Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

The part he/she is missing is that I'm not emotionally or intellectually attached to any of the redshift "solutions" I've seen to date. The mainstream solution requires pure faith in something they simply fabricated in the first place and that is evidently dead now.

Not pure faith. Observational evidence. That you've already been shown.

The alternative explanations tend be based on things that actually exist in nature, or at least might be tested in some physical way. IMO that makes them "better" than a dead deity.

The alternative explanations generally violate fundamental laws like the second law of thermodynamics. Regardless of the efficacy of the "mainstream" ideas, that makes your alternatives utterly useless.
Once again another strawman I see. You are the only one talking about deities

The mainstream would love me to attempt to compete with their inflation deity, but of course that is pointless.

The mainstream couldn't careless about you. Despite what you might think, you are an insignificant dot in the history of science, much like me. If you actually came up with something scientific that was revolutionary then the mainstream might care. But all we get is strawmen.

No one can compete with a supernatural deity who's abilities change with every observation that would normally have falsified any other scientific model.

Oh there's another strawman. What a surprise.

In the case of the inflation deity, she simply gets new superpowers of "dark energy" and away they go again......

And another.

I'm *way* (a lot) more interested in being able to explain events inside of our solar system. I'm comfortable that EU/PC theory is based entirely upon pure empirical physics and it has useful predictive value as it relates to events inside the solar system.

Right... but this is a cosmology thread remember (you started it, you should remember). The above has nothing to do with cosmology.

The mainstream is so fixated on their dead deity and they are so afraid of EU theory that they refuse to embrace any part of it for fear that their whole show will start to fall apart.

I see the old "deity" strawman is back.

Real physical forces are driving that solar wind they can't explain. It's not "inflation" or "dark energy".

Nobody said it was. That would be yet another strawman of yours.

It's *electricity* and charge separation/attraction that causes the solar wind to accelerate. I know this because I've seen it demonstrated in a lab by a guy from 100 years ago. It took the mainstream 60 years to give up their faith in Chapman's math formulas and recognize the usefulness of Birkeland's auroral theories. At the rate they are going it will take them 100 more years to figure out solar wind. I'll be dead by then. Why should I wait around for them to get with the program only because they love their dead deity?

Ah the old "deity" strawman again. This is getting a little dull now.

They now want to judge everything in science based on a creation event they can't justify without simply "making up" properties that they assigned to their deity, just like any other religious cult!

And again. 8 strawmen in one post. Quite an achievement there MM.

The worst part is that they teach this brand of "faith" in school and call it "science".

You're the only one introducing religion into this.

 

[Dancing David]

That is because you all fixate on explaining the redshift phenomenon and *assume* the inflation deity theory is correct *unless* someone does a better job postdicting these specific events. Unless one is willing to simply "create new forces of nature" like Guth, that is not likely to happen. I'm sure that the "real" explanation is rather complicated and it will take time to understand. That doesn't make your dead deity theory "right" by default!

That is a straw accusation, ihave said that inflation, DM and DE are hypothesis.

The question is, do the theories derived from the hypothesis match the data we have or not.

So far they do, they stand to be corrected or discarded as time passes.

Inflation addresses certain data, it is a hypotesis and may or may not stand muster a hundred years from now.

How about the flaws in your theories? How come you guys can't explain solar wind acceleration, coronal loops, jets, sustained aurora? How about those flaws? How come you get to pick what is "important" in a cosmology theory in the first place? Who gets to decide which observations are most important?

i thought we were adressing the lambda-CDM theory in this thread.

that iswhy I focused on the issues addressed, IE rotation curves, 'redshift' and 'accelerating redshift'.

Those are germane to the thread.

No, your theory did that. If your theory was based on a concept that you could empirically demonstrate this thread would have ended in one rebuttal. The only reason it's "philosophical" is because you can't empirically demonstrate your dead deity! That's the only reason.

No I say it is philospohical from reasons speeled out in three sepeearte posts, you treat 'lab' observation as seperate from 'not lab' observation. the red shifted spectra exist, the rotation curves of galaxies are observed.

DM addresses on, the raotation curve, DE addresses the apparent acceleration in redshift.

As to the dead diety, that is philosophical, lambda-CDM may or may not be dependant upon inflation.

that would be you changing the topic.

That reason is because I'm not really interested in redshift in the first place, certainly not to the degree that the mainstream is interested in that one issue. Arp has demonstrated many holes in your theory and you ignored them all. You'll continue to ignore the failures of you theory and invent new properties like DE to fill in the gaps every time your theory fails to "predict" anything useful.

No I have not ignored arp's claim, I spent six months looking at them, if you wish we can start a new thread or we can address a specific thread that exists.

Arps is using bad statistics and a theory that does not natch observation when it comes to why QSOs have an abberant redshift.

I have not ignored it, I disagree with it.

That does not mean I'm immediately obligated to "make up" something just to do a curve fitting exercise!

Then what is the point, the DM in CDM is there to do that.

It is a hypothesis and a model theory, it tries to explain the observed rotation curve.

that is why the DM is there.

Gah. so what? You theory doesn't match predictions either, that's why you stuffed it full of DE. It doesn't match that "dark flow" either, and you just ignore it!

Wow thatw as great citation there, maybe I did not see it behind the hand waving!


Could you try to explain yourself and avoid the hyperbole?

The "hyperbole" is useful to demonstrate my point. Your whole entire belief system is based upon the idea that a "made up" deity is better than pure physics because somehow it gives you comfort to believe you have the whole universe figured out to the last few centimeters and the last few 100,000 years or so.

That is Hoyle's and other representation, the ontology of the universe is moot and a philosophy. At this point if appears the data is cocsistent with the BBE theory, when the adta changes the theory will change.

We can again discuss the BBE in another or existing thread.

You are distracting here.

If lambda-CDM is woo then address where the theory does not meet the data.

I have no such emotional need. I want to understand why the sun does with it does. I want to understand how our solar system functions. I'm not interested in *any* creation event that begins by assigning a deity a superpower or two or three and then goes from there. That is not "science", that is "religion".

So in other words you just philosophically don't lijke inflation or the BBE, which is fine.

What about lambda-cdm.

it was created to meet the observed actions of the universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not pure faith. Observational evidence. That you've already been shown.

I'm really trying to avoid the hyperbole here, but you aren't making it easy.

Imagine how you'd feel if for instance I handed you a math formula about magic elves? Would you accept me claiming that "observational evidence" from space supports my case? It's not that you would lack belief in my math, you would lack belief in the thing my math is attached to. I'm sure your math fits the observations because it's all been "postdicted" from those same observations in the first place. How could it not fit? It's your belief that inflation did it that I have a beef with, not the math.

The alternative explanations generally violate fundamental laws like the second law of thermodynamics.

No other particle field in nature (I'll just ignore the scalar argument for the time being) acts like inflation, retaining near constant density over exponential increases in volume. What other particle field does that nifty trick? Light certainly doesn't do that. That's a pretty "extraordinary" claim.

Regardless of the efficacy of the "mainstream" ideas, that makes your alternatives utterly useless.

The only thing theory that gains value by your inflation theory is the mainstream cosmology model. In every other branch and part of science, inflation is useless. It's gone now according to your theory, so every branch of science can safely ignore it. The only group that "needs" inflation is the mainstream, otherwise their theory doesn't work.

Once again another strawman I see. You are the only one talking about deities

Like any religious deity, you assigned "properties" to 'inflation' that you can't empirically justify. If you had given inflation "awareness" if would be the *least* of your worries because unlike inflation and dark energy, awareness *does* show up on Earth. The "properties" of the deity are not demonstrated. You even have your own creation myth and everything. The only thing that seems to be any different about inflation is that it's dead and gone now and so it can be safely ignored.

The mainstream couldn't careless about you. Despite what you might think, you are an insignificant dot in the history of science, much like me.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

If you actually came up with something scientific that was revolutionary then the mainstream might care. But all we get is strawmen.

Birkeland already did that, as did Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many others. They ignore what they don't want to hear or understand. They are therefore still "mystified" by something Birkeland "explained"' over 100 years ago. I have no illusions about the fact that they'll ignore me too.

I see the old "deity" strawman is back.

It is *not* really a strawman. The only difference between the act of faith you require in inflation and the act of faith required in any religious belief is that your entity is now gone, I can't ever hope to see it in action, and it's dead. In every other respect I must accept your entity on pure faith and I can never even hope to demonstrate the existence of your entity, unlike other religious entities who presumably still exist.

Your beliefs still require an "act of faith" in something you can't demonstrate. To be honest if all you had done is given Nereid the property of awareness, and not "superpowers", I'd probably have nothing I could actually complain about. Like any religious idea however, it is the other superpowers and "properties" of the entity that can or might falsify said entity. Like all religious ideas, I can't prove you wrong, you must demonstrate you are right. I can't empirically demonstrate that your entity does not exist any more than any religious deity. Neither can you demonstrate that your entity exists/existed anymore than any religious idea.

There is very little difference between inflation theory and any religious idea. Both are claimed to be involved in the "creation event", and none of them show up in an experiment with control mechanisms, and all of them require acts of faith.

Now keep in mind that acts of faith are fine by me as long as you acknowledge it's an act of faith, and you aren't teaching "faith' to my children and calling it "science".

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is a straw accusation, ihave said that inflation, DM and DE are hypothesis.

The question is, do the theories derived from the hypothesis match the data we have or not.

How could it not match that data? Guth started with that data and "postdicted" his theory from the original data, and every time inflation doesn't fit an observation it is "upgraded" to include the observation it failed to predict! It's an entirely *postdicted* gumby theory.

Why is that explanation of redshift the "be-all-end-all" of observations that are important to astronomy? How about that solar wind? How about those coronal loops? Jets? Why fixate on one specific observation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

i thought we were adressing the lambda-CDM theory in this thread.

Shouldn't your theories explain these observations too?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM>>No one can compete with a supernatural deity who's abilities change with every observation that would normally have falsified any other scientific model.

DD>>Oh there's another strawman. What a surprise.

That is not a strawman. You folks just change the properties of Lamda-CDM model every time it "fails" to predict something accurately. You folks *failed* to predict acceleration, so when you observed what you believe to be acceleration, you simply stuff in another metaphysical fudge factor called "dark energy" and away you go!

Nobody can compete with that using only empirical physics. Hell, you're just making up stuff and pulling it out of your backside in a totally ad hoc manner! Who could possibly make their math fit the observations that well any other way?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is that explanation of redshift the "be-all-end-all" of observations that are important to astronomy?

You seem to be conflating astronomy with cosmology. They are not synonymous.

How about that solar wind? How about those coronal loops? Jets? Why fixate on one specific observation?

Why would you expect solar winds or coronal loops to tell you anything about cosmology?

 

[Reality Check]

I am open to the idea of an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of "expansion", just not the concept of "expanding space".

You do realize the nasty implications of "objects in motion stay in motion" expansion rather than spacial expansion?

• It makes us the center of the universe and thus invalidates a major postulate of physics. The inhabitants of other galaxies must really be envious of us.
• Run it backwards. At some point all 100 billion galaxies are where we are. So now we have a hyper-massive black hole. Black holes do not explode. Thus we do not exist.

 

[Skwinty]

Why would you expect solar winds or coronal loops to tell you anything about cosmology?

because the sun is a star, and the universe is full of stars.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You seem to be conflating astronomy with cosmology. They are not synonymous.

No, but they are all related. There's a big difference here in how EU/PC theory began vs. today's most popular cosmology theory. Birkeland started in a lab, and he started with attempting to explain something he could observe on Earth. It's a "grass roots" form of "empirical physics". He didn't just point at the sky and claim "dark energy did it and here's the math to prove it". He looked for KNOWN forces of nature as a solution *before* jumping to any outrageous conclusions. He build real working models of his ideas, including control mechanisms and everything. He compared his theories to his lab work and the in-situ measurements he took of the aurora.

Once he figured out how to explain the aurora, he used his experiments to "predict" new things. He changed the polarity around and viola, he "predicted" all sorts of solar processes as well, processes that would explain how the aurora remain active for days on end. His original ideas led to completely *NEW* predictions that were not even related to his original desire to explain aurora. He "predicted" a universe that was filled with flying electrons and flying ions. He "predicted" atmospheric discharges in the solar atmosphere something like 70 years before they were first observed in x-ray images. That's the value of *EMPIRICAL PHYSICS*. It makes "real" predictions from "real" experiments. PC/EU theory started in lab. It's grounded in empirical physics and observation that are "close to home", not "far, far away, a long long time ago".

By the way EU/PC theory has a BB theory of it's own and Alfvens's big bang theory is a *lot* more acceptable to me than yours. It's not "perfect" of course, but it's not unfalsifiable like Lambda theory.

Why would you expect solar winds or coronal loops to tell you anything about cosmology?

Why wouldn't I expect our solar system to be connected to the whole cosmos?

 

[Michael Mozina]

because the sun is a star, and the universe is full of stars.

That too.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm really trying to avoid the hyperbole here, but you aren't making it easy.

If you want to avoid hyperbole stop making up Gods, fairies etc.

Imagine how you'd feel if for instance I handed you a math formula about magic elves? Would you accept me claiming that "observational evidence" from space supports my case? It's not that you would lack belief in my math, you would lack belief in the thing my math is attached to.

Do you have observational evidence for gnomes, no. DO we have observational evidence that supports LCDM, yes:
The Lambda-CDM model exactly matches the following data:

* the CMB power spectrum;
* all CMB polarization spectra and bispectra;
* all known CMB non-Gaussianity tests;
* the distribution of galaxy cluster sizes (and its time evolution),
* velocity dispersions,
* x-ray virial temperatures,
* weak lensing masses,
* and strong lensing masses;
* the rotation-curve evidence for dark matter in galaxies;
* the Hubble constant and its time evolution;
* the lyman-Alpha forest angular size spectrum;
* the ratio of H/D/He/Li in unevolved gas clouds;
* the Gunn-Peterson trough in quasar spectra.

Terrible analogy MM.

I'm sure your math fits the observations because it's all been "postdicted" from those same observations in the first place. How could it not fit? It's your belief that inflation did it that I have a beef with, not the math.

No it hasn't all be postdicted. Observations were made which didn't fit earlier models. A theory (or theories) was devised to explain these anomalies. Predictions were made from said theory. Observations were made. The observations matched the theory. This is how science works MM.

No other particle field in nature (I'll just ignore the scalar argument for the time being) acts like inflation, retaining near constant density over exponential increases in volume. What other particle field does that nifty trick? Light certainly doesn't do that. That's a pretty "extraordinary" claim.

Higgs field, as you've been told multiple times.

The only thing theory that gains value by your inflation theory is the mainstream cosmology model. In every other branch and part of science, inflation is useless.

Its not my theory. I wasn't even born at the time.
What's your point. Just because a theory might not have a practical application to everday life doesn't mean its wrong. Please tell me what use a quark-gluon plasma is to you.

It's gone now according to your theory, so every branch of science can safely ignore it.

Its not my theory. And, what is gone?

The only group that "needs" inflation is the mainstream, otherwise their theory doesn't work.

What a stupid statement. The theory doesn't work if you take out part of the theory. Hardly surprising is it?

Like any religious deity, you assigned "properties" to 'inflation' that you can't empirically justify.

A we're back to the religious strawmen are we. Properties are assigned that match observation, predictions are made that largely agree with observation. Maybe the theory is tweaked a little. This is whats known to scientists as scientific progress. You seem incapable of discriminating between scientific progress and relgion. Why am I not surprised?

If you had given inflation "awareness" if would be the *least* of your worries because unlike inflation and dark energy, awareness *does* show up on Earth.

I can safely say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The "properties" of the deity are not demonstrated.

There is no deity remember. Its just the little strawman you made up in your head. You really need to learn to separate reality from the thoughts you make up in your head.

You even have your own creation myth and everything.

You are the only one bringing religion in to the debate. You started the thread in the wrong forum if you wanted to talk about religion.

The only thing that seems to be any different about inflation is that it's dead and gone now and so it can be safely ignored.

Inflation doesn't like being anthropomorphisized.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

You said:

The mainstream would love me to attempt to compete with their inflation deity, but of course that is pointless.

Which does sound to me like you suggesting otherwise.

Birkeland already did that, as did Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many others. They ignore what they don't want to hear or understand. They are therefore still "mystified" by something Birkeland "explained"' over 100 years ago. I have no illusions about the fact that they'll ignore me too.

And with good reason, you haven't even the faintest idea what you're talking about.

It is *not* really a strawman. The only difference between the act of faith you require in inflation and the act of faith required in any religious belief is that your entity is now gone, I can't ever hope to see it in action, and it's dead.

Like I said, inflation doesn't like being anthropomorphisized. Could we pleased stick to reality here?

In every other respect I must accept your entity on pure faith and I can never even hope to demonstrate the existence of your entity, unlike other religious entities who presumably still exist.

Well you could read the papers you were providing earlier. Then you wouldn't have to take things on faith.

Your beliefs still require an "act of faith" in something you can't demonstrate.

Observations match theory. That is demonstration that the theory is reasonable.

To be honest if all you had done is given Nereid the property of awareness, and not "superpowers", I'd probably have nothing I could actually complain about. Like any religious idea however, it is the other superpowers and "properties" of the entity that can or might falsify said entity. Like all religious ideas, I can't prove you wrong, you must demonstrate you are right. I can't empirically demonstrate that your entity does not exist any more than any religious deity. Neither can you demonstrate that your entity exists/existed anymore than any religious idea.

This is not the religion forum. Please stick to science.

There is very little difference between inflation theory and any religious idea. Both are claimed to be involved in the "creation event", and none of them show up in an experiment with control mechanisms, and all of them require acts of faith.

No.

Now keep in mind that acts of faith are fine by me as long as you acknowledge it's an act of faith, and you aren't teaching "faith' to my children and calling it "science".

Like I said. Look at the evidence, then it doesn't have to be an act of faith.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do realize the nasty implications of "objects in motion stay in motion" expansion rather than spacial expansion?

• It makes us the center of the universe and thus invalidates a major postulate of physics. The inhabitants of other galaxies must really be envious of us.

• 
  
  http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
  How exactly does this explanation put us at the center of anything?
  
  

  [*]Run it backwards. At some point all 100 billion galaxies are where we are. So now we have a hyper-massive black hole. Black holes do not explode. Thus we do not exist.

Or maybe you just don't need to run it "backwards" as far as you are going?

Have you ever read Alven's "bang" theory by any chance? I'll see if I can find a link....

 

[DSo]

The problem with that concept is that you expect me to agree with all of your "assumptions", both in terms of movement and also in terms of what is considered "important". I could frankly not care less about developing an entire creation story just to complete with mainstream theory. I'm far more interested in events inside our solar system, like solar wind, CME's, things like that. These are the things where EU/PC theory can make useful and testable "predictions" and none of them are simply "made up". The ideas work in a lab.


Am I the only one who thinks MM is giving in here and may be ready to leave cosmolgy to the cosmolgies? That way MM can concentrate on his specialty, everything from the edge of the solar system down to Walmart.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you want to avoid hyperbole stop making up Gods, fairies etc.

But you get to keep making up inflation and DE?

Do you have observational evidence for gnomes, no. DO we have observational evidence that supports LCDM, yes:

No. You have observational evidence for redshift. You have "faith" in Lambda theory. I could just as rightly try to tie all of the same observations back to "God". Why not? You don't figure that the Catholic Priest that invented Bang theory didn't do that? Suppose I just said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth with inflation and dark energy"? How would you demonstrate I am wrong or that this form of God is not "scientific"?

The Lambda-CDM model exactly matches the following data:

Well Duh! That's because it was *POSTDICTED FROM THAT SAME DATA* and you threw in magic *and* the kitchen sink! How could it not match those observations?

No it hasn't all be postdicted. Observations were made which didn't fit earlier models.

So you "postdicted" a brand new and improved model based on "dark enegy" and now I'm supposed to be more impressed because it matches "more predictions". Gah.

A theory (or theories) was devised to explain these anomalies.

Your "explanation" is actually a non explanation because you didn't "explain" dark energy, you just slapped math to a label.

Predictions were made from said theory. Observations were made. The observations matched the theory. This is how science works MM.

What you could have done is just let your inflation theory die a natural death. Instead you took those failed predictions and built new models that were based upon even more forms of metaphysical nonsense. I'm not supposed to "be impressed" by the fact you can not "predict" all these new observations? Come on.

Higgs field, as you've been told multiple times.

BS. Pick a particle you can actually physically demonstrate here and now.

Its not my theory. I wasn't even born at the time.

Well, it's not the theory I was handed in school, that's for damn sure.

What's your point. Just because a theory might not have a practical application to everday life doesn't mean its wrong.

It's not just that your theory has no useful application, it is that it has no useful application to any branch of science and never will have any useful application to any branch of science. It's only use is to save your otherwise failed theory. I can't use inflation to "predict" anything useful in a controlled experiment, so as far as "empirical science' is concerned, it doesn't exist and for all I know it *never existed*.

Its not my theory. And, what is gone?a

Inflation is gone. It is "non existent". It has no physical effect on anything.

What a stupid statement. The theory doesn't work if you take out part of the theory. Hardly surprising is it?

It's also hardly surprising that your metaphysical theory is capable of predicting everything we've observed because it's been postdicted to those observations from the very start. There was never any real "prediction" that came from Lambda theory like there was with EU/PC theory. Birkeland PREDICTED things based in his experiments that were not even related to his original theory. That's a real "prediction". Lamdba theory has failed every prediction and then it's been modified to fit after the fact.

A we're back to the religious strawmen are we. Properties are assigned that match observation, predictions are made that largely agree with observation. Maybe the theory is tweaked a little. This is whats known to scientists as scientific progress. You seem incapable of discriminating between scientific progress and relgion. Why am I not surprised?

If you think inflation isn't religion, it's that that have a problem discriminating between science and religion. Inflation is an "act of faith". It has no tangible effect on nature today. It is without a doubt a form of "religion" because it lacks empirical "qualification". It's failed to "predict" anything.

I can safely say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Like I said, inflation doesn't like being anthropomorphisized. Could we pleased stick to reality here?

Pffft. Inflation was "made up" from the very start by a human being who was "stumped". It's a lot harder to swallow the supernatural talents of the inflation powers than to simply accept a bit few anthropromophic qualities related to awareness. At least I know for a fact that awareness exists in nature!

Well you could read the papers you were providing earlier. Then you wouldn't have to take things on faith.

Yes, I do. Your math isn't evidence that inflation exists in nature. In fact inflation does *not* now exist in nature even if it ever actually did exist in nature. I can therefore safely ignore it as it relates to any branch of "empirical science". I have to have "faith" that it "once existed" based on a series of postdicted formulas that has a failure rate of 100%. Only the most recent one fits anything correctly, except of course it failed to predict those "dark flows", so that one is a failure too.

A real "prediction" is something "new" that comes from your experiments. Birekland's "predictions" of solar wind, and jets and coronal loops came from his "experiments" that were not even originally related to his theories about aurora. They were "related" only by the flow of current required, and it was the flow of current and his "experimental process" that actually came up with real "predictions" that can be verified using today's technologies. That's an actual "prediction".

A string of failed models that failed to "predict" any new observations and were then modified to then fit again is not an actual "prediction", it's a "postdiction". Lambda theory has been a miserable failure at "predicting" anything. That's why we now have 'dark energy' stuffed in there along with inflation.

 

[sol invictus]

At least they *can* be falsified, unlike inflation theory that survives even when "dark flows" have demonstrated that it has no predictive value at all, and it's key predictions are falsified.

I love this quote: inflation isn't predictive, and its key predictions have been falsified. All in one sentence...

In other words, your dogma *must* be right so the observation must be wrong.

Yes, in other words which say something totally different than what I said.

Nothing, no new observation, no new piece of information could ever falsify inflation.

I see. That's odd, because I just gave you several examples of how it could be. But I guess you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a certain Michael Mozina, who just said inflation's "key predictions are falsified".

Carry on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Am I the only one who thinks MM is giving in here and may be ready to leave cosmolgy to the cosmolgies? That way MM can concentrate on his specialty, everything from the edge of the solar system down to Walmart.

By the time I have everything from the heliosphere to Walmart figured out using PC/EU theory, what use will I have for inflation at that point in time?

The key point is that inflation does not exist. For purposes of all branches of science, including what happens inside our solar system today, I can safely ignore it and treat it as non existent. The only "theory' based on the "hypothesis" of "inflation" and the "hypothesis" of "dark energy" is Lambda theory. That's a clear sign that Lambda theory is also unnecessary and irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I love this quote: inflation isn't predictive, and its key predictions have been falsified. All in one sentence...

That's right. Lambda theory is all "postdicted" to fit and it's always wrong. It's also a great example of a moving goalpost. When inflation doesn't explain acceleration, throw in dark energy. When those "dark flows" show up that weren't predicted to exist, ignore them. Any actual "predictions" of inflation were all falsified somewhere along the way and new "posdictions" popped up to take their place. The newer ones have "dark energy". The next generation will undoubtedly include "dark flows". Inflation has always been based entirely on 'postdiction", not "prediction".

 

[Ziggurat]

No, but they are all related. There's a big difference here in how EU/PC theory began vs. today's most popular cosmology theory. Birkeland started in a lab, and he started with attempting to explain something he could observe on Earth. It's a "grass roots" form of "empirical physics". He didn't just point at the sky and claim "dark energy did it and here's the math to prove it". He looked for KNOWN forces of nature as a solution *before* jumping to any outrageous conclusions. He build real working models of his ideas, including control mechanisms and everything. He compared his theories to his lab work and the in-situ measurements he took of the aurora.

Yeah, well, news flash: none of Birkeland's experiments test cosmology.

By the way EU/PC theory has a BB theory of it's own and Alfvens's big bang theory is a *lot* more acceptable to me than yours. It's not "perfect" of course, but it's not unfalsifiable like Lambda theory.

And what, pray tell, do you think would falsify it? Well, let's think: he requires a super-hot state for his proposed ambiplasma. But the universe isn't super-hot. Furthermore, we should be awash in cosmic radiation of energies characteristic of proton-antiproton and electron-antielectron annihilation, but we aren't. So yeah, I guess his theory is falsifiable, and provably so because it's already been falsified.

Why wouldn't I expect our solar system to be connected to the whole cosmos?

Will rolling balls down inclined planes tell me how the solar winds form? Will it tell me about whether or not the universe is infinitely old? No, it won't. But those balls and ramps are just as much a part of the cosmos as our solar system. Your reasoning is absurd.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, well, news flash: none of Birkeland's experiments test cosmology.

Maybe not your brand of "cosmology" perhaps, but certainly his experiments test core and important tenets of PC/EU theory. You are welcome to treat individual stars as not a part of cosmology if you like, but that really seems pointless since the whole of the cosmos is composed of these stars. Understanding how they function is pretty much critical if we intend to understand how they function together. Birkeland's solar wind discharge theories were critical predictions of EU theory. The fact we observe them in space and measure them in-situ is a critical "prediction" of his work. If that part did not fly, EU theory wouldn't fly either. Alfven used similar techniques, just a different solar model. Either way, no solar wind, no EU theory. How it's all wired together is also of interest of course, but the first step in real "understanding" begins with understanding our own solar system and how it functions and how it is wired to the rest of the universe.

And what, pray tell, do you think would falsify it?

It would falsify EU/PC theory. In other words, EU/PC theory didn't just pop out of someone's wild imagination. It popped out, evidently quite surprisingly according to Birkeland, during his experiments. While changing the control variables, he stumbled across key observations that we also observe in the atmosphere of our own sun. He wrote about them and thought them to be quite important. He "predicted" a universe of flying electrons and flying ions, not the sterile universe envisioned by Chapman. The mainstream clung to Chapman's math till satellites in space pried it from their cold dead fingers. For 60 years they ignored Birkeland's work, and still today they ignore huge parts of it.

Unlike you cosmology theories, EU theory can actually be falsified by in-situ measurements. It doesn't have any "free passes" or get any breaks when it comes to empirical physics. It has to work in a lab. It does work in a lab, and it works in space and I can see that for myself thanks to modern technologies.

Well, let's think: he requires a super-hot state for his proposed ambiplasma. But the universe isn't super-hot.

How hot is the heliosphere?

Furthermore, we should be awash in cosmic radiation of energies characteristic of proton-antiproton and electron-antielectron annihilation, but we aren't.

That depends on where you expect to find the ambiplasma interactions.
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMKTX2MDAF_index_0.html
And it depends of course how how one 'interprets' uncontrolled observations.

So yeah, I guess his theory is falsifiable, and provably so because it's already been falsified.

How so?

Will rolling balls down inclined planes tell me how the solar winds form?

I suppose it demonstrates *a* way that you might chose to explain it, but since gravity would certainly make them all roll back toward the sun, it can't work that way.

In Birkeland's case, it can and *does* occur as the result of charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.