Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
It means that the attractive form of gravity shows up in a lab, unlike your invisible friends, and unlike your claims of 'repulsive gravity".
Click to expand...
It meant no such thing. Your sentence didn't make any sense whatsoever (largely due to your random insertion of ").

There is an empirical link between gravity and acceleration. There is no empirical link between "inflation" and acceleration, or any empirical link between dark energy and acceleration.
Click to expand...
How could you possibly know? You have no idea what any of the key terms in the above to sentences actually mean.

Nope. Gravity shows up on Earth.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "nope"? Are you rejecting that scientific progress comes from formulating hypothese and theories to match data then testing them against new data?

Your invisible friends are no shows in the lab.
Click to expand...
I don't have any invisible friends. Try again.

There's an empirical cause/effect relationship between "acceleration" and you invisible friends that you forgot to bother to demonstrate.
Click to expand...
I don't have any invisible friends, try again.

Gravity is easy to "qualify" in an ordinary manner.
Click to expand...
Not on a lab scale it isn't. It's very difficult. It took a fundamental discovery in nuclear physics (bizarrely) before we could test GR in the lab. That didn't come until 1960.

We can see it do it's thing in every experiment we might come up with.
Click to expand...
No we can't. It is of no significance whatsoever in any particle physics experiment.

There is no qualified link between acceleration and your dynamic metaphysical duo. That's the part you don't want to cop to.
Click to expand...
I don't have a dynamic metaphysical duo. Of course I'm not going to cop to it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
We can "empirically experiment" with "gravity" and specifically the "attractive" aspects of gravity right here on Earth, and gravity consistently shows up in the lab here on Earth.
Click to expand...

Actually Michael, there was none of your precious lab-based evidence favouring GR over NG until 5 years after Einstein died.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. His lambda was "qualified" in the lab. Gravity always shows up in the lab.
Click to expand...

This has always been, and will always be, a dumb way to think about it---lab vs. non-lab. But I'll play along.

You seem to think that "attractive gravity"---i.e. "apples fall down"---somehow tests the lambda term of GR. It doesn't. It tests the 00 term of the Einstein tensor---nothing else. It doesn't test the energy flux terms, it doesn't test the pressure terms, it doesn't test the momentum terms. And it certainly doesn't test the cosmological-constant term.

(Why did Einstein put these untested terms in, when only one term was needed to explain "attractive gravity"? To make the math work; it's a mathematical theory. Higher-order GR terms were eventually tested by LAGEOS, Gravity Probes A and B, Eotvos and related experiments, Lunar Laser Ranging, and astronomical observations, most long after Einstein's death.)

Why don't you show us a "lab experiment", one that Einstein knew about, that could tell the difference between lambda=0, lambda = -10^-20, and lambda = + 10^-20. This is a direct question, Michael---I will ask you to answer it directly.
 
The history of events is quite clear here. Einstein saw that his GR equations inevitably led to a collapsing universe. But, observations of that era showed no collapsing universe, so Lambda was introduced (out of his head -- as MM would say) to account for what was thought to be a static universe. Thus lambda was a "metaphysical bunny not showing up in the lab." There is rich irony in that MM would object to lambda to account for an accelerating universe today but embrace lambda to account for a static one, when the two applications of lambda are identical in that they are a consequence of observations of the times. It is understandable when one is incapable of understanding GR because of intellectual and educational limitations. But it is not understandable when one is incapable of grasping simple historical events and elementary logic.
 
ben m said:
This has always been, and will always be, a dumb way to think about it---lab vs. non-lab. But I'll play along.

You seem to think that "attractive gravity"---i.e. "apples fall down"---somehow tests the lambda term of GR. It doesn't. It tests the 00 term of the Einstein tensor---nothing else. It doesn't test the energy flux terms, it doesn't test the pressure terms, it doesn't test the momentum terms. And it certainly doesn't test the cosmological-constant term.
Click to expand...

It doesn't "test" anything ben, it's simply an "empirical possibility". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration". It's therefore "possible" that mass outside of our visible universe "attracts" the mass inside out universe and "accelerates" that mass over time.

Magic invisible elves are *NOT* empirically linked to acceleration, so there is no point in having them play the leading role in lambda.

