Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Empirical Evidence for Dark Energy V

Mister Earl said:
I'm trying to dig up more detailed info now. What I'm specifically looking for is a quantification of the acceleration rate of cosmic expansion. I think that has been determined, but I could be wrong.

#EDIT: Yeah, I'm not finding documentation pertaining to it. I probably remembered wrong. I'll look some more when I get home from work, just to be thorough.
Click to expand...
You can always try my list of papers ...
Tim Thompson said:
  1. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant; Riess, et al., The Astronomical Journal 116(3): 1009-1038, September 1998.
  2. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae; Perlmutter, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 571(2): 565-586, June 1999.
  3. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148(1): 175-194, September 2003.
  4. Type Ia Supernovae at z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on the Dark Energy Equation of State; Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 607(2): 665-687, June 2004.
  5. The Supernova Legacy Survey: measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and w from the first year data set; Astier, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 447(1): February III 2006.
  6. Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 170(2): 377-408, June 2007.
  7. Observational Constraints on the Nature of Dark Energy: First Results from the ESSENCE Supernova Survey; Wood-Vasey, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2): 694-715, September 2007.
  8. Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation; Komatsu, et al., preprint submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, version 2 dated 12 February 2010.
These listed and the many thousand citations thereto.
Click to expand...
But you might not find the number you want, in km/sec2 for instance, if that's what you are looking for. But the fact that there is a sensible acceleration is well documented in these source, forming the empirical scientific basis for dark energy.
 
Tim Thompson said:
You can always try my list of papers ...

But you might not find the number you want, in km/sec2 for instance, if that's what you are looking for. But the fact that there is a sensible acceleration is well documented in these source, forming the empirical scientific basis for dark energy.
Click to expand...

Nice. I'll read them when I get home here shortly. Also, the analogy I used earlier about the 13 billion lightyear long string, was that an accurate one, do you think? Or do I need to modify it?

#EDIT: Yeah, I was hoping to quantify the acceleration rate of expansion. I'm pretty sure they'll nail that down soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://cosmologystatement.org/

This topic has nothing to do with me. "Lack of belief" in your invisible sky buddies is not limited to me, nor am I the world's only Lambda-CDM critic.
Click to expand...

Ah, the good old cosmology statement. Never has such a huge mound of fail been repeatedly linked to by crackpots as this.
It's been less than a month since it was pointed out to another PC proponent in a thread which Michael participated in actively that:
1) The statement makes the ridiculous claim that "These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do."
2) Luminaries on the list include the Archchancellor of the "Worlds Premier Cyberspace Facility for the Magical Arts", someone who thinks there is architectural structures on mars, Mike Rotch, someone who thinks SR is wrong and Einstein only got it published because he was a Nobel laureatte (despite the fact that Einstein wouldn't win the prize for more than a decade and a half), and at least one member of the Creationist Research Society.
3) It's not clear that many of the signatories have any formal training in physics of any kind, let alone cosmology.
4) As science goes, it doesn't get much less empirical than this.
 
A sensible definition for the acceleration might be d2a/dt2, which is H2+dH/dt.
That's given by the second of these and I'll leave the calculation of the current value as an exercise for the reader who is more motivated right now than myself.

edit 2: erm, I make that about 3x10-36/s2?
 
Last edited:
statement of cosmic hilarity

Tubbythin said:
Ah, the good old cosmology statement. Never has such a huge mound of fail been repeatedly linked to by crackpots as this.
It's been less than a month
Click to expand...
That was so much fun, I'm going to browse more of the signees' web pages. Starting from the bottom this time, and summarizing every web page for which a link is provided:
  • New Zealander Berend de Boer's long-term project: Refute every claim made by the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
  • David Calder Hardy, also of New Zealand, says "Big Bang theory, by definition" implies a central point that remains unknown to Science.
  • David L Harrison, of the United States, offers these words of wisdom (as translated by Yahoo Babel Fish):
    When the mouth is closed by crying, because it is dangerous, there is a reason which is said, however it is with it is to think, if you get angry, the extent which is gotten angry, becoming fearful, it is to cry.
    Click to expand...
    It probably made more sense in the original Japanese.
  • Martin Gradwell's web site has gone 404.
  • Gene Gordon, the Paul Robeson scholar and co-author of Tales of Wo-Chi-Ca: Blacks, Whites and Reds at Camp, is "nothing...in the way of a physicist, astronomer or cosmologist", but he knows what he dislikes:
    The big bang is the big daddy of intelligent design: it is creationism pure and simple....

    ....And the big bang theory will fall before our earth makes ten more trips around the sun.

    (Posted: Friday, September 02, 2005)
    Click to expand...

  • Pratik Sinha's web page warned of its inappropriateness "for some users", so let's not go there.
  • William S Jarnigan of the USA appears to have signed the statement twice. His web page displayed an error message and invited me to reconfigure his WordPress configuration file, but I decided not to.
  • Edgar S Hill's "infinitespongyuniverse" web page has disappeared into the Geocities black hole.
  • Abhishek Dey Das links to a web page whose few English words begin with "Nothing Found Here..."
  • The web page for Randall Meyers of Italy has gone missing.
  • Vincent Sauvé tells us the Big Bang is absurd. He repeats that word ten times in his opening paragraph. His beliefs resemble Michael's in other ways as well. Unfortunately, his web page "has suffered in the rankings of search engine algorithms."

But all of the above are listed among the "other signers". For comedy gold, you really ought to check out the scientists and engineers.
 
This is fun! Here is one from the list of "scientists and engineers" Dr. Thomas Van Flandern of Meta Research (a press conference):

Artificial Structures on Mars
On Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at 1PM, Meta Research released findings that provide compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on the planet Mars. The press conference was held at the New Yorker hotel in Manhattan, New York.

Dr. Thomas Van Flandern presented findings representing contributions by dozens of researchers, including physicists, geologists, engineers, and image processing specialists from several organizations.

LINK
 
Last edited:
Then we have another scientist/engineer, Eugene Sittampalam
who says, "What thus seems a well-enshrined theory, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (1), is now seen to be coming apart at the sides – that is, literally laterally – and irreparably so." and "Condensation (inhalation) and evaporation (exhalation) of mass-energy take place at every level of the atom (or molecule) even in its so-called unexcited (ground) state; and the frequency of this exchange (breathing) corresponds to the natural vibration (characteristic) of the level.

LINK
 
Then there's Greg Meholic (original signer), who, "has published several papers on his own ideas about the construct of spacetime, faster-than- light travel, physics and new approaches to MHD-enhanced propulsion concepts."
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Then there's Greg Meholic (original signer), who, "has published several papers on his own ideas about the construct of spacetime, faster-than- light travel, physics and new approaches to MHD-enhanced propulsion concepts."
Click to expand...

Advanced EM propulsion is probably the hottest thing in space physics.

From the perspective of psychology, the parallels between religion and your beliefs are absolutely fascinating. Like all 'true believers" you have a strong emotional need to ridicule anyone and everyone that doesn't buy your particular dogma. You haven't personally talked to any of these individuals, so you really don't "understand" any of their thinking, their reasoning or their opinions. You don't really know what they do for a living, their families, or anything about them. All you really know is that they all signed a petition that disagrees with *ONE* scientific opinion that you happen to "hold dear to your heart".

The emotional need to villianize the opposition at a personal level is exactly like the religious person's emotional need to villianize others who don't share their faith. The "others" must be "going to hell". Your "religion" doesn't have a hell, so the next best thing you can do is ridicule them personally, without so much as a single conversation with those individuals. You're judge, jury and (public persona) executioner, all in one. :)

I'm telling you, all religions, including your "faith in the unseen" operate almost identically at the level of politics. It's actually quite fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Mister Earl said:
Nice. I'll read them when I get home here shortly. Also, the analogy I used earlier about the 13 billion lightyear long string, was that an accurate one, do you think? Or do I need to modify it?
Click to expand...

Your string analogy doesn't actually apply to "dark energy" however, in fact it puts you in my camp. :) When you pull on the end of a string, you are pulling on an atom with another atom in your finger. The "cause" of the expansion of material in the fibers of the string is due to the pull of your finger, not "dark energy'. :) It's a useful analogy in the sense that it "creates the same kind of an effect', but that is exactly the same argument I'm using by suggesting that material *outside* of this physical universe might be attracting material inside this physical universe. Your analogy and mine are actually the same analogy. Welcome to my world. ;)

#EDIT: Yeah, I was hoping to quantify the acceleration rate of expansion. I'm pretty sure they'll nail that down soon enough.
Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that it's not the expansion or acceleration that I "lack belief in". I just lack belief that such observations are in any way related to "dark" stuff. I'd buy your "external fingers did it" concept before I bought the notion that invisible dark stuff did it. :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Your string analogy doesn't actually apply to "dark energy" however, in fact it puts you in my camp. :) When you pull on the end of a string, you are pulling on an atom with another atom in your finger. The "cause" of the expansion of material in the fibers of the string is due to the pull of your finger, not "dark energy'. :) It's a useful analogy in the sense that it "creates that same kind of an effect', but that the exact same argument I'm using by suggesting that material *outside* of this physical universe might be attracting material inside this physical universe. Your analogy and mine are actually the same analogy. Welcome to my world. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think it makes sense to have matter outside the physical universe having a physical effect on things in it. That's kind of what 'physical universe' means, isn't it?
However, if you want to postulate that its down to something like the void models that some cosmologists are developing and applying tests for, that's fine, as long as you are aware of the fine-tuning issues involved.
It does rather look like postulating that its down to electromagnetic forces is a non-starter though.
 
Yet another blatant falsehood:
Michael Mozina said:
From the perspective of psychology, the parallels between religion and your beliefs are absolutely fascinating. Like all 'true believers" you have a strong emotional need to ridicule anyone and everyone that doesn't buy your particular dogma. You haven't personally talked to any of these individuals, so you really don't "understand" any of their thinking, their reasoning or their opinions. You don't really know what they do for a living, their families, or anything about them. All you really know is that they all signed a petition that disagrees with *ONE* scientific opinion that you happen to "hold dear to your heart".
Click to expand...
In the cases cited, that's just not true. We know that Peter J Carroll identified himself as Chancellor of Arcanorium College, the "Worlds Premier Cyberspace Facility for the Magical Arts". We know Tom Van Flandern believed he had found compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on Mars, even human faces. We know Eugene Sittampalam and S.N. Arteha believe special relativity is wrong. We know Berend de Boer believes he is defending the authority of the Bible against the skepticism of science. We know Gene Gordon identifies the Big Bang with intelligent design and creationism; we can only imagine how he found common cause with Berend de Boer. We know David Calder Hardy and Vincent Sauvé and Michael Mozina are arguing from ignorant incredulity, portraying empirical science as religious belief and themselves as innocent victims of religious persecution.

Like this:
Michael Mozina said:
The emotional need to villianize the opposition at a personal level is exactly like the religious person's emotional need to villianize others who don't share their faith. The "others" must be "going to hell". Your "religion" doesn't have a hell, so the next best thing you can do is ridicule them personally, without so much as a single conversation with those individuals. You're judge, jury and (public persona) executioner, all in one. :)

I'm telling you, all religions, including your "faith in the unseen" operate almost identically at the level of politics. It's actually quite fascinating.
Click to expand...
I assume the quotation marks and smiley face are intended to tell us you're only kidding, and don't really believe the garbage you spew.
 
Last edited:
edd said:
I don't think it makes sense to have matter outside the physical universe having a physical effect on things in it. That's kind of what 'physical universe' means, isn't it?
Click to expand...

This would be more akin to a 'multiverse' scenario where our physical universe (the one we live inside of) is but one of *many* such 'clumps'.

However, if you want to postulate that its down to something like the void models that some cosmologists are developing and applying tests for, that's fine, as long as you are aware of the fine-tuning issues involved.
It does rather look like postulating that its down to electromagnetic forces is a non-starter though.
Click to expand...

IMO it only a "non starter" from your perspective because you (collectively not necessarily individually) aren't particularly creative when it comes to EM fields in space. In fact you spend an inordinate amount of time in pure denial of the existence of currents in space and some folks spend days on end "fighting against" the idea rather than trying to creatively apply the concepts.

Black holes for instance can "hold a charge". If you "wanted" to find a way to incorporate current flows and EM fields into your theories, I'm sure you could, but the resistance to electricity is space is palpable in your industry. It's like "electricity in space" is the empirical antichrist of your metaphysical religion.
 
I think there's been plenty of coverage of why it's difficult to get an EM field to accelerate everything in the universe at the same distance at the same rate in a way that redshifts photons appropriately in all directions.

Can you spell out how exactly you make an electromagnetic field produce a homogeneous metric expansion like that cosmologists predict using GR?
 
Tim Thompson said:
Yes there is, I deny that there is any empirical difference between electromagnetic fields and cosmological negative pressure.
Click to expand...

Where do I buy something tangible that runs on "cosmological negative pressure" or 'dark energy' Tim?

There, see, there is denying after all. But does this mean I am in "denial"?
Click to expand...

Yes, Tim, it does. It means you can't tell the difference between an EM field and mythical creatures that fail to show up on Earth. Dark energy is as impotent in the lab as any pantheon god. EM fields aren't shy around the lab. That's the empirical difference Tim and your denial of that difference is where your problem begins and ends. Your mythical sky entity is immeasurably impotent on Earth and no amount of "point at the sky math" is going to fix that impotency problem.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, Tim, it does. It means you can't tell the difference between an EM field and mythical creatures that fail to show up on Earth. Dark energy is as impotent in the lab as any pantheon god. EM fields aren't shy around the lab. That's the empirical difference Tim and your denial of that difference is where your problem begins and ends. You sky entity is immeasurably impotent on Earth and no amount of "point at the sky math" is going to fix that impotency problem.
Click to expand...


But your qualifications to understand math at the level of an average ten year old have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Therefore, not being apparently qualified to even balance your own checkbook, your criticism of anything related to math at a level more complicated than that is completely without merit.

Interestingly enough you're still being ignorant of this issue: Were your heroes Bruce, Birkeland, and Alfvén liars, too? Given that you are a proven liar, maybe you can help us understand your strategy here. Do you believe lying is an effective way to try to support your inane conjectures? Has your lying ever swayed anyone to accept your crackpot notions?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Spam, spam, spam, spam......
Click to expand...


I can see why it might be uncomfortable for you to be called out on your qualifications, since clearly it is a potential source of embarrassment when you continue to get caught criticizing things you can't possibly understand. There are a couple of good approaches to your problem, however. First, you could demonstrate that you are indeed qualified to understand math at a level above that of an average ten year old. But since that seems to be impossible, and for obvious good reason, you could stop criticizing things that rely on an understanding of math above the level of your qualifications. Of course we're all pretty sure that's not going to happen either.

Come up with an answer to this yet: Were your heroes Bruce, Birkeland, and Alfvén liars, too?
 
Ziggurat said:
Indeed it is. What you haven't figured out is scaling: dark energy becomes MORE important at larger scales, while solar wind becomes LESS important.
Click to expand...

IMO you're missing the point. Accelerating the bulk of the mass of the universe is akin to accelerating a fairly disperse plasma body. You don't have to move planets and suns to accelerate the bulk of the mass, you simply have to accelerate protons and charged helium atoms and "dusty plasma". The rest of the "condensed" mass found in planets and suns will "follow" the gravitational changes caused by the acceleration of the plasma between the objects in space. The "scale of the effect" might be relatively small on a single large physical body, but an acceleration of a whole plasma field will cause the "clumpy" material to follow sooner or later, if only due to the gravitational effects, not to mention EM effects.

The consequences of such scaling in relation to cosmology should be obvious.
Click to expand...

Ya, but then the scaling EM fields should be obvious to you too, but you can't accept the concept of "current flows" in space, so everything is still a magnetic enigma to you.

But then, you should be able to define pressure too...
Click to expand...

I did define the "pressure" in a "vacuum" for you in terms of real particles. You simply didn't like that definition because it demonstrates that the logical limit of "pressure" is in a "vacuum" is zero, not negative infinity.

The irony of ironies is that fact you folks attempt to eliminate the EM field because it's not an example of "negative pressure", but then you try to use the Casimir effect is an example of 'negative pressure in a vacuum". The whole thing is pure baloney on your part. You can't have it both ways, but you're intent on doing exactly that!
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO you're missing the point. Accelerating the bulk of the mass of the universe is akin to accelerating a fairly disperse plasma body. You don't have to move planets and suns to accelerate the bulk of the mass, you simply have to accelerate protons and charged helium atoms and "dusty plasma". The rest of the "condensed" mass found in planets and suns will "follow" the gravitational changes caused by the acceleration of the plasma between the objects in space. The "scale of the effect" might be relatively small on a single large physical body, but an acceleration of a whole plasma field will cause the "clumpy" material to follow sooner or later, if only due to the gravitational effects, not to mention EM effects.
Click to expand...


This is as quantitative as you can get, eh? Bulk, fairly disperse, the rest of, changes, acceleration, between, scale, relatively small, single, large, whole, and clumpy?

:dl:​

Most of us probably learned in fourth or fifth grade that science is done quantitatively, that would be "with numbers" for the language challenged. So not only have you shown that you aren't qualified to understand math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook, you've shown that you aren't qualified to understand science, in general, at the level of an average ten year old.

The irony of ironies is that fact you folks attempt to eliminate the EM field because it's not an example of "negative pressure", but then you try to use the Casimir effect is an example of 'negative pressure in a vacuum". The whole thing is pure baloney on your part. You can't have it both ways, but you're intent on doing exactly that!
Click to expand...


You're lying, again, Michael. Is there something about the strategy of trying to support your argument with lies that you believe will be successful in persuading anyone to accept your crazy crackpot notions? Remember, in over half a decade of your evangelizing, not one single professional scientist has ever been persuaded yet. Do you think someday your argument by lying might actually work? :p
 
GeeMack said:
You're lying, again, Michael.
Click to expand...

The only liar here is you and you're only lying to yourself GM. Your dark entities are entirely impotent in the lab and your whole argument is founded on a non-sequitur fallacy. Your dark entities aren't real. They don't have any more effect on me than Zeus. No amount of "sky pointing math" is going to make your mythical sky entities real, or make them show up in a lab or have any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. Your entities are mythical. They are not real. EM fields are real. They do real things, like make your car run and make your computer function. Your dark stuff is a figment of your lying imagination. :)
 
edd said:
A sensible definition for the acceleration might be d2a/dt2, which is H2+dH/dt.
That's given by the second of these and I'll leave the calculation of the current value as an exercise for the reader who is more motivated right now than myself.

edit 2: erm, I make that about 3x10-36/s2?
Click to expand...
I think there's an m, or km, gone AWOL ... ;)
 
You mean I'm out by a thousand or something, or are you suggesting the dimensions are wrong?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Your string analogy doesn't actually apply to "dark energy" however, in fact it puts you in my camp. :)
Click to expand...
That model of mine isn't mean to explain the HOW of dark energy, just its effect. The string is stretching instead of moving along in a cohesive, non-deforming unit. Heck, if Alfrin's paper is what you go by, then the string itself would never stretch.

Michael Mozina said:
When you pull on the end of a string, you are pulling on an atom with another atom in your finger. The "cause" of the expansion of material in the fibers of the string is due to the pull of your finger, not "dark energy'. :)
Click to expand...
The string (physical space analogy) is being pulled / stretched apart by dark energy. At local scales, like my example, it stretches at one planck unit per inch of string, an amount impossible to measure in the lab currently. However, due to the string being 13 billion light years long, the cumulative effect of this is that the ends of that string are speeding away from each other at superluminal speeds.

Michael Mozina said:
It's a useful analogy in the sense that it "creates the same kind of an effect', but that is exactly the same argument I'm using by suggesting that material *outside* of this physical universe might be attracting material inside this physical universe.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that in Alfrin's paper. Is this your own hypothesis, or is it another paper from someone else? Where is this dark universe, and through what dark conduit is it interfacing with ours?

Michael Mozina said:
Your analogy and mine are actually the same analogy. Welcome to my world. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not positive on that.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I think there's an m, or km, gone AWOL ... ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree---the Hubble parameter doesn't have units of length, it's just 1/time. So the time rate of change of the Hubble constant is 1/time^2.

To find the Hubble-flow relative velocity of two particular objects, you take their *distance* D and multiply it by H, that gives you velocity in m/s, and includes the fact that a larger D leads to a larger V (i.e. the distance-redshift relation). It's the same with acceleration---the relative acceleration of two particular objects is dv/dt = D*dH/dt. In units, m/s^2 = m * (1/s^2).

As for the value, on dimensional grounds I'd expect it to be just G*rho, Newton's constant times the dark energy density, so in cgs units

6x10^-8 (cm^3 g^-1 s^-2)* 10^-29 (g cm^-3) = 5x10^-36 s^-2.

Which, unsurprisingly, agrees with edd. (More surprisingly, there's not even a factor of 2 or pi or something. Woo hoo!)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It's a useful analogy in the sense that it "creates the same kind of an effect', but that is exactly the same argument I'm using by suggesting that material *outside* of this physical universe might be attracting material inside this physical universe.
Click to expand...
As you should be aware by now Mister Earl, Michael Mozina has a habit of redefining words to mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they are redefined to mean, e.g. in dictionaries. This is probably because of his ignorance of the subject. An example of this is his persistent delusion that empirical means experiments in labs when observations are included.

In this case "physical universe" is his attempt to say "observable universe". This is not a new idea and definitely not his idea.

ETA
This is a paper that ben m cited a while back
Can We Avoid Dark Energy?
The idea that we live near the center of a large, nonlinear void has attracted attention recently as an alternative to dark energy or modified gravity. We show that an appropriate void profile can fit both the latest cosmic microwave background and supernova data. However, this requires either a fine-tuned primordial spectrum or a Hubble rate so low as to rule these models out. We also show that measurements of the radial baryon acoustic scale can provide very strong constraints. Our results present a serious challenge to void models of acceleration.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Quite, although there's definitely an issue if something outside your light cone is supposed to be doing something to you.
 
ben m said:
I disagree---the Hubble parameter doesn't have units of length, it's just 1/time. So the time rate of change of the Hubble constant is 1/time^2.

To find the Hubble-flow relative velocity of two particular objects, you take their *distance* D and multiply it by H, that gives you velocity in m/s, and includes the fact that a larger D leads to a larger V (i.e. the distance-redshift relation). It's the same with acceleration---the relative acceleration of two particular objects is dv/dt = D*dH/dt. In units, m/s^2 = m * (1/s^2).

As for the value, on dimensional grounds I'd expect it to be just G*rho, Newton's constant times the dark energy density, so in cgs units

6x10^-8 (cm^3 g^-1 s^-2)* 10^-29 (g cm^-3) = 5x10^-36 s^-2.

Which, unsurprisingly, agrees with edd. (More surprisingly, there's not even a factor of 2 or pi or something. Woo hoo!)
Click to expand...
Yep, I agree ... that'll teach me, not reading the first line of edd's post (where he *defines* 'acceleration', and by that definition it does not have dimensions of LT^-2). :o

Now if MM is reading this, how do you define 'pressure' (again, if you please)?
 
That's something I'm familiar with, the concept of which anyway. Back when I was in my teen years I was lucky enough to be gifted Stephen Hawking's book, "A brief history of time". Light cones were talked about in that book.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Do you honestly think that they'd forgive my mathematical mistakes as easily as they forgive yours? :) Hey, we're all human.
Click to expand...


You're safe, Michael. You can't make a mathematical mistake since you aren't qualified to do math and therefore never touch the stuff.
:dl:​
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only liar here is you and you're only lying to yourself GM. Your dark entities are entirely impotent in the lab and your whole argument is founded on a non-sequitur fallacy. Your dark entities aren't real. They don't have any more effect on me than Zeus. No amount of "sky pointing math" is going to make your mythical sky entities real, or make them show up in a lab or have any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. Your entities are mythical. They are not real. EM fields are real. They do real things, like make your car run and make your computer function. Your dark stuff is a figment of your lying imagination. :)
Click to expand...


Dark energy, according to contemporary best explanation theory, is the name of the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. So for you to claim it doesn't do anything is a lie if you understand the theory, and an argument from ignorance if you don't.

Oh, and how are you coming on that simple answer to that simple question you keep ignoring? Were your heroes Bruce, Birkeland, and Alfvén liars, too?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Do you honestly think that they'd forgive my mathematical mistakes as easily as they forgive yours?
Click to expand...

It's not your ignorance which is hard to forgive, but your arrogance, dishonesty, and consistent refusal to actually do anything about your ignorance. I've never before seen a poster so intent on not learning.
 
What is "Empirical" Science? XI

Michael Mozina said:
Where do I buy something tangible that runs on "cosmological negative pressure" or 'dark energy' Tim?
Click to expand...
Who cares? The question has nothing to do with anything we are talking about anyway.

Michael Mozina said:
Dark energy is as impotent in the lab as any pantheon god. EM fields aren't shy around the lab. That's the empirical difference ...
Click to expand...
Well, not really ...
Tim Thompson said:
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

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

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. [size=+2]There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation[/size], but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. [size=+1]Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?[/size]
Click to expand...
So when are you finally going to drum up the personal fortitude to face the music, admit the truth, lay it on the line, 'fess up and simply admit the obvious?
 
Tim Thompson said:
Who cares? The question has nothing to do with anything we are talking about anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure it does Tim. If your entity/energy thingy did anything useful here on Earth we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since your entity is nothing but a 'sky entity' for lack of a better term, you have a serious empirical problem. Your entity is at least as impotent here on Earth as any sky deity in any religion.

The fact you refuse to acknowledge this flaw in your religion makes you a bit of a "fundy" too by the way. :)

So when are you finally going to drum up the personal fortitude to face the music, admit the truth, lay it on the line, 'fess up and simply admit the obvious?
Click to expand...

The only thing that's obvious is that your sky deity is *AT LEAST* as impotent on Earth as any sky deity we could "name". It's also obvious that your whole belief system revolves around a non-sequitur fallacy: "Acceleration happens, therefore (name your generic metaphysical sky deity) did it." There is no empirical cause effect relationship between acceleration and "dark evil energy'. The is no such thing as "dark energy", just "dark human ignorance". That's what is obvious Tim.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
It's not your ignorance which is hard to forgive, but your arrogance, dishonesty, and consistent refusal to actually do anything about your ignorance. I've never before seen a poster so intent on not learning.
Click to expand...

The problem Zig is that you evidently have nothing to "teach" me other than another "sky religion" you've created. Your dark entities, like all sky deities, utterly and completely fail to manifest inside of a real experiment in the lab. They only show up in your "sky religion". They have no effect on human experiments. They have no effect on events even inside the solar system for that matter. They only seem to have some 'magical' effect "somewhere out there" in space where humans could never hope to reach.

I've come to realize that you don't know squat about physics as that whole Casimir debate clearly demonstrated. You don't have the common decency to even pick a valid argument that isn't self conflicted. On one hand you all claimed that the Casimir effect was an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum". That effect is directly related to the EM field as the type of material demonstrates. You then turn right around and attempt to dismiss the EM field from consideration claiming that it is incapable of creating "negative pressure". The whole argument is baloney or you wouldn't be trying to have your cake and eat it too! You can't claim on one hand that it's incapable of creating "negative pressure" and then claim it's also an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum"! Holy cow. That's as self conflicted as it gets Zig. What can I say. All you've "taught me" is that you know absolutely nothing about subatomic physics and kinetic energy.

The actual flaws in your arguments are always physical in nature. A ZERO pressure is the lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum. Two objects might 'attract' in a pure vacuum, but that is called "gravitational attraction', or "charge attraction" and it's not an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum.". You're also all peddling what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and not a single one of you can explain what is physically (not mathematically, physically) unique about "magnetic reconnection". Your dark stuff is a complete no show in the lab. Every single one of your problems has absolutely nothing to do with math and yet you keep harping on the math like it's your "savior". That's not your problem so math can't save you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom