Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
It means [...]
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Excuse me [...]
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
[*snipped a series of terms which seem to be gibberish but apparently have some meaning to the poster*]
Click to expand...


A few more terms added...

Michael applies meanings different than the common usage for the words and phrases that he puts in quote marks. Below is an ongoing list of terms which he has surrounded with quotes but is so far unable or unwilling to define. Until he can define these terms, all of his arguments using any of them amount to meaningless nonsense.

The list...

  • absolute
  • acceleration
  • accepted
  • act of faith
  • ad hoc
  • assumed
  • attractive
  • background
  • ballpark
  • bang
  • believer
  • best
  • better
  • caught on
  • cause
  • cause/effect
  • confused
  • control mechanism
  • correct
  • create
  • creativity
  • dark energies
  • dark energy
  • dark energy did it
  • dark energy of the gaps
  • dark flow
  • dark matter
  • dead
  • decent
  • demonstrate
  • discovery
  • emotional
  • empirical science
  • empirically
  • empirically demonstrated
  • empirically qualified
  • empirically quantified
  • empty space
  • expand
  • expanding
  • expanding space
  • explaining
  • extra energy
  • falsified
  • fantasy
  • fix
  • flavors
  • gravity
  • guess
  • guessing
  • gumby
  • hairy inflation
  • hairy moflation
  • ignore anything that falsifies the concept of exotic matter
  • ignore the cause of the lambda
  • in the ballpark
  • inflation
  • inflation did it
  • interpret
  • invent
  • invented
  • invisible
  • it's not my fault
  • lab tested
  • lamba
  • logically impossible
  • making up
  • mathematical perfection
  • measurable
  • metaphysical
  • metaphysical baggage
  • modified to fit
  • narrow the range
  • negative
  • negative pressure
  • negative pressures in a vacuum
  • no show
  • not having faith
  • observational evidence
  • observed acceleration
  • physics
  • physics in general
  • popular
  • positive pressure vacuum
  • postdicted
  • postdicting a fit
  • predicted
  • pretend
  • pretend entities
  • properly
  • properties
  • pseudoscience
  • put faith
  • qualification
  • qualify
  • relative
  • religion
  • ruled in
  • scale
  • science
  • sciences
  • simplicity
  • space
  • space expands
  • spacetime
  • spin
  • static
  • superiority
  • test
  • theory
  • throw it out
  • tweak
  • tweaked
  • tweaked to fit
  • unseen
  • unseen entities
  • unusual
  • verification
  • verify
  • wind down
  • woo
  • woo with make believe math
  • zero
 
Michael Mozina said:
Excuse me edd, but this really does sound like pure denial on your part. Einstein's universe was "static". It didn't move. "Spacetime" did not expand, and "space" (whatever the hell that is) certainly didn't "expand". Nothing expanded.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it doesn't move. Until someone sneezes.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4345

None of you intends to comment intelligently on this paper I presume?
Click to expand...
What, pray tell, does this preprint have to do with whether "Lambda-CDM theory" is scientific woo or not?

It couldn't be - perish the thought - that you're setting up another diversion, to avoid having to address your manifest failure to communicate your own, idiosyncratic, views?

I mean, seriously, MM do you think any reader of this thread - those who've posted, the JREF lurkers, the 'guests' - anyone, understands what you mean by "empirical" (to take just one example)?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4345

None of you intends to comment intelligently on this paper I presume?
Click to expand...

I'll comment:
"So if the age estimates of these objects are correct, the cosmic age puzzle still remains in the standard cosmology."

The rather obvious possibility to consider is that the age estimates of these objects are NOT correct. How are the ages of globular clusters estimated? By using what are called simple stellar population (SSP) models.

I've pointed this out to you before in regards to similar claims, Michael, but you didn't clue in. This paper does NOT indicate that standard cosmology models are wrong. It indicates that there is a conflict between cosmology models and (in this case) SSP models. It's quite possible SSP models are wrong. But you seem to be treating this paper as if SSP models can't be, as if estimating the age of something like a globular cluster is as easy as counting tree rings. It's not.

Edit: the hilarious thing about this post is that if the SSP models are shown to be correct, then this would indeed falsify current cosmology models. But Michael claimed that these models are not falsifiable. So he's making contradictory claims, and he doesn't even know it.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The rather obvious possibility to consider is that the age estimates of these objects are NOT correct. How are the ages of globular clusters estimated? By using what are called simple stellar population (SSP) models.
Click to expand...
And dating a quasar is a heck of a lot harder than that, I think.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Excuse me edd, but this really does sound like pure denial on your part. Einstein's universe was "static". It didn't move. "Spacetime" did not expand, and "space" (whatever the hell that is) certainly didn't "expand". Nothing expanded.
Click to expand...
No, that's pure denial on your part.

Without lambda, Einstein's universe collapses (is not static). With negative, zero, or sufficiently small positive values of lambda, Einstein's universe still collapses. The critical value of lambda is the unique value for which the expansive effect of the lambda term precisely offsets the collapsing effect of the other terms. If the value of lambda is larger than the critical value, then his universe expands forever.

To get his static universe, Einstein just postulated that lambda has the critical value. He pulled that out of total vacuum, with no supporting experiments. His static universe was balanced on a knife edge between collapse and expansion. The slightest perturbation would send it into collapse or expansion.

It's hard to explain that to someone who's allergic to all variations of the letter D, but here goes: The tiniest decrease in the value of lambda would send Einstein's static universe into collapse. The tiniest increase in the value of lambda would send Einstein's static universe into eternal expansion. What I just said can be stated with mathematical precision. When so stated, it is a mathematical fact that lambda's effect is expansive, not static or attractive.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
No, that's pure denial on your part.

Without lambda, Einstein's universe collapses (is not static). With negative, zero, or sufficiently small positive values of lambda, Einstein's universe still collapses. The critical value of lambda is the unique value for which the expansive effect of the lambda term precisely offsets the collapsing effect of the other terms. If the value of lambda is larger than the critical value, then his universe expands forever.

To get his static universe, Einstein just postulated that lambda has the critical value. He pulled that out of total vacuum, with no supporting experiments. His static universe was balanced on a knife edge between collapse and expansion. The slightest perturbation would send it into collapse or expansion.

It's hard to explain that to someone who's allergic to all variations of the letter D, but here goes: The tiniest decrease in the value of lambda would send Einstein's static universe into collapse. The tiniest increase in the value of lambda would send Einstein's static universe into eternal expansion. What I just said can be stated with mathematical precision. When so stated, it is a mathematical fact that lambda's effect is expansive, not static or attractive.
Click to expand...

You're still missing the key point IMO. The "cause" he proposed was simply "gravity" from "other mass" that we simply could not observe. There are no special claims being made, other than perhaps the existence of mass beyond our visible universe which is assumed in *EVERY* cosmology theory as far as I know.

He did not propose an entirely new force of nature, nor any sort of 'repulsive gravity'. Nothing "'expanded", not spacetime, and certainly not "space". The worst you can accuse him of is coming up with a case of "'special pleading" related to the exact balance of mass necessary to create a "static" universe. At no time however did he propose anything that was outside of the rest of GR. Even lambda in Einsteins model was associated with mass and therefore with GR.

What you're proposing is something very different, and something (several things) "new" as the "cause" of lambda. As such, those parts of your claims also require empirical support. They have no empirical support. In fact the CDM side of your theory also "failed" recent critical lab tests.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

What would you like me to do, simply ignore the failures of your theory?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Even lambda in Einsteins model was associated with mass and therefore with GR.
Click to expand...
Untrue. It was explicitly outside the stress-energy tensor in the form Einstein proposed it. Arguably it's closer to being some unsourced property of space than one sourced by matter.

edit: Actually I'm not quite sure about that, on reading more, so I'll take it back.

edit 2: Well it's hard to find exactly what Einstein was thinking, but I don't see any indication his cosmological constant was in any way "associated with mass".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
[...] IMO [...]
Click to expand...


Added a few more terms. Interestingly the term "failed" was added in this round. Of course it was eventually bound to show up as one of the words Michael uses without being able or willing to define it. Here is the update...

Michael applies meanings different than the common usage for the words and phrases that he puts in quote marks. Below is an ongoing list of terms which he has surrounded with quotes but is so far unable or unwilling to define. Until he can define these terms, all of his arguments using any of them amount to meaningless nonsense.

The list...

  • absolute
  • acceleration
  • accepted
  • act of faith
  • ad hoc
  • assumed
  • attractive
  • background
  • ballpark
  • bang
  • believer
  • best
  • better
  • caught on
  • cause
  • cause/effect
  • confused
  • control mechanism
  • correct
  • create
  • creativity
  • dark energies
  • dark energy
  • dark energy did it
  • dark energy of the gaps
  • dark flow
  • dark matter
  • dead
  • decent
  • demonstrate
  • discovery
  • emotional
  • empirical science
  • empirically
  • empirically demonstrated
  • empirically qualified
  • empirically quantified
  • empty space
  • expand
  • expanded
  • expanding
  • expanding space
  • explaining
  • extra energy
  • failed
  • falsified
  • fantasy
  • fix
  • flavors
  • gravity
  • guess
  • guessing
  • gumby
  • hairy inflation
  • hairy moflation
  • ignore anything that falsifies the concept of exotic matter
  • ignore the cause of the lambda
  • in the ballpark
  • inflation
  • inflation did it
  • interpret
  • invent
  • invented
  • invisible
  • it's not my fault
  • lab tested
  • lamba
  • logically impossible
  • making up
  • mathematical perfection
  • measurable
  • metaphysical
  • metaphysical baggage
  • modified to fit
  • narrow the range
  • negative
  • negative pressure
  • negative pressures in a vacuum
  • new
  • no show
  • not having faith
  • observational evidence
  • observed acceleration
  • other mass
  • physics
  • physics in general
  • popular
  • positive pressure vacuum
  • postdicted
  • postdicting a fit
  • predicted
  • pretend
  • pretend entities
  • properly
  • properties
  • pseudoscience
  • put faith
  • qualification
  • qualify
  • relative
  • religion
  • repulsive gravity
  • ruled in
  • scale
  • science
  • sciences
  • simplicity
  • space
  • space expands
  • spacetime
  • special pleading
  • spin
  • static
  • superiority
  • test
  • theory
  • throw it out
  • tweak
  • tweaked
  • tweaked to fit
  • unseen
  • unseen entities
  • unusual
  • verification
  • verify
  • wind down
  • woo
  • woo with make believe math
  • zero
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're still missing the key point IMO. The "cause" he proposed was simply "gravity" from "other mass" that we simply could not observe.
Click to expand...
That's a false statement. I think you're confusing his original attempt, which made no use of lambda and contained no observable mass, with his static cosmology based on the de Sitter solution with the critical value for lambda, in which space was closed and all mass was observable.

Michael Mozina said:
There are no special claims being made, other than perhaps the existence of mass beyond our visible universe which is assumed in *EVERY* cosmology theory as far as I know.
Click to expand...
You're wrong about that also.

Michael Mozina said:
He did not propose an entirely new force of nature, nor any sort of 'repulsive gravity'.
Click to expand...
Einstein proposed lambda without connecting it to any force of nature at all, new or old.

Michael Mozina said:
Even lambda in Einsteins model was associated with mass and therefore with GR.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Lambda's just a number he added so his equations would have a nontrivial static solution. It made sense mathematically, but Einstein had no physical justification for it.

Michael Mozina said:
What you're proposing is something very different, and something (several things) "new" as the "cause" of lambda. As such, those parts of your claims also require empirical support. They have no empirical support. In fact the CDM side of your theory also "failed" recent critical lab tests.
Click to expand...
Not my proposals, not my claims, not my theory. Not relevant to your misrepresentations of Einstein and lambda, either.

Michael Mozina said:
What would you like me to do, simply ignore the failures of your theory?
Click to expand...
Not my theory. Having turned this conversation to the meaning of lambda and Einstein's reasons for introducing it, you're now trying to run away from those subjects. That's fine with me, but you should run away honorably, without blaming us for your failures.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Well?

Maybe your lack to accept that any valid points are made by *the other side* even when you know some points are valid could change? I've made plenty of concessions. Your mantra that all that is posted is completely wrong in every way is obviously false, especially when it comes to the long peer reviewed published papers that you seem to repeatedly gloss over and ignore.
Click to expand...

So here we go again Zeuzzz, what valid point would you like to make?

You know like teh specific point you want to make.

Then you could try to stay around and defend it.

Which specific papers are you reffereing to, take them one at a time.

So which specific paper are you wanting to start with first?

Your history of defense of the ideas you present is rather lacking, so I suggest you choose one paper and read it before you suggest which specific one you think we should take on.

ETA:

Most of the ideas discussed in that Lerner paper have been discussed in this thread and others, so which specific idea in the Lerner paper would YOU like to discuss. Or have you forgotten already?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
bah so many people are using words that are not helping matters i'm thinking this discussion will never be settled, not due to the science, but to the emotively induced responces that this confrontational attitude invokes. Back and forth, back and forth. FOREVER :eek:
Click to expand...

What is noticable Zeuzz is that you will not present a specific idea for discussion, so pick one from Lerner's paper, we have discussed them before and will discuss them again.

The only emotional one is you with these appeals to emotion. so try a specific idea of PC you would like to discuss, or a specific failing of the BB that you feel PC explains.

The real problem Zeuzzz is that you hide, you do not present specific ideas for critique, we can go through each point Lerner makes if you want, in anew thread.

Is that agreeable?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're still missing the key point IMO.
Click to expand...
No, the only one missing the point is you.

The "cause" he proposed was simply "gravity" from "other mass" that we simply could not observe.
Click to expand...
This is completely false. This is the rather crucial point you're missing.

There are no special claims being made, other than perhaps the existence of mass beyond our visible universe which is assumed in *EVERY* cosmology theory as far as I know.
Click to expand...
You couldn't be more wrong. Einstein postulated a cosmological constant that exactly balanced gravity. That is a very "special" claim indeed- namely that for no good reason, two parameters of physics should conspire to exactly balance each other and leave the Universe on a knife edge. It doesn't get more special than that.

He did not propose an entirely new force of nature, nor any sort of 'repulsive gravity'. Nothing "'expanded", not spacetime, and certainly not "space". The worst you can accuse him of is coming up with a case of "'special pleading" related to the exact balance of mass necessary to create a "static" universe. At no time however did he propose anything that was outside of the rest of GR. Even lambda in Einsteins model was associated with mass and therefore with GR.
Click to expand...
You're arguing out your rear end Michael.

What you're proposing is something very different, and something (several things) "new" as the "cause" of lambda.
Click to expand...
Nope. At least, not for the normal definitions of "new" and "cause".

As such, those parts of your claims also require empirical support. They have no empirical support.
Click to expand...
Wrong. And you do not know what empirical means.

In fact the CDM side of your theory also "failed" recent critical lab tests.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html
Click to expand...
Are you utterly incapable of the most basic of science reading comprehension? The article does not rule out dark matter whatsoever. Just before LEP closed down at CERN, there were claims of the production of the Higgs boson. These appear, given subsequent non-observation at Fermilab, to be false positives. That does not mean the Higgs does not exist. It just means previous claims that i t may have been seen seem to have been false. This is exactly the same kind of situation.

What would you like me to do, simply ignore the failures of your theory?
Click to expand...
I think you need to combat your own gargantuan failures in basic reading comprehension before you start worrying about anybody else's.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're still missing the key point IMO. The "cause" he proposed was simply "gravity" from "other mass" that we simply could not observe.
Click to expand...
Well, that's pure fantasy. The Lambda term is not tied in any way to mass or energy, it is a free constant. Einstein was well aware of this.
He did not propose an entirely new force of nature, nor any sort of 'repulsive gravity'.
Click to expand...
Saying this means that you do not understand the very basics of the science involved here. Everyone knew that Lambda introduced a repulsive force and it was widely discussed in letters at the time it was introduced. Einstein's own correspondence indicates that he was well aware of this.

(For those genuinely interested, a good history of Lambda was published as John Earman, "Lambda: The constant that refuses to die", Arch. Hist. Exact Science 55 (2001), 189-220. It's a shame it's not available in a more public fashion.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Well what?
Click to expand...

Well are you going to answer the questions I posed?

sol invictus said:
Is there anything we can explain to you, any equation we can write, any reference we can give you, that will get you to understand and admit that you are mistaken? If not, do you think there is any point in continuing the conversation?

Would you continue to argue with someone who claimed that the primary language spoken in France was Japanese, and stubbornly kept insisting on that no matter what evidence and logic to the contrary you presented? To make the analogy more exact you are a linguist, you live in France, speak French fluently, have many French friends from all walks of society and from all over the country, and travel regularly across France doing research on French dialects. The other person lives in Australia, speaks only English, and has never traveled outside her small town in the outback.

Yes or no?
Click to expand...
 