You are completely ignoring the qualification aspect between "acceleration" and "insert theory of choice". There is a clear empirical link between "gravity' and "acceleration". There is a clear empirical link between EM fields and plasma acceleration too. There is no empirical link between evil invisible energies and acceleration. Yes or no do you accept this distinction?
 
Perpetual Student said:
The history of events is quite clear here. Einstein saw that his GR equations inevitably led to a collapsing universe. But, observations of that era showed no collapsing universe, so Lambda was introduced (out of his head -- as MM would say) to account for what was thought to be a static universe.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Thus lambda was a "metaphysical bunny not showing up in the lab."
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Gravity and acceleration are clearly linked in the lab and there is a clear "qualification" between proposing external (to the visible universe) mass, and "acceleration". We might complain that it has no observational support, or flies in the face of observation, but at no time did was it "metaphysical". It could turn out to be be falsified *by observation* and at that point it can become "bunny math" that no longer has any purpose. That is in fact what happened to Einstein from his perspective when he found out that "spacetime" was expanding. He took out his math bunnies and left it alone. At no time however was it "metaphysical" in any way. His math bunnies were well "qualified" even if they were "falsified" by later observation. It's not even clear that they were actually falsified by observation, or that they were actually math bunnies at all, which is of course a great irony all things considered. :)
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about this exchange for me is that it reveals Michael's bizarre respect (if that's the right word) for authority figures, provided that they're dead. Birkeland was a visionary, and his mistakes are forgotten. Alfven was a genius, and progress in plasma physics since him get ignored. And Einstein's work was empirically "qualified" (whatever the hell that means) but modern cosmology is not. The irony of Michael's treatment of Einstein is multi-faceted: Michael doesn't understand GR itself, he doesn't understand that it's primarily a mathematically-justified theory that only gained experimental evidence long after it was formulated, and he doesn't understand that Einstein made unjustified assumptions with lambda. This deference and incomprehension leads Michael to claim he's supporting Einstein when in fact the position he is trying to take is directly contradicted by Einstein's actual work. But he can't bring himself to claim that Einstein was wrong about anything (even though he clearly was, and even admitted so), just like he can't admit Alfven or Birkeland were wrong. It's quite strange. The sad part is that this mythologizing deprives them of their humanity, and the enforced ignorance required to maintain this illusion limits appreciation of their true accomplishments.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't "test" anything ben, it's simply an "empirical possibility". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration". It's therefore "possible" that mass outside of our visible universe "attracts" the mass inside out universe and "accelerates" that mass over time.

Magic invisible elves are *NOT* empirically linked to acceleration, so there is no point in having them play the leading role in lambda.

You are completely ignoring the qualification aspect between "acceleration" and "insert theory of choice". There is a clear empirical link between "gravity' and "acceleration". There is a clear empirical link between EM fields and plasma acceleration too. There is no empirical link between evil invisible energies and acceleration. Yes or no do you accept this distinction?
Click to expand...


Since Michael's argument depends on words and phrases which he refuses to define, the above comment may be translated into the following:

It doesn't "#$^!" anything ben, it's simply an "%&@$%&&". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "$%!^". It's therefore "%!#$%!" that mass outside of our visible universe "*@$%%@" the mass inside out universe and "#%%^!%" that mass over time.

Magic invisible elves are *NOT* empirically linked to acceleration, so there is no point in having them play the leading role in lambda.

You are completely ignoring the qualification aspect between "^%@%@" and "#$@%!". There is a clear empirical link between "&@%^" and "*@#%^@%". There is a clear empirical link between EM fields and plasma acceleration too. There is no empirical link between evil invisible energies and acceleration. Yes or no do you accept this distinction?
Click to expand...

:dl:​
 
Michael Mozina said:
Incorrect. Gravity and acceleration are clearly linked in the lab and there is a clear "qualification" between proposing external (to the visible universe) mass, and "acceleration". We might complain that it has no observational support, or flies in the face of observation, but at no time did was it "metaphysical". It could turn out to be be falsified *by observation* and at that point it can become "bunny math" that no longer has any purpose.
Click to expand...

My goodness. If I didn't know better, I could read this as an uncharacteristically coherent defense... of dark energy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gravity and acceleration are clearly linked in the lab and there is a clear "qualification" between proposing external (to the visible universe) mass, and "acceleration". We might complain that it has no observational support, or flies in the face of observation, but at no time did was it "metaphysical". It could turn out to be be falsified *by observation* and at that point it can become "bunny math" that no longer has any purpose. That is in fact what happened to Einstein from his perspective when he found out that "spacetime" was expanding. He took out his math bunnies and left it alone. At no time however was it "metaphysical" in any way. His math bunnies were well "qualified" even if they were "falsified" by later observation. It's not even clear that they were actually falsified by observation, or that they were actually math bunnies at all, which is of course a great irony all things considered. :)
Click to expand...


... is an argument which, because of Michael's refusal to define his terminology, means exactly the same thing as...

Gravity and acceleration are clearly linked in the lab and there is a clear "&#*#&*" between proposing external (to the visible universe) mass, and "@^@%^". We might complain that it has no observational support, or flies in the face of observation, but at no time did was it "*#^%*%&". It could turn out to be be falsified *by observation* and at that point it can become "*#%&@" that no longer has any purpose. That is in fact what happened to Einstein from his perspective when he found out that "@#$%^@" was expanding. He took out his math bunnies and left it alone. At no time however was it "$^*#&" in any way. His math bunnies were well "^#%&@" even if they were "*#&#&" by later observation. It's not even clear that they were actually falsified by observation, or that they were actually math bunnies at all, which is of course a great irony all things considered.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
The funny thing about this exchange for me is that it reveals Michael's bizarre respect (if that's the right word) for authority figures, provided that they're dead. Birkeland was a visionary, and his mistakes are forgotten. Alfven was a genius, and progress in plasma physics since him get ignored. And Einstein's work was empirically "qualified" (whatever the hell that means) but modern cosmology is not. The irony of Michael's treatment of Einstein is multi-faceted: Michael doesn't understand GR itself, he doesn't understand that it's primarily a mathematically-justified theory that only gained experimental evidence long after it was formulated, and he doesn't understand that Einstein made unjustified assumptions with lambda. This deference and incomprehension leads Michael to claim he's supporting Einstein when in fact the position he is trying to take is directly contradicted by Einstein's actual work. But he can't bring himself to claim that Einstein was wrong about anything (even though he clearly was, and even admitted so), just like he can't admit Alfven or Birkeland were wrong. It's quite strange. The sad part is that this mythologizing deprives them of their humanity, and the enforced ignorance required to maintain this illusion limits appreciation of their true accomplishments.
Click to expand...

I didn't put anyone on any pedestals Zig, or claimed anyone was infallible. In fact it seems like only your side of the aisle seems to think their own work is "infallible" and incapable of being criticized. Exactly the opposite is true. Einstein's "mistake" in introducing a positive lambda was never an "unqualified" mistake. It may have been falsified by observation (at least a static universe), but the basic idea always had empirical merit. At no time did he propose a "cause/effect" relationship between "acceleration" and lambda that was not well "qualified".

Your theories however are completely *devoid* of empirical qualification. They are completely ad hoc mental constructs without any sort of scientific precedent. You simply "made them up" and stuffed them in there into lambda, in a purely ad hoc manner. It's just like sticking magic invisible faeries in there and claiming it's still "physics". It's nothing of the sort.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't "test" anything ben, it's simply an "empirical possibility". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration". It's therefore "possible" that mass outside of our visible universe "attracts" the mass inside out universe and "accelerates" that mass over time.

Magic invisible elves are *NOT* empirically linked to acceleration, so there is no point in having them play the leading role in lambda.

You are completely ignoring the qualification aspect between "acceleration" and "insert theory of choice". There is a clear empirical link between "gravity' and "acceleration". There is a clear empirical link between EM fields and plasma acceleration too. There is no empirical link between evil invisible energies and acceleration. Yes or no do you accept this distinction?
Click to expand...

An anecdote. In oral exams, you get to a point---I've been there from both sides, unfortunately---where the examinee obviously can't say anything intelligent on a certain topic. The examiner allows them to flail for a while hoping that they'll stumble back to reality. Then the examiner allows them to flail a little further, so that they'll be appropriately ashamed of themselves and study harder next time. Then the examiner ends the misery by saying, "OK, um, that's enough of THAT, let's go to the next question." (And the audience will want to shout, "Mercy! Mercy!" or "Let it die!")

Forget it Michael. We've all seen enough of that. (Mercy! Mercy!) You have no idea what you are talking about. (Let it die!) Ready for the next question?

(Remeniscing: the "student" side was when my committee asked me to derive the differential Coulomb-scattering cross section on the blackboard; I got as far as writing down two coupled differential equations, then choked spectacularly. Ten minutes of silent staring at the board. <shiver>.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't "test" anything ben, it's simply an "empirical possibility". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration". It's therefore "possible" that mass outside of our visible universe "attracts" the mass inside out universe and "accelerates" that mass over time.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the Copernican Principle Michael? If not, look it up.

Magic invisible elves are *NOT* empirically linked to acceleration, so there is no point in having them play the leading role in lambda.
Click to expand...
Please find me one peer reviewed paper on cosmology reporting the existence of "magic invisible elves". Otherwise, stop making rubbish up Michael. You are humiliating yourself.

You are completely ignoring the qualification aspect between "acceleration" and "insert theory of choice". There is a clear empirical link between "gravity' and "acceleration". There is a clear empirical link between EM fields and plasma acceleration too. There is no empirical link between evil invisible energies and acceleration.
Click to expand...
Erm. Michael, that's a term you just made up. Of course nobody believes in it. Why would you think anybody would?

Yes or no do you accept this distinction?
Click to expand...
I know the distinction between physics and arguments by Michael Mozina which consist of making up stupid names and then asking whether people know of any link between the names he just made up and "empirical physics".
 
Michael Mozina said:
I didn't put anyone on any pedestals Zig, or claimed anyone was infallible. In fact it seems like only your side of the aisle seems to think their own work is "infallible" and incapable of being criticized. Exactly the opposite is true. Einstein's "mistake" in introducing a positive lambda was never an "unqualified" mistake. It may have been falsified by observation (at least a static universe), but the basic idea always had empirical merit. At no time did he propose a "cause/effect" relationship between "acceleration" and lambda that was not well "qualified".

Your theories however are completely *devoid* of empirical qualification. They are completely ad hoc mental constructs without any sort of scientific precedent. You simply "made them up" and stuffed them in there into lambda, in a purely ad hoc manner. It's just like sticking magic invisible faeries in there and claiming it's still "physics". It's nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy making up alternative histories that have no truth whatsoever. I hadn't realise it wasn't just science where you just must rubbish up until recently.
 
Oh, the irony:
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't "test" anything ben, it's simply an "empirical possibility". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration". It's therefore "possible" that mass outside of our visible universe "attracts" the mass inside out universe and "accelerates" that mass over time.
Click to expand...
It sounds as though Michael Mozina is conflating two different solutions of the Einstein field equationsWP:
  1. Einstein's original attempt, which involved no lambda but relied on a mathematical trick (matter outside the visible universe) to stabilize the solution.
  2. Einstein's static solution of 1917, in which Einstein added the magic (critical) value of lambda that stabilizes staticizes a de Sitter model with closed space.

ETA: Einstein's static de Sitter solution with the critical value of lambda was unstable, so my use of "stabilize" was particularly unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
Let it die! Mercy! This is pointless, everyone. Michael is now taking a fictional version of Albert Einstein, giving him a fictional version of a gravity theory, pretending to apply this theory to data that he doesn't understand, and splitting hairs about a purported difference between this fictional theory that he likes and a another fictional theory that he doesn't like.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Oh, the irony:

It sounds as though Michael Mozina is conflating two different solutions of the Einstein field equationsWP:
  1. Einstein's original attempt, which involved no lambda but relied on a mathematical trick (matter outside the visible universe) to stabilize the solution.
  2. Einstein's static solution of 1917, in which Einstein added the magic (critical) value of lambda that stabilizes a de Sitter model with closed space.
Click to expand...

Is he not also suggesting we're at the centre of the universe?
 
ben m said:
Let it die! Mercy! This is pointless, everyone. Michael is now taking a fictional version of Albert Einstein, giving him a fictional version of a gravity theory, pretending to apply this theory to data that he doesn't understand, and splitting hairs about a purported difference between this fictional theory that he likes and a another fictional theory that he doesn't like.
Click to expand...

With a fictional name that gets more and more stupid every time he mentions it.

Can we move this thread to humor?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Perpetual Student has identified the central problem with your argument:
Perpetual Student said:
As I have pointed out, since you have no clue what this means:
[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]
you are not qualified to participate in this discussion. Learn from those here who understand this subject. Your comments expose you as confused and uneducated. You don't even understand the history of GR let alone the mathematics and physics.
Click to expand...
Even today, you can complete an undergraduate degree in physics at some schools without understanding that equation.
Click to expand...
When I completed my B.S. in 1978 you could easily have done so without ever even seeing that equation, let alone understand it. But since I was interested in astrophysics I took the one general course in GR that the one astronomy professor taught; very basic, and I suspect we really didn't understand the equation except at the basic level. I suspect that it remains the case today that the vast majority of undergrad physics students don't even see that equation. But since I have not been a formal student for a long time I don't know that, it's just a guess. Any undergrads reading this see GR in class?

Tim Thompson said:
Michael Mozina said:
The physical "cause" of Einstein's lambda was the *purely attractive* thing called "gravity" that consistently shows up in the lab.
Click to expand...
sol invictus said:
What??
Click to expand...
The truly astounding depth of Mozina's insight into physics is perhaps best demonstrated by this exchange. Who else could have realized that the universe is flying apart because of a fundamental force which only manifests itself by pulling things together. A truly amazing intellectual feat.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration".
Click to expand...
OK, since you think it is so easy, then do it.
Question: What is the "easy" link between the apparently repulsive, accelerated expansion of the universe and the apparently attractive force of gravity?

ben m said:
This has always been, and will always be, a dumb way to think about it---lab vs. non-lab.
Click to expand...
ben_m is far too civil. It is in fact just plain stupid. I have already demonstrated in detail (I hope) that Mozina has invented his own personal meaning for the word "empirical", which no other intelligent person on Earth would ever accept. See, for instance, What is "Empirical" Science V and references & links therein. There is no imaginable justification for Mozina's constant claim that only laboratory experiments can be empirical. Furthermore, it is a hypocritical claim anyway, since we already know that Mozina will reject any and all "empirical" controlled laboratory experiments which conflict with his religious & philosophical preconceptions. This is exactly what he did as regards the controlled, laboratory experiments showing magnetic reconnection in situ in laboratory plasmas (see, e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI and references & links therein).
 
ben m said:
Let it die! Mercy! This is pointless, everyone. Michael is now taking a fictional..
Click to expand...

The only fictional things I'm talking about are those metaphysical things you stuffed into lambda. The rest of this conversation is going nowhere because you keep trying to blame me personally for your epic fail of qualifying your ideas. Guth literally "made up" inflation in his head. It is and was without precedent. Dark energy is also another "made up" terms that is physically unrelated to "acceleration'. What you have always failed to do, and what you will always fail to do is show a cause/effect relationship between "acceleration" and "dark energy", or "lambda" and any of your magic friends.

Blame me all you like, but in the end it's my personal fault that you failed to qualify your theory. It's like a creationist blaming me because I don't 'have faith' in their idea in the absence of empirical support. In fact it's exactly like that.
 
Tim Thompson said:
When I completed my B.S. in 1978 you could easily have done so without ever even seeing that equation, let alone understand it. But since I was interested in astrophysics I took the one general course in GR that the one astronomy professor taught; very basic, and I suspect we really didn't understand the equation except at the basic level. I suspect that it remains the case today that the vast majority of undergrad physics students don't even see that equation. But since I have not been a formal student for a long time I don't know that, it's just a guess. Any undergrads reading this see GR in class?
Click to expand...

Its not too many year since I graduated. I never saw it. We did "derive" the Friedmann equation using Newtonian gravity (in so far as that's possible) once.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only fictional things I'm talking about are those metaphysical things you stuffed into lambda. The rest of this conversation is going nowhere because you keep trying to blame me personally for your epic fail of qualifying your ideas. Guth literally "made up" inflation in his head. It is and was without precedent. Dark energy is also another "made up" terms that is physically unrelated to "acceleration'. What you have always failed to do, and what you will always fail to do is show a cause/effect relationship between "acceleration" and "dark energy", or "lambda" and any of your magic friends.

Blame me all you like, but in the end it's my personal fault that you failed to qualify your theory. It's like a creationist blaming me because I don't 'have faith' in their idea in the absence of empirical support. In fact it's exactly like that.
Click to expand...

You've made up a whole new history of science in a completely failed attempt to con people in to thinking your completely failed attempt to discredit LCDM was anything other than a complete and utter failure.
 
Ziggurat said:
The funny thing about this exchange for me is that it reveals Michael's bizarre respect (if that's the right word) for authority figures, provided that they're dead. Birkeland was a visionary, and his mistakes are forgotten. Alfven was a genius, and progress in plasma physics since him get ignored. And Einstein's work was empirically "qualified" (whatever the hell that means) but modern cosmology is not. The irony of Michael's treatment of Einstein is multi-faceted: Michael doesn't understand GR itself, he doesn't understand that it's primarily a mathematically-justified theory that only gained experimental evidence long after it was formulated, and he doesn't understand that Einstein made unjustified assumptions with lambda. This deference and incomprehension leads Michael to claim he's supporting Einstein when in fact the position he is trying to take is directly contradicted by Einstein's actual work. But he can't bring himself to claim that Einstein was wrong about anything (even though he clearly was, and even admitted so), just like he can't admit Alfven or Birkeland were wrong. It's quite strange. The sad part is that this mythologizing deprives them of their humanity, and the enforced ignorance required to maintain this illusion limits appreciation of their true accomplishments.
Click to expand...
And, as I've pointed out (several times), it's this sort of thing which provides the empirical^, objective, independently verifiable evidence in support of the conclusion that MM is approaching this subject (and, indeed, pretty much all of physics, astronomy, and cosmology) from a religious perspective.

To MM, the TRUTH is eternal and static; Birkeland, Alfvén, and Einstein were prophets, who could tap into the TRUTH, and MM is unique* in that he, and he alone, can discern this prophetic reality (he's acting like an acolyte?).

MM's failure to be able to communicate what he means is a further piece of evidence: not only is he, in essence, speaking a different language (see GM's list, for example), but because none of the others who've posted in this thread (and others like it) share his quasi-religious approach to the topic, no communication is possible (at least until the radically different approaches can be acknowledged, recognised, and clarified).

In short, what MM is advocating is, it seems to me, the very antithesis of science.

^ not "empirical", per GM this is equivalent to #&@#%&, i.e. it's meaningless
* though not entirely; several EU proponents seem to be like this too
 
Perpetual Student said:
This is "*"*AMAZING*"*".
Click to expand...

What is amazing to me is that fact that you personally give them a "free pass" when it comes to "qualifying" their claims. Guth simply "made up" inflation. It is without precedent. It has no business being associated with "lambda" because it's not real. It's fictional. Whatever the physical "cause" of acceleration, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "dark energy" because "dark energy" has never caused anything to accelerate.

You simply ignore the qualification problems in their theory entirely. That's the part I find amazing and fascinating. If I were stuffing "God energy" (pilfered math and all) in there, would you still think that was an "empirical theory"?
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
And, as I've pointed out (several times), it's this sort of thing which provides the empirical^, objective, independently verifiable evidence in support of the conclusion that MM is approaching this subject (and, indeed, pretty much all of physics, astronomy, and cosmology) from a religious perspective.
Click to expand...

You have reality standing on it's head now DRD. I reject your religion for exactly the same reason I reject other religions. Your unseen entities are evidently entirely impotent on Earth!

It's really not my fault that you choose to "have faith" in the "unseen". It's not my fault you have no physical justification for claiming "dark energy did it" or "inflation did it" when it comes to lambda. The fact you cannot show an empirical cause/effect relationship in the lab is no more my fault than it's my fault that a creationist cannot support their beliefs in the lab! You're simply blaming me for not "having faith" in *your* religion.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The only fictional things I'm talking about are those metaphysical things you stuffed into lambda. The rest of this conversation is going nowhere because you keep trying to blame me personally for your epic fail of qualifying your ideas. Guth literally "made up" inflation in his head. It is and was without precedent. Dark energy is also another "made up" terms that is physically unrelated to "acceleration'. What you have always failed to do, and what you will always fail to do is show a cause/effect relationship between "acceleration" and "dark energy", or "lambda" and any of your magic friends.
Click to expand...


And with no definition of terms, the argument above is the same as...

The only fictional things I'm talking about are those metaphysical things you stuffed into lambda. The rest of this conversation is going nowhere because you keep trying to blame me personally for your epic fail of qualifying your ideas. Guth literally "&%^&#$%" inflation in his head. It is and was without precedent. Dark energy is also another "*#%^@" terms that is physically unrelated to "$^@'. What you have always failed to do, and what you will always fail to do is show a cause/effect relationship between "&#%^@" and "!^@^", or "&#%^@" and any of your magic friends.
Click to expand...


Gibberish.

Blame me all you like [...]
Click to expand...


You are to blame for refusing to understand the commonly used terminology of astrophysics and for refusing to define the bizarre language you've invented, that language where you use common terms but redefine them somewhere in your imagination to suit your own whim. And you are to blame for refusing to define the terms of that invented language so that other people can understand what the hell you're talking about.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I didn't put anyone on any pedestals Zig, or claimed anyone was infallible.
Click to expand...

You may know that they make mistakes in an abstract sense, but you can't actually seem to recognize those mistakes.

Einstein's "mistake" in introducing a positive lambda was never an "unqualified" mistake.
Click to expand...

I'd contradict you on this, except I have no idea what the hell you even mean by "unqualified". Would you care to define that term? But in any case, it was most definitely unsupported by any observational or experimental evidence.

Your theories however are completely *devoid* of empirical qualification. They are completely ad hoc mental constructs
Click to expand...

Sounds like Einstein's original lambda.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What is amazing to me is that fact that you personally give the a "free pass" when it comes to "qualifying" their claims.
Click to expand...

Once again, what the hell does it mean to "qualify" a claim? You're making up terminology without defining it. I suspect that it's an attempt by you to redirect attention from the fact that you can't quantify anything, but I wonder if you even have a definition for what you mean by "qualify".
 
Ziggurat said:
Sounds like Einstein's original lambda.
Click to expand...

Gah! No! Einstein's lambda was directly related to gravity. There is a clear empirical link between gravity and acceleration of objects in spacetime. There is no empirical cause/effect relationship between lambda and your invisible friends. *That* is the antithesis of science. Einstein's lambda was empirically qualified even if it was eventually falsified. Your invisible friends are entirely *devoid* of empirical qualification. It would be like me calling it "Godflation" and "Godenergy" and starting my own metaphysical religion. There's no cause/effect relationship between lambda and your invisible friends! We can't even falsify your theory because you simply add new friends as needed, and/or change the properties of your friends anytime it suits you.
 
Ziggurat said:
Once again, what the hell does it mean to "qualify" a claim? You're making up terminology without defining it. I suspect that it's an attempt by you to redirect attention from the fact that you can't quantify anything, but I wonder if you even have a definition for what you mean by "qualify".
Click to expand...

If I claim that the cause of acceleration is related to an EM field, I can demonstrate that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate. I could be wrong about some specific observation of acceleration being caused by an EM field, but at least my EM acceleration idea is well "qualified".

If however I claim my invisible friend in my pocket is the cause of acceleration, I have no way to "qualify" that claim even if I quantify the acceleration process correctly. See the difference?
 
ben m said:
An anecdote. In oral exams, you get to a point---I've been there from both sides, unfortunately---where the examinee obviously can't say anything intelligent on a certain topic.
Click to expand...

Ya and you folks have reached that point evidently. When asked to produce qualified empirical support of your claims, you hem and haw and act like gravity and magic dark elves are equally valid in terms of qualification. You have nothing really intelligent to say, nor any sort of empirical support in the lab. You've got "space" expanding when you cannot even physically define "space" in the first place, let alone tell us what "expands" in "space"! The whole thing is metaphysical woo, from start to finish. You've established no cause/effect relationships between "acceleration/lambda" and either of your invisible buddies. Somehow it's all my fault however, so here we are going around in metaphysical circles.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't "test" anything ben, it's simply an "empirical possibility". Gravity can easily be empirically linked to "acceleration". It's therefore "possible" that mass outside of our visible universe "attracts" the mass inside out universe and "accelerates" that mass over time.
Click to expand...

Naturally, every first year physics student learns that only mass inside the sphere makes gravity. The notion of a huge universe outside of what we can observe pulling our little corner apart is preposterous.
 
GeeMack said:
Yes, it is, because you are wholly unqualified to communicate in a sane, rational, or intelligent manner on the subject of physics, yet you persist in pretending that you are qualified to do so.
Click to expand...

That's a lot like a theist calling me "evil" for not believing in their particular unseen entity of choice. Since you can't produce any cause/effect demonstrations related to your unseen buddies, I'm somehow at fault.

Note that if I asked you to show a cause/effect relationship between "gravity"" and "acceleration", you'd have no trouble at all. It's only because your inflation genies and dark energies are impotent in the lab that you have problems with my "sanity".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom