How can you possibly not *understand* my position at this point in the conversation?
Because I find that your use of language is pretty incoherent and inconsistent.
This thread and the PC woo or not one have quite a few posts which consist, at least in part, of explicit examples of just this (quoting your own words, as you posted them in these threads, to boot).
No. You never should have stuffed "dark energy" in there to begin with. You could have picked anything in nature to stuff in there, but not something you simply "made up".
To quote ben m*: lather, wash, rinse, repeat.
Willful ignorance may be amusing to some, but I find it distasteful.
Well, if you could show it is related to EM fields, then why not? Why leave 75% of your theory "unexplained"?
Annoying habits do die hard, don't they?
If you wish to posit a known force of nature as the *cause of lambda*, I'm ok with it conceptually. If you stuff it with invisible unicorns I'm going to squeal like a stuck pig.
Well, GR is not, repeat NOT, "
a known force of nature", but the EFE do contain lambda ... so I guess you are therefore "
ok with it conceptually" (for avoidance of doubt, the EFE cannot be described as "invisible unicorns" (except, maybe, by you).
That would be acceptable, yes.
Invisible dead unicorns in a math formula is "woo", yes.
Does it follows, logically, that since no modern cosmological models contain "
invisible dead unicorns in [their] math formula[e]", they are not scientific woo, by the MM criterion?
I can't really say. I don't understand the theory all that well. I seems a lot like a quantum field theory or an aether theory of sorts to me. It looks about equally 'untestable", although I have no idea about the falsification possibilities as it relates to QM.
Cool!
Ya, that and the fact that I know which individual made up the woo, and th woo doesn't even fit right in the *ONLY* theory that needs it to survive.
Huh?
So there is an additional criterion, in the MM view of cosmology, that comes into play when judging whether an idea is scientific woo or not? And that criterion is (something like) "I, MM, do not approve of the person who first published this idea"?
The second part - "
th woo doesn't even fit right in the *ONLY* theory that needs it to survive" - I do not understand at all; can you clarify please?
Sure. I've also seen the way it has been "tested" thus far, and I've seen all the modifications that have been done over the years.
It seems, then, that you are better informed on this that I.
May I ask you to please, in a few words, summarise what you understand to be the three (say) most impactful, or memorable, or dramatic "
modifications that have been done over the years"?
It's "hypothetical" to be sure, but nobody is claiming that it can *never* be found in an actual experiment. It's premature to be stuffing a "hypothetical, nonstandard particle physics theory"into your equations, but that particular "fudge factor" is the least of your worries IMO. The fact it *might* be falsifiable or verifiable in LHC gives in an "aire" of credibility. If there was truth in advertising however, since your theory is based on *three* "hypothetical" entities, it should be called the Lambda-CMD "hypothesis" at *best* case.
But it was you, wasn't it, who attached the word "theory" to it?
I mean, most times I've called it something like "the concordance model" or "LCDM cosmological models", and I think my usage is fairly typical (while yours is very much non-standard).
On top of that, don't we have another ben m moment here (hint: inflations)?
I personally find it repugnant that you need a hypothetical entity in the first place, but as I said, it's only a "hypothesis" that *could be* verified or falsified. Woo can't be verified or falsified in a controlled experiment.
So, your personal feelings aside, even within the MM view of cosmology, CDM is only borderline scientific woo, and could easily become perfectly acceptable to you, per your stated criteria?
The only cosmology theory I have any interest in today is PC/EU theory.
Indeed, whatever that may or may not be ...
Unlike mainstream cosmology theories, it's not useless at predicting events inside of the solar system as Birkeland demonstrated over 100 years ago. It's obviously in it's infancy, and it definitely lacks the mathematical maturity and elegance of current theory, but it works in a lab and it works in space. I can clearly see that EM fields accelerate solar wind as Birkeland predicted and simulated in his lab. I can see those "coronal loops" he predicted and imaged in his lab. I see those jets flying off the sun just as he predicted. His work has real experimental predictive value, whereas inflation is dead, useless to physics today, and doesn't even work right in the only theory that requires or depends on it.
All of that may be so, or it may not (I note that there are a whole bunch of questions to you about this, most of which haven't been answered yet).
But surely your personal preferences re cosmology are beside the point wrt the question that is the title of this thread? I mean, whether a theory/model/whatever is acceptable to you, or preferred by you, or whatever, is independent of whether it's scientific woo or not, isn't it? And, per this post of yours that I'm quoting, even by MM's criteria, the contemporary concordance model(s) is not scientific woo, is it?
*
I think it was ben m; if not, could I ask that a diligent reader set the record straight?
