsify LCDM? Well, observations that don't fit w=-1 would do what you want, as RC said too. There's actually a wealth of possible observations that would falsify it, and a number of surveys in progress that could give those results.

Personally, I would love to see LCDM toppled, on the basis that anything that did topple it would almost certainly be more interesting. However, from what I've seen, what you favour is not in the running.
 
That's rich! You're the clairvoyant one that expects and even predicts that we will find all new forms of matter and energy!
I am?

Can you point to anything I've written, ever, which says this?

No, really, I'm very interested to know how you came to this (amazing) conclusion.

If, perchance, you do find such material, I'd like the chance to edit it, because it is - as you have written it - completely antithetical to the view of science (astrophysics) I hold.
 
In other words: Epic success in applying the scientific method by changing a theory (the univere expands at a constant rate) when empirical evidence shows that the universe expands at an increasing rate.

No, epic fail because instead of finding a real empirical cause, you made one up.

You have it right for once :jaw-dropp !
A consistent set of theories have to be .... consistent!

So you needed a really ad hoc kind of energy that didn't have any influence on that bad old solar wind you can't explain, but somehow does it's glorious magic away from prying human eyes and those dreaded empirical tests that you folks avoid like the plague.

You therefore constructed "made to order" sorts of ad hoc properties that properly fit with your otherwise falsified theory and make it impossible to "test". Suddenly we have a new form of "dark energy" that only does it magic "out there" in deep space where humans can never reach. How darn "handy" don't you think?

Scientists know that an effect has a cause.

That "cause" has nothing to do with:

Magic energy
God energy
Dark energy.

You never bothered to demonstrate a real "cause/effect" relationship between your magic energy and that observation of acceleration.
 
Well, yes as a matter of fact. That is one "prediction" that is directly related to a "cathode solar theory".
In which papers - published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal - may one read details of this ""cathode solar theory""?

How is this "theory" related to your own solar "model"?

How is the "cathode" in this related to the Mozode?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom