Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[derekmcd]

Welcome to JREF Forum, derekmcd!

By now I think you've realised why you can't post links ... you need to get to 15 posts before the board's software allows you to.

Indeed. I, actually, knew that. I just didn't realize (twice) that I had quoted a link. And, thanks for the hearty welcome.

That being said, may I enquire as to what other forum MM has been active on? The 'google coordinates' will suffice (google is the friend of many folk here).

Not sure if that would be proper etiquette. If Michael wishes to direct you to his threads, then you're welcome to peruse them. However, I can assure you that you would just be boring yourself with a repeat of what you see here. The only exception is that the nonsense was spread through several threads totalling a few thousand posts.

Another assurance I can guarantee is that nothing will be resolved here.

You may have already noticed that I, for one, have found quite a few sets of (astronomical) observations that are inconsistent with AB's papers (collectively), which MM agreed to have a go at explaining (within AB's 'plasma redshift' model), but hasn't yet done so.

AB's papers are the only interest that drew me to this thread. I believe it is as simple as a misapplication of quantum mechanics. Good luck with getting Michael to address real physics with real math (or vice versa).

A saying that I like to put out there (I don't know for whom it should be attributed as I doubt it's original):

Understand what is going on inside the box before you think outside the box.

Sadly, I fear I will get drawn in for the sheer entertainment value of debating Michael. Unfortunately, though, I can't post quite as often as I used to. There may be days where I can actually hold a conversation; However, more often than not, there will simply be days with no posts.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

The idea of "merit' seems to be highly subjective. For instance Birkeland's aurora and solar theories have "merit" to this day because they work in a lab. It might be acceptable to ask if they actually *apply* to solar theory, but the ideas have empirical merit either way, even if they are falsified somehow.[...]

(bold)

I have found that it can pay to re-read your posts, MM, because there are some real eye-openers ... at least in terms of my efforts to understand, in detail, how your views on what sorts of criteria are acceptable, for use in cosmology, and what are not.

This extract, from one of your posts, is one such.

Take what you wrote slowly, a phrase at a time ... now assume the research question we are interested in is the nature of aurora, the solar wind, and the behaviour of the Sun's photosphere and corona. Assume we have hard drives packed full of high quality data - 'observations' if you will - taken over decades and centuries, in all wavebands (gammas to visual to radio), etc, etc, etc. In addition, we have more hard drives packed full of data from instruments aboard spacecraft 'tasting' the plasma environment in many locations in the inner and outer solar system, and the magnetospheres of several planets.

From this great mass of data, we conclude that the simulations Birkeland did in his lab do not resemble the physical environments of the Earth's upper atmosphere, the solar wind, the Sun's corona, ... in anything but the most tenuous sense. Further, we have the results from far better, and more numerous, simulations done since Birkeland's day, that we also know are much closer approximations to the environments we are interested in.

So, concerning aurora and various Sun-related phenomena, in what sense can "Birkeland's aurora and solar theories" be said to have merit "because they work in a lab"?!?

 

[derekmcd]

Hi Derek! Welcome. I'm glad you came over.

I'm just dropping in... not quite sure on the extent of my stay yet.

Ah to be young and naive again......

I'm neither... though I wish I was. Well... I'm still young and always will be.

Have you ever studied Arp and his objections to "Hubble's law"? I assure you it *can* be highly political, particularly when one starts futzing with the redshift interpretations. The Lambda model has become dogma at this point in time, and getting something like that published in the APJ is never going to happen.

Yes, I have. I find it amusing you make this statement when Arp has had a paper concerning QSOs published in APJ. Might you be referring to Arp's loss of scope time?

So how come you believe that it cannot ever be a political sort of rejection, or a rejection based on "fear" rather than merit?

It's the scope of the paper. Ari is trying to support a paradigm shift. It's the magnitude of his presentation. I could understand some political infighting over something minor and inconsequential.

Why didn't they "flock" to Birkeland's explanation of aurora, or his solar discharge ideas? He could *simulate* solar wind acceleration, and he could certainly explain it. I have no idea why the mainstream has become so dogma oriented, particularly over the past 25+ years or so. It wasn't always like that. Inflation and DE are relative newcomers in fact.

Apples and oranges. Birkeland wasn't presenting anything that was an attempt to throw known physics out the window or toss the collective understanding of the community on its head. Birkeland was just trying to explain a local phenomena (that wasn't understood) for which he had the unique opportunity of location to study said phenomena.

Beside, I believe it was you that told me that Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel at least 7(?) times. How is that not being recognized?

Well, if so, there should be actual line number and equation oriented objections cited so that I can respond to *specific* criticisms. Evidently DRD has provided a few criticisms but at first glance they didn't look specific, as in citing a line number or equation. I will have a look at them this weekend however and see if any of them have merit.

My criticisms were specific enough. Are you saying you want to see how his equations are wrong? If so, doesn't that seem just a bit hypocritical? Guth's math has been parsed relentlessly and found to be consistent (inflation has evolvled, but that doesn't change anything).

FYI, here's another paper on redshift that does not require superluminal expansion.

[link snipped. Available in original post above]

There are many possible ways to "interpret" the redshift phenomenon purely from a mathematical point of view. Why pick one and call it "superior"?

So, a theory based on a hypothetical particle is ok if you present it. However, if mainstream presents a theory based on a hypothetical particle (WIMP), it's considered woo. Your logic defies me...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Indeed. I, actually, knew that. I just didn't realize (twice) that I had quoted a link. And, thanks for the hearty welcome.

Had you heard of this forum before, in some other context perhaps?

What do you think of it, based on your short time here?

Not sure if that would be proper etiquette. If Michael wishes to direct you to his threads, then you're welcome to peruse them. However, I can assure you that you would just be boring yourself with a repeat of what you see here. The only exception is that the nonsense was spread through several threads totalling a few thousand posts.

Another assurance I can guarantee is that nothing will be resolved here.

Quite recently I entered "Michael Mozina" into google, and was pretty amazed at how many fora that user name/member name/whatever appears in! A random sample of some of the posts, by the various MMs, revealed a strong similarity in content and style to those by MM here. Many threads in which MM participated were long, very long ...

AB's papers are the only interest that drew me to this thread. I believe it is as simple as a misapplication of quantum mechanics. Good luck with getting Michael to address real physics with real math (or vice versa).

Once again, google is your friend!

I found this post, by someone calling themself "papageno", on the very long AB paper, over in BAUT:

[Quote Originally Posted by Brynjolfsson]
A2 Fourier Spectrum of Photons in Dielectrics

We think of an atom free of external forces emitting a photon as it decays exponentially from an excited state with a lifetime of τ = 1/γ.[endquote]

This is not conventional physics, as the author claims.

The transition of an atom from an excited state to a lower state is not an exponential decay, but a (quantum) leap with occurs with a certain probability. If there is a statistically large set of excited atoms, then the number of excited atoms decays exponentially with a characteristic time inversely proportional to the probability of the transition. A typical example is NMR: an EM pulse excites a bunch of atoms, and the time for these to get back to the ground state is measured.

[Quote: Originally Posted by Brynjolfsson]
2 Energy loss of photons as they penetrate a plasma

For a photon’s field moving along the x-axis, we can at x = 0 normalize the Poynting vector, S, to the energy flux of one photon, ¯hω0 = hν0, per second and per square cm in vacuum, where h is the Planck constant.[endquote]

The Poynting vector is a quantity defined for macroscopic EM fields, not for a single photon.

If you keep reading, you'll realize that the author does not understand that in conventional physics the macroscopic EM waves are the result of statistically large numbers of photons, and that the macroscopic dielectric constant in a material (including plasma) comes from the interaction of these photons with matter and is not something external to a single photon.

The author does not understand conventional physics, and his claim that his "plasma-redshift" is based on it is utterly unfounded.

A saying that I like to put out there (I don't know for whom it should be attributed as I doubt it's original):

Understand what is going on inside the box before you think outside the box.

Sadly, I fear I will get drawn in for the sheer entertainment value of debating Michael. Unfortunately, though, I can't post quite as often as I used to. There may be days where I can actually hold a conversation; However, more often than not, there will simply be days with no posts.

I look forward to reading your posts, however frequently, or infrequently, they may appear.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It seems Ari Brynjolfsson made a brief appearance in Physics Forums. His post is far too long to reproduce, but it may be that the short exchange in that forum contributed to some of the changes between two of the versions of the "whopper".

 

[derekmcd]

Had you heard of this forum before, in some other context perhaps?

What do you think of it, based on your short time here?


Quite recently I entered "Michael Mozina" into google, and was pretty amazed at how many fora that user name/member name/whatever appears in! A random sample of some of the posts, by the various MMs, revealed a strong similarity in content and style to those by MM here. Many threads in which MM participated were long, very long ...


Once again, google is your friend!

I found [arghh... link snipped again] this post[/URL], by someone calling themself "papageno", on the very long AB paper, over in BAUT:


I look forward to reading your posts, however frequently, or infrequently, they may appear.

I've run across a few JREF threads while googling. They are usually a few pages down, though. I'm also quite familiar with BAUT and Physicsforums, though I haven't posted much in either (probably under 10 posts). I've been lingering around space dot com for a few year with 3000+ posts. Sadly, since their transition from Uplink to Pluck, the forum has taken a nosedive. They seem to be more concerned with the article commenting and the nonsense that goes on there pales in comparison to this.

Thanks for that link to Papageno's post. It gives me assurance that I am on the right track.

I have no illusions of being an expert in any field. My line of work has absolutely nothing to do with astrophysics or cosmology. However, I do, immensely, enjoy learning. Especially considering these fields that I am interested in, logic plays an important role in distinguishing crackpot ideas from legitimate ones.

Mind you, there is a difference between logic and common sense. Common sense does not always apply. Actually, in cosmology, common sense rarely applies.

 

[derekmcd]

The real physical problem here is that "space" is physically undefined, and the way you folks are using the term "space", it is more or less a magical aether theory that is absolutely unnecessary. In a Occum's razor argument, it therefore has to go. Objects can expand, "space" cannot.

The problem is confusing the difference between space and spacetime in GR. They are quite distinguishable. Your first mistake is objectifying space as something that is physically tangible. In GR, space and spacetime are not physical objects... they are based on metrics. Amongst relativists, saying "space expands" is acceptable as the meaning behind the phrase is understood. Amongst layman, the phrase leads to a plethora of misconceptions. You seem to be amongst the latter...

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold)

I have found that it can pay to re-read your posts, MM, because there are some real eye-openers ... at least in terms of my efforts to understand, in detail, how your views on what sorts of criteria are acceptable, for use in cosmology, and what are not.

You spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the *critics* belief systems, and no time at all being the least bit focused on, or critical about the fact that you can't empirically demonstrate that your inflation deity isn't a figment of your imagination. Why? Like I said a long time ago, if I doubted the existence of EM fields or gravity you'd have no problem demonstrating that gravity and EM fields have an effect reality. Why all the tap dancing when we get to inflation faeries?

This extract, from one of your posts, is one such.

Take what you wrote slowly, a phrase at a time

There go go again focusing on the individual instead of making your case empirically. I guess your debate style doesn't work very well when it's your own belief systems that are being questioned, so immediately you try to switch the discussion to something else and attempt to switch the burden of proof. You're the one that believes in inflation. Let's see you demonstrate it's not a figment of your imagination before you start pointing at the sky with it. How about that "dark flow"? How come it didn't falsify inflation again?

From this great mass of data, we conclude that the simulations Birkeland did in his lab do not resemble the physical environments of the Earth's upper atmosphere,

Bologna. The aurora were more complicated but in other respects he was exactly right on the money.

the solar wind,

Why can't you "explain" or "simulate" something Birkeland was able to both explain and simulate over 100 years ago? Could it be you simply refuse to accept the part of his work that would actually enlighten you?

the Sun's corona, ...

Pfft. He created coronal loops in his lab and wrote all about them!

So, concerning aurora and various Sun-related phenomena, in what sense can "Birkeland's aurora and solar theories" be said to have merit "because they work in a lab"?!?

The jaw dropping part from my perspective is that you *can't* explain solar wind acceleration and you *refuse* to accept the one "solution" that has actually been physically shown to work empirically, in a lab, with control mechanisms and all the things you guys just hate. Evidently somewhere along the line your industry forgot the importance of experimentation of actual "physics". These days anything with a math formula that doesn't mention "electricity" is ok, but you outright ignore anything and everything that actually physically works in an experiment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The problem is confusing the difference between space and spacetime in GR. They are quite distinguishable. Your first mistake is objectifying space as something that is physically tangible.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Gah! I do not think it is tangible, I believe it to be empty space. Period. What was wrong with this paper by the way? I'll ask you because I think you might actually address his criticisms, whereas the rest of this crew seems to be in pure denial at this point. Objects in motion sort of expansion *can* explain this redshift phenomenon without any sort of 'space expansion'. From an occum's razor perspective, you don't have a let to stand on IMO and that paper demonstrates this point mathematically.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]
Like I said a long time ago, if I doubted the existence of EM fields or gravity you'd have no problem demonstrating that gravity and EM fields have an effect reality.

[...]

In a post, not so long ago ...

Michael,

I know the post I wrote was rather long, and I later realised you were extremely busy then, so here it is again (you didn't respond the first time), the key part anyway:

My opinions are irrelevant to this answer. If you asked me can I empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature I would have no trouble demonstrating these things exist in nature in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions you might have on these subjects.

Ah, thank you again!

A light bulb just went off!!

OK, I will ask you: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

I assume that your answer will be a resounding "Yes, I can".

With that answer in hand, I will proceed to find out how.

How about it?

Would you care to answer my question now? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apples and oranges. Birkeland wasn't presenting anything that was an attempt to throw known physics out the window or toss the collective understanding of the community on its head. Birkeland was just trying to explain a local phenomena (that wasn't understood) for which he had the unique opportunity of location to study said phenomena.

I think you missed my point. He not only came up with a way to explain the aurora, but solar activity as well. The mainstream took more than 60 years to accept *some* of his ideas related to aurora because they like Chapman's math better. At the rate they are going, it could them them another 60 years for them to realize that Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity. I'll be dead by then! Just because an idea is correct or accurate does not mean that the mainstream is immediately going to recognize it. They don't work that way. Look how long they clung to Chapman's math? It's probably still in use today.

Beside, I believe it was you that told me that Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel at least 7(?) times. How is that not being recognized?

Recognition is more than about 'awards', it's about giving him the credit he was due, and accepting his "explanations" for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*.

My criticisms were specific enough. Are you saying you want to see how his equations are wrong? If so, doesn't that seem just a bit hypocritical? Guth's math has been parsed relentlessly and found to be consistent (inflation has evolvled, but that doesn't change anything).

That "evolution" you describe is but a series of never ending "fudging with the numbers" because you never intend to empirically demonstrate any of it. The moment the theory fails, you just modify it here, snip a little from there, tuck a bit over there, and viola, it's "evolved" not into a "prediction machine" capable of predicting anything, anywhere, anytime. Holy cow, with a theory that's 96 percent fudge factor, what can't it explain? Oh ya, those "dark flows". I guess inflation will "evolve" again pretty soon eh?

So, a theory based on a hypothetical particle is ok if you present it. However, if mainstream presents a theory based on a hypothetical particle (WIMP), it's considered woo. Your logic defies me...

I'm simply noting that your inflation deity isn't mathematical "no show" deity in town. I'm frankly more interested in your reaction to that last paper I cited and it's "explanation" of redshift *without* expanding space. You and I both seem to be willing to entertain an objects in motion sort of expansion, and no other type of expansion seems to be required in the first place.

 

[derekmcd]

Gah! I do not think it is tangible, I believe it to be empty space. Period. What was wrong with this paper by the way? I'll ask you because I think you might actually address his criticisms, whereas the rest of this crew seems to be in pure denial at this point. Objects in motion sort of expansion *can* explain this redshift phenomenon without any sort of 'space expansion'. From an occum's razor perspective, you don't have a let to stand on IMO and that paper demonstrates this point mathematically.

Apparently, the author can't distinguish between DeSitter space and empty space. I made it through page 3 before I realized it was word salad.

ETA: If you don't think space is tangilbe, why do you insist on it being testable in a laboratory experiment???

 

[Michael Mozina]

How about it?

Would you care to answer my question now? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Sure, pick up a plasma ball at Walmart. I'll show you how do demonstrate both the existence of gravity and demonstrate that electricity and EM fields can move plasma for under $30, simple control mechanisms and everything. Pick up a nine volt battery while you are there and I'll even demonstrate what electricity "feels" like on the top of your tongue.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently, the author can't distinguish between DeSitter space and empty space. I made it through page 3 before I realized it was word salad.

I would like a *specific* criticism where he introduced an error. This handwave stuff is getting old. You all use a different handwave argument and there is never a specific criticism. At least Tim seems to have some idea on how papers are supposed to be critiqued and how to be "specific" in his criticisms.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the *critics* belief systems, and no time at all being the least bit focused on, or critical about the fact that you can't empirically demonstrate that your inflation deity isn't a figment of your imagination.

[...]

Yes, that seems about right ...

As I thought I explained, very near the beginning on my posting history in this thread, the question posed in the title of this thread ("Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?") was answered, in the negative, by about the end of the first page.

From about that time onward, the only JREF Forum member presenting a contrary opinion was the OP, namely you yourself Michael.

From then, it seemed to me, the only (or perhaps main) question of any interest was why? As in "why do you, MM, hold the view - apparently quite strongly - that contemporary LCDM models are scientific woo?"

I outlined - explicitly - my approach to trying to answer this question; I interpreted your response to mean you were personally quite offended by that approach*. Subsequently, I adopted a different approach.

My research - google is your friend! - has, so far, turned up a great many posts by "Michael Mozina" in many internet discussion fora. My random sampling of those posts showed - informally - very similar content and style to yours here, in this forum.

I am in the process of drawing up testable hypotheses concerning the (or some) key (?) criteria that you use to assess the acceptability of ideas/models/theories/whatever as part of cosmology, as a science, in your own, personal, view of cosmology.

To give you some snippets: "empirical" to MM has a quite different meaning than it has to other participants in these discussions (LOTS of hard data on that!); there is a strong religious/personal belief system component to MM's approach to cosmology; consistency (to be more precisely defined) has a relatively low value in MM's view of the nature of cosmology (as science).

Oh, and re "you can't empirically demonstrate that your inflation deity isn't a figment of your imagination"? I already did (sans the "deity", whatever that is):

Most easily ... in an earlier post I referenced a recent paper on WMAP results, the abstract of which includes a reference to "inflation": "We constrain the physics of inflation via Gaussianity, adiabaticity, the power spectrum shape, gravitational waves, and spatial curvature."

* links to the key posts re this available upon request.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What can I pick up at the store for you to demonstrate inflation for me? I'll give you $50 dollar budget. Keep in mind I can demonstrate the real effects of gravity and EM fields on real objects for under $30.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sure, pick up a plasma ball at Walmart. I'll show you how do demonstrate both the existence of gravity and demonstrate that electricity and EM fields can move plasma for under $30, simple control mechanisms and everything. Pick up a nine volt battery while you are there and I'll even demonstrate what electricity "feels" like on the top of your tongue.

OK, got one (not from Walmart though ... does that invalidate the MM test?)

Also have on hand a nine volt battery (I tested it with my multimeter; it's not *exactly* 9.00000000000 volts - does that matter?).

Next?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, that seems about right ...

As I thought I explained, very near the beginning on my posting history in this thread, the question posed in the title of this thread ("Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?") was answered, in the negative, by about the end of the first page.

Huh? The fact something is published and written about does not demonstrate it has scientific merit. People write about numerology all the time and just like you, they can't demonstrate their math has any useful predictive value whatsoever when it comes to predicting the outcome of controlled experimentation. Since then, it's been 10+ more pages of tap dancing, and not one demonstration that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination. It is purely made up just like any other mythos.

From about that time onward, the only JREF Forum member presenting a contrary opinion was the OP, namely you yourself Michael.

But I'm not the only one in the world who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory!
http://cosmologystatement.org/

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, got one (not from Walmart though ... does that invalidate the MM test?)

Also have on hand a nine volt battery (I tested it with my multimeter; it's not *exactly* 9.00000000000 volts - does that matter?).

Next?

If you touch both terminals of the battery to the top of your tongue, you'll feel the tingle of the electrical current as it runs through your tongue. That is "electricity" and it has an effect on the plasma in the plasma ball.

Plug in the plasma ball and turn it on. When you turn it on you can watch the electrical currents (like the one that ran through your tongue) created filamentary shapes in the plasma and light up those filaments. Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand. As you let go of the ball, gravity will cause the ball to fall into your other hand, and yet the currents will still be moving and flowing inside the ball. Turn off the switch on the side of the ball and notice how the filaments disappear inside the plasma ball. Turn it back on again and watch what happens. In this case the control mechanism to demonstrate gravity exists in nature is you hand that releases the ball. The effect of gravity causes the ball to fall. You can repeat this process as many times as you like if you doubt gravity will cause the ball to fall. Likewise you can turn the switch on and off (with the ball plugged in of course) and control the flow of electricity inside the plasma.

Care to demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination now? Keep in mind my experiment cost $30 and demonstrates gravity and EM fields are not a figment of my personal imagination.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA: If you don't think space is tangilbe, why do you insist on it being testable in a laboratory experiment???

Nothing cannot expand. If you believe "space" expands, I want to see you demonstrate it. It's your claim, not mine.