Mozina thinks that Einstein's lambda was conceived as some kind of manifestation of gravity of stuff outside the observable universe. Isn't it amazing that Mozina could sustain 77 pages about Lambda-CDM theory in this forum and be so utterly ignorant about lambda. It now turns out he does not have a clue about Einstein's inclusion of the cosmological constant, from the historical perspective or the conceptual one. How pathetic!
 
Dancing David said:
So here we go again Zeuzzz, what valid point would you like to make?
Click to expand...

I think that the point is that the EU haters on the internet tend to ignore the published work on this topic, and tend to trivialize that entire body of work to the point of absurdity. It gets old. I think Alfven published 250+ papers of his own on this topic.

While you may not personally believe that Learner's work is on par with your invisible friend theory, EU/PC theory is pure empirical physics and it does go a long way to explaining the things we observe in space.

What also gets old is the notion that you can "fairly" compare a pure empirical physics theory to a metaphysical kludge that you call Lambda-CDM theory. That particular metaphysical monstrosity is based on no less than three different invisible and unseen entities, some of which have failed recent "tests" in the lab like those xenon 100 tests.

About all I can say at this point is using Einstein's work to promote your invisible space expanding friends is about as ethical as what you're doing to MHD theory at this point with "magnetic reconnection" pseudoscience. In other words, it's not ethical at all. You've taken two perfectly good branches of physics and turned them into woo central, where the magnetic cart pulls the electric horse around the universe, and where gravity does repulsive tricks with invisible friends. It's pathetic behavior IMO, and also in the opinion of most EU oriented individuals.

This is not a sterile "magnetic" universe that we live in DD, it's an "electromagnetic" universe, where "current flow" generates magnetic fields. Until you figure out that "current flow' part, the whole universe is certainly going to seem "dark" and mysterious to you. Once you finally wake up to the concept of "current flows", it's not that mysterious.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Mozina thinks that Einstein's lambda was conceived as some kind of manifestation of gravity of stuff outside the observable universe.
Click to expand...

How far do you figure you're going to be able to observe into an 'infinite' static universe exactly?

What is absolutely amazing to me at this point is that you seem to not care one iota about the history behind his introduction of a positive lambda or the reason he rejected it. You seem oblivious to the fact it *never* produced "expanding space" (or expanding anything for that matter), simply a "static" universe! It certainly wasn't used to create 'faster than light expansion"!

The mainstream has utterly kludged what was once a perfectly good theory about physics and turned it into complete woo, where woo makes up 96% of the universe! It's a woo universe that is controlled by dead inflation genies and "dark evil thingies" galore, and us mere mortals are stuck with the 4% of the universe we can ever "hope" to demonstrate in the lab. Lambda-gumby theory has to be the biggest "crock" ever conceived by humanity. It's the ultimate "woo" theory, where the woo can't even be physically falsified in any logical manner. Even ben's "test" simply "assumes" that any lambda *must be* due to his invisible friends! Hoy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think that the point is that the EU haters on the internet tend to ignore the published work on this topic,
Click to expand...
Poppycock and balderdash.

All published material on the Electric Universe, that has been proposed in fora such as this, has been extensively, exhaustively, and thoroughly trashed; almost all of it is so awful that it's hard to see why anyone can claim, with a straight face, it to be science.

and tend to trivialize that entire body of work to the point of absurdity. It gets old. I think Alfven published 250+ papers of his own on this topic.
Click to expand...
More poppycock and balderdash.

Alfvén published not one word on the Electric Universe.

True, he published much on one plasma cosmology concept (his).

The widespread tendency (among EU fans) to conflate the scientific work of people like Alfvén with non-scientific crackpot EU nonsense is one particularly despicable tactic those fans use. That they do so knowing that the two cannot be aligned (as some do; MM clearly does not) adds to evidence that belief in the EU is quasi-religious (creationists use similar tactics).

While you may not personally believe that Learner's work is on par with your invisible friend theory,
Click to expand...
While some of Lerner's work is, for sure, pretty bad science, not once in any of his publications^ has he descended into the woo-woo land that is the EU.

Some of Lerner's published papers are well worth reading; however, his ideas stand or fall by the same criteria Tegmark's or Peeble's does - consistency with the relevant experimental and observational results. And by those criteria, none^ of his ideas survive.

EU/PC theory is pure empirical physics and it does go a long way to explaining the things we observe in space.
Click to expand...
That may be so ... except that "EU/PC theory" is yet another of your own, highly idiosyncratic ideas. Since no one - except you, MM - knows what this is, no one can tell (objectively, in an independently verifiable way) whether it "is pure empirical physics", or whether it can "go a long way to explaining the things we observe in space".

What also gets old is the notion that you can "fairly" compare a pure empirical physics theory to a metaphysical kludge that you call Lambda-CDM theory.
Click to expand...
What is just as old is the notion that anyone but you, MM, knows what you mean when you write "a pure empirical physics theory".

If you don't take the trouble to say what you mean, in a way that others can understand, why do you bother writing this sort of thing?

About all I can say at this point is using Einstein's work to promote your invisible space expanding friends is about as ethical as what you're doing to MHD theory at this point with "magnetic reconnection" pseudoscience. In other words, it's not ethical at all. You've taken two perfectly good branches of physics and turned them into woo central, where the magnetic cart pulls the electric horse around the universe, and where gravity does repulsive tricks with invisible friends. It's pathetic behavior IMO, and also in the opinion of most EU oriented individuals.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Which, in turn, is a pretty good acknowledgement - by you, MM - that the EU is non-science. It's good to see that you've recognised this, at last.

This is not a sterile "magnetic" universe that we live in DD, it's an "electromagnetic" universe, where "current flow" generates magnetic fields. Until you figure out that "current flow' part, the whole universe is certainly going to seem "dark" and mysterious to you. Once you finally wake up to the concept of "current flows", it's not that mysterious.
Click to expand...
And what, pray tell, is ""current flow""? And does it differ from ""current flow'"?

^ at least, those which fans have brought to the attention of JREF members, in this section of JREF
 
Tubbythin said:
You couldn't be more wrong. Einstein postulated a cosmological constant that exactly balanced gravity. That is a very "special" claim indeed- namely that for no good reason, two parameters of physics should conspire to exactly balance each other and leave the Universe on a knife edge. It doesn't get more special than that.
Click to expand...

In the sense it was such a special case, I agree with you, it was a little "too convenient". Compared to your woo however, it wasn't even in your league. :)

That "balance" however is in no way related to your faster than light, space expanding friends! You're comparing metaphysical apples to empirical oranges. Einstein's constant could have technically been related to *ANY KNOWN* force of nature, gravity, EM fields, etc. In no way did it require any sort of "new and improved inflation genie", or anything remotely like "dark energy".

Ironically, quantum energy would probably have done the trick in his lambda. No, QM energy isn't "dark energy" either! Unfortunately for Einstein, he didn't really grok QM and he abandoned lambda anyway.

About all I can say here is I can try to lead you to the pure physical waters, but I can't make you drink it. If you prefer that dark metaphysical woo, I can't make you give it up. It's become like a drug to you folks IMO. You "need" it to "quantify" everything to the next sigma, even if that means giving up empirical physics entirely. How sad.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Poppycock and balderdash.

All published material on the Electric Universe, that has been proposed in fora such as this, has been extensively, exhaustively, and thoroughly trashed;
Click to expand...

Notice your use of terms here. "Trashed" is a good term alright. That's what you're *intent* on doing with it alright, regardless of how well it works in it's own right, and regardless of how well it "explains" things you cannot yet explain. EU/PC theory the evil satanic figure of your religion. God forbid an empirical physics theory should ever give your woo a run for it's money. :)

almost all of it is so awful that it's hard to see why anyone can claim, with a straight face, it to be science.
Click to expand...

So almost all of Alfven's published papers on PC/EU theory are "awful"? All of Birkeland's work is "awful"? All of Bruce's work is "awful"? All of Learner's work is "awful"?

More poppycock and balderdash.

Alfvén published not one word on the Electric Universe.

True, he published much on one plasma cosmology concept (his).

The widespread tendency (among EU fans) to conflate the scientific work of people like Alfvén with non-scientific crackpot EU nonsense is one particularly despicable tactic those fans use.
Click to expand...

No, this is a "divide and conquer" approach that you've become infamous for within the EU/PC community. You arbitrarily make distinctions where none are due.

Alfven called your "magnetic reconnection" theories "pseudoscience" because they are always "better" explained from what he called the "particle/circuit" side of MHD theory. The fact you refuse to acknowledge that point is the really "despicable tactic" going on here, along with your emotional need to create some arbitrary division between EU/PC theories.

Sooner or later you'll figure out that a 'magnetic helix' is called a "Birkeland current". Once you get there, things won't seem so "dark" anymore. Until you get there however, you'll continue misrepresent every electromagnetic process as a "magnetic" one.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How far do you figure you're going to be able to observe into an 'infinite' static universe exactly?
Click to expand...
Einstein's static cosmology was infinite only in the time dimension. Its space was finite. All its mass lay within the observable universe.

Michael Mozina said:
What is absolutely amazing to me at this point is that you seem to not care one iota about the history behind his introduction of a positive lambda or the reason he rejected it. You seem oblivious to the fact it *never* produced "expanding space" (or expanding anything for that matter), simply a "static" universe! It certainly wasn't used to create 'faster than light expansion"!
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

In 1956, long before the modern revival of dark energy or the invention of inflationary theory, George Gamow wrote "The Evolutionary Universe", which appeared in Scientific American's September issue and was reprinted in the Cosmology+1 anthology of 1977:
Analyzing the pertinent mathematical equations, Einstein came to the conclusion that the curvature of space must be independent of time, i.e., that the universe as a whole must be unchanging (though it changes internally). However, he found to his surprise that there was no solution of the equations that would permit a static cosmos. To repair the situation, Einstein was forced to introduce an additional hypothesis which amounted to the assumption that a new kind of force was acting among the galaxies. This hypothetical force had to be independent of mass (being the same for an apple, the moon and the sun!) and to gain in strength with increasing distance between the interacting objects (as no other forces ever do in physics!)

Einstein's new force, called "cosmic repulsion," allowed two mathematical models of a static universe....
Click to expand...
Gamow then goes on to describe Einstein's static spacetime and (an oversimplified version of) de Sitter's spacetime.

I could quote from chapter 10 of Eddington's Space, Time, and Gravitation, published in 1920. In a previous message, I quoted the English translation of the fourth edition of Weyl's Space --- Time --- Matter, published circa 1920. The experts here could no doubt quote from far more sources than I can.

What's amazing here is that someone who clearly has not read any of the literature on this subject continues to be so certain of his misconceptions.
 
Analyzing the pertinent mathematical equations, Einstein came to the conclusion that the curvature of space must be independent of time, i.e., that the universe as a whole must be unchanging (though it changes internally). However, he found to his surprise that there was no solution of the equations that would permit a static cosmos. To repair the situation, Einstein was forced to introduce an additional hypothesis which amounted to the assumption that a new kind of force was acting among the galaxies. This hypothetical force had to be independent of mass (being the same for an apple, the moon and the sun!) and to gain in strength with increasing distance between the interacting objects (as no other forces ever do in physics!)

Einstein's new force, called "cosmic repulsion," allowed two mathematical models of a static universe....
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

Do you have a reference of Einstein using the term "cosmic repulsion"? I would be interested in seeing that quote. We're talking now about what happened *after* he realized it would not remain static due to mass alone, and what he might have proposed *after* that point. It's still an interesting historical issue and I would be interested in reading *Einstein's* "fix". In no way however did his "fix" include faster than light speed expansion of objects made of mass.

You still seem to be trivializing the significant difference between proposing a "static" universe with a lambda, and proposing a faster than light expansion process.
 
Last edited:
Gotta hand it to you, MM, your ability to continue to invent new meanings for perfectly good standard terms is quite amazing - have you ever considered going into new age poetry?

Michael Mozina said:
You're comparing metaphysical apples to empirical oranges.
Click to expand...
Now we have not only "empirical physics", "empirical support", etc, but we also have "empirical oranges"! :eek:

The (empirical) mind boggles.

Ironically, quantum energy would probably have done the trick in his lambda. No, QM energy isn't "dark energy" either! Unfortunately for Einstein, he didn't really grok QM and he abandoned lambda anyway.
Click to expand...
Wow! :jaw-dropp

Now we have "quantum energy" AND "QM energy"!

What next, "holographic energy"? or, perhaps, you meant to write "OM energy"?

Seriously MM, do you think anyone understands what any of this actually means (other than you)?

About all I can say here is I can try to lead you to the pure physical waters, but I can't make you drink it.
Click to expand...
Right.

Like Moztronium, the Mozode, Mozeparation, Mozplasma, the Mozwind, and Mozcharges.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think [...] to the point of absurdity. [...]
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
How far [...]
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
In the sense [...]
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Notice your use of terms here. [...]
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Emphasis mine. [...]
Click to expand...


Speaking of use of terms, this ongoing list shows the terms Michael uses differently than any legitimate scientist, yet refuses to define so that anyone else might be able to understand what he's talking about.

I added a few more terms. The term "quantify" was added this time, but we knew from thousands of Michael's previous postings that he didn't understand it and doesn't use it the way others do. Here is the update...

Michael applies meanings different than the common usage for the words and phrases that he puts in quote marks. Below is an ongoing list of terms which he has surrounded with quotes but is so far unable or unwilling to define. Until he can define these terms, all of his arguments using any of them amount to meaningless nonsense.

The list...

  • absolute
  • acceleration
  • accepted
  • act of faith
  • ad hoc
  • assumed
  • assumes
  • attractive
  • awful
  • background
  • balance
  • ballpark
  • bang
  • believer
  • best
  • better
  • Birkeland current
  • caught on
  • cause
  • cause/effect
  • confused
  • control mechanism
  • correct
  • cosmic repulsion
  • create
  • creativity
  • crock
  • current flow
  • current flows
  • dark
  • dark energies
  • dark energy
  • dark energy did it
  • dark energy of the gaps
  • dark evil thingies
  • dark flow
  • dark matter
  • dead
  • decent
  • demonstrate
  • despicable tactic
  • discovery
  • divide and conquer
  • electromagnetic
  • emotional
  • empirical science
  • empirically
  • empirically demonstrated
  • empirically qualified
  • empirically quantified
  • empty space
  • expand
  • expanded
  • expanding
  • expanding space
  • explaining
  • explains
  • extra energy
  • failed
  • fairly
  • falsified
  • fantasy
  • faster than light expansion
  • fix
  • flavors
  • gravity
  • guess
  • guessing
  • gumby
  • hairy inflation
  • hairy moflation
  • hope
  • ignore the cause of the lambda
  • in the ballpark
  • infinite
  • inflation
  • inflation did it
  • interpret
  • invent
  • invented
  • invisible
  • it's not my fault
  • lab tested
  • lamba
  • logically impossible
  • magnetic
  • magnetic helix
  • magnetic reconnection
  • making up
  • mathematical perfection
  • measurable
  • metaphysical
  • metaphysical baggage
  • modified to fit
  • narrow the range
  • need
  • negative
  • negative pressure
  • negative pressures in a vacuum
  • new
  • new and improved inflation genie
  • no show
  • not having faith
  • observational evidence
  • observed acceleration
  • other mass
  • particle/circuit
  • physics
  • physics in general
  • popular
  • positive pressure vacuum
  • postdicted
  • postdicting a fit
  • predicted
  • pretend
  • pretend entities
  • properly
  • properties
  • pseudoscience
  • put faith
  • qualification
  • qualify
  • quantify
  • relative
  • religion
  • repulsive gravity
  • ruled in
  • scale
  • science
  • sciences
  • simplicity
  • space
  • space expands
  • spacetime
  • special pleading
  • spin
  • static
  • superiority
  • test
  • theory
  • throw it out
  • too convenient
  • trashed
  • tweak
  • tweaked
  • tweaked to fit
  • unseen
  • unseen entities
  • unusual
  • verification
  • verify
  • wind down
  • woo
  • woo with make believe math
  • zero
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Gotta hand it to you, MM, your ability to continue to invent new meanings for perfectly good standard terms is quite amazing - have you ever considered going into new age poetry?
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought about *not* playing the role of EU/PC skeptic and adopting more of a "live and let live" approach to science?

Now we have not only "empirical physics", "empirical support", etc, but we also have "empirical oranges"! :eek:
Click to expand...

Those are all things that show up in the lab, unlike your three metaphysical amigos.

Now we have "quantum energy" AND "QM energy"!

What next, "holographic energy"? or, perhaps, you meant to write "OM energy"?

Seriously MM, do you think anyone understands what any of this actually means (other than you)?
Click to expand...

No, I doubt it. That's the energy that "pushed" the plates together, but you still think that the cause is "negative pressure in a vacuum". :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...
The sentence you bolded refers to Einstein's original field equations, without lambda. The sentence you bolded explains why Einstein added lambda to his equations.

Michael Mozina said:
Do you have a reference of Einstein using the term "cosmic repulsion"? I would be interested in seeing that quote.
Click to expand...
No. It's Gamow's term. I do not have Einstein's papers or letters in my personal library, and would not be able to read the German even if I did.

Einstein was communicating with Eddington and Weyl at this time, however, and I can quote from their books. Eddington is pretty clear on this.

Michael Mozina said:
We're talking now about what happened *after* he realized it would not remain static due to mass alone, and what he might have proposed *after* that point.
Click to expand...
What he *did* propose after that point was lambda, whose purpose and consequences you have so often denied.

Michael Mozina said:
You still seem to be trivializing the significant difference between proposing a "static" universe with a lambda, and proposing a faster than light expansion process.
Click to expand...
The possibility of faster-than-light expansion was known at the time. In particular, de Sitter's hyperboloidal solution (which helped to inspire Einstein's cylindrical solution) had that property, as Einstein was well aware.

As many people have tried to tell you, there is no inconsistency between general relativity and faster-than-light expansion of the universe, because no actual thing ever travels faster than light.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Notice your use of terms here. "Trashed" is a good term alright. That's what you're *intent* on doing with it alright, regardless of how well it works in it's own right,
Click to expand...
Yet another Mozception.

As religious texts, I'm sure your fave EU tomes work perfectly well ("in it's [sic] own right").

Despite years of posting on internet fora, you seem to still have missed a critical element of science, namely falsification.

EU ideas fail - spectacularly - when it comes to being consistent with empirical results, from the lab and from astronomy.

But they fail even more spectacularly (if that's possible) in terms of their internal consistency (even logical consistency, and that requires some truly epic failures).

and regardless of how well it "explains" things you cannot yet explain.
Click to expand...
Right, and as we have seen, through thousands of posts, across numerous fora, that your term ""explains"" in plain English means "does not explain".

Are you trying to emulate George Orwell now?

So almost all of Alfven's published papers on PC/EU theory are "awful"?
Click to expand...
Alfvén published stuff on (his) plasma cosmology.

"PC/EU theory" is something you, MM, made up, and what it is (or means) is known only to you.

No, this is a "divide and conquer" approach that you've become infamous for within the EU/PC community. You arbitrarily make distinctions where none are due.
Click to expand...
You might want to consult Lerner on this, or Peratt - see, for example, Lerner's mock-Wikipedia page on plasma cosmology.

You could even ask Ian Tresman - (former?) editor of one of your fave crackpot websites.

Alternatively, you could quote Birkeland or Alfvén, and provide their definitions (in their own words) of "EU/PC theory". No Mozceptions allowed though, each must use the exact words "electric universe/plasma cosmology theory" (the slash may be substituted by "and/or", or similar).
 
W.D.Clinger said:
The sentence you bolded refers to Einstein's original field equations, without lambda. The sentence you bolded explains why Einstein added lambda to his equations.


No. It's Gamow's term. I do not have Einstein's papers or letters in my personal library, and would not be able to read the German even if I did.

Einstein was communicating with Eddington and Weyl at this time, however, and I can quote from their books. Eddington is pretty clear on this.
Click to expand...

There's a timing issue/disagreement going on here that seems to be important. Your earlier quote from Weyl is consistent with my understanding of Einstein's introduction of lambda and what it represented initially to Einstein. If you have something from Eddington that illuminates this issue, I would be appreciative of such a reference.

As many people have tried to tell you, there is no inconsistency between general relativity and faster-than-light expansion of the universe, because no actual thing ever travels faster than light.
Click to expand...

No actual thing in "space" ever expands either. :) The problem is that "space" doesn't "expand" in the lab, so your notion that objects of mass can all separate by these distances in such a short period of time is completely dependent on one's "faith" in "expanding space" that only happens 'somewhere out there' where humans can never reach.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Have you ever thought about *not* playing the role of EU/PC skeptic critic
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

And no, literary criticism is not my thing.

and adopting more of a "live and let live" approach to science?
Click to expand...
Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be internally consistent? No.

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be consistent with well-established theories, where their domains of applicability overlap? No.

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results? No.

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be capable of being objectively, and independently, verifiable? No.

Those are all things that show up in the lab
Click to expand...
Can I go to Tesco and buy a Mozode?

Got some Mozplasma in that lab of yours?

Where do I find a gram of Moztronium, here on Earth?

In which lab has Mozeparation been demonstrated?

And so on.

Got it, thanks.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Despite years of posting on internet fora, you seem to still have missed a critical element of science, namely falsification.
Click to expand...

That's a irony overload coming your side. You have three invisible friends, all of which defy falsification even when the xenon experiment blew your "dark exotic matter god" away. Your inflation deity is evidently dead and comes in an infinite number of hairy flavors, so that "Guthism" could *never* be falsified at this point. The "dark energy goddess" seems to only show up where you need her to show up, and never inside the solar system where we might find her. What about your theory is "falsifiable" anyway? If that xenon experiment doesn't falsify your magic matter beliefs, what will?

EU ideas fail - spectacularly - when it comes to being consistent with empirical results, from the lab and from astronomy.
Click to expand...

What?!?!?!? Birkeland's ideas *ALL* worked in the lab DRD. It's your three metaphysical friends that always fail to show up in the lab! You have history and physics standing on it's head now. Your dark matter elves are spectacular failures in the lab, but you don't even care!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
all of which defy falsification even when the xenon experiment blew your "dark exotic matter god" away.
Click to expand...
The only thing blown away has been any claims you might have made to understand what CDM is (astrophysically speaking), what it is (particle physics-ly speaking), and what the XENON experimental result is.

The creation of strawmen is a hallmark of creationists, is it not?

DeiRenDopa said:
EU ideas fail - spectacularly - when it comes to being consistent with empirical results, from the lab and from astronomy.
Click to expand...
What?!?!?!? Birkeland's ideas *ALL* worked in the lab DRD.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't.

What is under examination here is whether anything Birkeland did has any relevance to "EU/PC theory", and specifically whether he himself actually used any of those terms.

After all, the Mozode is your own "EU/PC theory" invention, not Birkeland's.

Ditto Mozcharges, Mozplasma, Mozeparation, Moztronium, and the Mozwind.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you have something from Eddington that illuminates this issue, I would be appreciative of such a reference.
Click to expand...
Sir Arthur Eddington. Space, Time and Gravitation: an outline of the general relativity theory. Cambridge University Press, 1920. (Reprinted 1959 by Harper & Brothers, New York, which is the edition I have.)

In chapter 10, Eddington offers his (rather poor) explanation of why there is no nontrivial static solution without lambda, leading up to this:
....Thus a cause which creates intervals and geodesics must, so to speak, extend the world. We can imagine the world stretched out like a plane sheet....An alternative way is to inflate the world from inside, as a balloon is blown out....We thus get the idea that space-time may have an essential curvature on a great scale independent of the small hummocks due to recognized matter....

It will be remembered that one clue by which we previously reached the law of gravitation was that flat space-time must be compatible with it. But if space-time is to have a small natural curvature independent of matter this condition is now altered. It is not difficult to find the necessary alteration of the law*. It will contain an additional, and at present unknown, constant, which determines the size of the world.
Click to expand...
The asterisk refers the reader to "Appendix, Note 14." That note adds lambda to the field equations and states its critical values for spherical and cylindrical space-times.

Michael Mozina said:
No actual thing in "space" ever expands either. :) The problem is that "space" doesn't "expand" in the lab, so your notion that objects of mass can all separate by these distances in such a short period of time is completely dependent on one's "faith" in "expanding space" that only happens 'somewhere out there' where humans can never reach.
Click to expand...
As Eddington said in the passage quoted above, Einstein's static solution is obtained by postulating the very thing you are denying: an inherent tendency of empty space to stretch or to inflate.

Please note the word "inflate". Please note the phrases "independent of matter" and "at present unknown".
 
DeiRenDopa said:
The only thing blown away has been any claims you might have made to understand what CDM is (astrophysically speaking), what it is (particle physics-ly speaking), and what the XENON experimental result is.
Click to expand...

In other words you're in complete denial of the epic fails of your own theories. It's only the perceived EU/PC failures that you're personally interested in, is that it?

The creation of strawmen is a hallmark of creationists, is it not?
Click to expand...

What strawman? Your exotic matter hypothesis was a complete flop in the lab!

Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't.

What is under examination here is whether anything Birkeland did has any relevance to "EU/PC theory", and specifically whether he himself actually used any of those terms.
Click to expand...

More denial. They worked and he wrote about them. His "terminology" is irrelevant. That's just another of those things you simply don't want to deal with, so you're intent on finding some loophole. Yes or no did Birkeland believe the sun was a "cathode"?
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
As Eddington said in the passage quoted above, Einstein's static solution is obtained by postulating the very thing you are denying: an inherent tendency of empty space to stretch or to inflate.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the links and quotes. You'll have to let me chew on them awhile.

For one thing I see no evidence at all that "space" is "empty". It's full of photons, neutrinos, quantum energy galore, not mention plasma, cosmic rays, etc. It's simply not "empty" at all. When you say "space" is 'expanding' what does that physically mean to you? What is "stretching" and what is making it "stretch" (cause/effect)?

Your use of the term "empty space' is meaningless IMO because it's physically undefined.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
The only thing blown away has been any claims you might have made to understand what CDM is (astrophysically speaking), what it is (particle physics-ly speaking), and what the XENON experimental result is.
Click to expand...
What strawman?
Click to expand...
This one: "the xenon experiment blew your "dark exotic matter god" away"

And this one: "Your exotic matter hypothesis was a complete flop in the lab!"

More denial. They worked and he wrote about them. His "terminology" is irrelevant crucial.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

We can all read what Birkeland wrote, and, with sufficient time and effort, repeat the experiments he did in his lab.

However, no one can even read what "EU/PC theory" is, if only because the only person who knows what it is (you) has not explained it in a form that anyone else understands.

That's just another of those things you simply don't want to deal with, so you're intent on finding some loophole. Yes or no did Birkeland believe the sun was a "cathode"?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what Birkeland believed.

However, there is no (objective, independently verifiable) evidence to support the claim that he thought "the sun was a "cathode""!

As you have made perfectly clear, in hundreds, if not thousands, of posts, your ""cathode"" is, in fact, a Mozode.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Have you ever thought about *not* playing the role of EU/PC skeptic and adopting more of a "live and let live" approach to science?
Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot like "don't pick on me for being so completely and transparently wrong".

I know you think there's a double standard going on here, that your ideas are being treated critically when mainstream ideas are not. But you're wrong. The difference is that mainstream ideas HAVE been subjected to considerable scrutiny, and they've mostly passed that scrutiny with flying colors. But your ideas keep falling down at the simplest tests.

The fact that you can't understand why your ideas fail and mainstream ideas succeed is not the result of conspiracy, it's not the result of ignorance on the part of the physics community, it's not the result of fear of new (or old) ideas, it's not the result of a distaste for electromagnetism. It's the result of you not knowing what you're talking about. You don't understand basic physics, Michael. And you won't understand it until you make a concerted effort to learn it. Resources are available to teach you. Posters on this forum are willing to help. But you need to make an effort. And you haven't.

No, I doubt it. That's the energy that "pushed" the plates together, but you still think that the cause is "negative pressure in a vacuum". :)
Click to expand...

Ah yes... Michael still can't figure out what pressure is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom