Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[sol invictus]

I guess you feel the need to brainwash them early on eh? The "real" universe (the physical one) is *full* of energy. In the real world of empirical physics, there is no "dark evil energy", or inflation. These are figments of your wild imagination, along with your belief that an accelerating galaxy has zero energy. Hoy, what a weird and self conflicted cult.

Yep - Einstein, Newton, Feynman, every physics book in existence, every physicist in the world - they're all wrong. You, Michael Mozina - and only you - know what is true. If only they would stop suppressing you out of fear of your powerful ideas and recognize your greatness!

You're a delusional crank. Your kind is a dime a dozen on the internet - you're not even rated "crankiest" on that list of quack websites.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You obviously don't hear me since you are again saying it is me doing things I haven't done... again.

I keep slipping a "you" in there damnit!

Alright. I officially owe you a least one beer, and a beer from here on out for every time I do that to you. Statements to anyone else do not count by the way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So again you kust pick and choose the words you like and you refuse to learn.

Gravity is a negative energy, wether you agree or not that is the common idiom.

Common idiom?

But please since your theories are worthless keep pretending that you know something.

Birkeland's theories empirically (the old fashion way) "predicted" (actual prediction) coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc, things the mainstream *still* can't explain.

Answer the question, what makes two objects with inertial mass atracted to each other?

Gravity.

(I agree that the nomenclature of negative energy is counter intuitive.)

It's not only counter intuitive, it's erroneous. The universe is absolutely *filled* with energy. We observe photons at all different energy wavelengths. We observe neutrinos, cosmic rays, million mile per hour solar wind. Were it not for this release of energy, our planet would be cold, nothing would live, and you and I would not be having this conversation. You can do dumb things with math, including claiming (and probably coming up with a math formula to show it) that the universe has zero energy, even while it is expanding, but that is some bogus virtual world that does not exist. This crowd is fixated on math to the utter exclusion of actual physics. It has somehow convinced itself that an accelerating universe has zero energy, and inflation and dark energy are real, whereas EM fields have no predictable effects on anything in space, in spite of Birkeland's empirical experiments to the contrary.

This is the danger of a math cult the ignores real physics. If you don't pay attention to the actual physics of the physical world around you, you might even convince yourself an expanding accelerating universe has no energy, but if you simply step out into the sunshine tomorrow, I assure you that you will feel the warmth of the energy that the sun releases on a regular basis and gravity won't take that energy away from you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes it does. And rather explicitly so. That's rather the whole point of the distinction between special relativity and general relativity: special relativity is what you get in a gravity-free environment. If gravity is weak enough, you can work the mechanics as if it didn't exist, but special relativity does not deal with gravity. That's why it's special relativity and not general relativity: the gravity-free case is a special case.

I don't believe this debate about "negative energy" (whatever that is?) is in any way related to the difference between SR and GR, but rather what you are *choosing* to do with GR in a very subjective way, much like the inflation/DE additions.

Not at all. When the volume integral of the electric field squared increases, our potential energy has increased.

Ok.

When the volume integral of the gravitational field squared increases, our potential energy has decreased.

"Decreased" does not mean "negative", it simply means "decreased" as in not yet zero, but less than what it was.

And that is true regardless of where you want to put your zero.

Um, I don't think so.

In Newtonian mechanics, yes. In GR, no.

It is still the same *physical* universe, and it there is energy in this universe regardless of what math formula you wish to use. GR does no *insist* that the energy of the universe is always zero. You're making that up. You're living in an accelerating universe, so how could it possibly have "zero" energy and also "accelerate"? You aren't even making sense. You're using Lambda-CDM theory to "fit a power curve" in fact. How can you fit a power curve with in a universe with no energy?

Your assignment of positive potential energy is itself arbitrary.

No it's not. The universe has energy or you and I would not be here today discussing it. Your assignment of anything being 'negative energy' would be utterly arbitrary. What is "negative energy" in physical terms?

What's wrong with having negative potentials?

They don't apply here in this case or in the real *physical* universe. You're simply changing the frame of reference and arbitrarily making it "negative" to try to justify some "free lunch" theory that violates the laws of conservation of energy! This universe is absolutely *full* of energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Heat.

From what? What emits that specific wavelength of photon? I know how valence shells of atoms accomplish this feat.

 

[Skwinty]

From what? What emits that specific wavelength of photon? I know how valence shells of atoms accomplish this feat.

I would think that the answer is, we don't know, as this condition existed before the bang and clearly no one knows anything about the pre big bang.

 

[Skwinty]

More questions???

I have just read "Do redshifted cosmological photons really violate the principal of energy conservation?" Alasdair Macleod. I have a hardcopy so no link.

He has been published on arXiv.

My questions are:

Are the following statements valid.

1. GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation.
2. By projecting cosmological observations into flat spacetime and using SR, the laws of conservation are restored.


Another relevant, IMO, pearl in the paper.

"It is hard to get away from the notion that the universe is a unified structure in space and time and our problems in comprehension arise because the photon exchange mechanism grants us limited access to the Whole, much less that is necessary to understand the dynamics of the universe. Our theories and equations are then simply an expression of our limited vision.

If this is true, an empirical-inductive approach to theory building is doomed to failure and we can never create a comprehensible model for our universe. There is however no reason why the hypothetico-deductive method cannot be applied to produce an abstract mathematical description that completely matches observation"

 

[sol invictus]

GR does no *insist* that the energy of the universe is always zero. You're making that up. You're living in an accelerating universe, so how could it possibly have "zero" energy and also "accelerate"? You aren't even making sense.

This is really boring, and it doesn't convince anyone - because it's patently obvious that you're simply using the word "energy" in a non-technical (and wrong, in a physics context) sense.

From what? What emits that specific wavelength of photon? I know how valence shells of atoms accomplish this feat.

Who said anything about a specific wavelength?

The universe is full of radiation. In fact there is something like a billion photons per proton in the universe today. Those photons do not all have the same wavelength - they have a spectrum that is extremely close to a blackbody spectrum.

As you go back in time that spectrum blueshifts - increases in energy. Go back far enough and the temperature becomes high enough to ionize all matter, at which point the matter goes into equilibrium at that temperature as well. Go back still further and you can more or less forget about matter entirely, since the energy in the radiation becomes much, much larger than it.

I would think that the answer is, we don't know, as this condition existed before the bang and clearly no one knows anything about the pre big bang.

No. See above.

Are the following statements valid.

1. GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation.

No. Almost the opposite - energy conservation follows immediately from the defining principle of GR.

2. By projecting cosmological observations into flat spacetime and using SR, the laws of conservation are restored.

Since the law of conservation was never violated, the statement makes no sense. So no.

 

[Dancing David]

So this has pretty much descended to the usuall PC stuff, no data, no model no observations, no ability to relate model to observations, just objections to semantics and philosophy.

As I said all MM meeds to add is the dig at Darwin to get the trifecta.


MM will you answer the questions i asked in the Plasma Cosmology thread, the ones about the iron sun model, or will you admit that you mechanism contradicts itself?
(The question about why the heliosphere does not repel positive ions.)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4472450&postcount=1418

 

[sol invictus]

I have just read "Do redshifted cosmological photons really violate the principal of energy conservation?" Alasdair Macleod. I have a hardcopy so no link.

He has been published on arXiv.

First off, there's no such thing as being "published on arxiv" - anyone can put a paper there, there's no transfer of copyright, and there's no peer review. It's a bulletin board, not a publisher.

Second, here's a list of his publications: http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/M/A_Macleod (the top and bottom ones aren't him).

Notice three things:

a) every single one is by him and him alone,

b) every single one is unpublished, and moreover appeared on the physics subcategory of arxiv. The arxiv does have some minimal editing - physics is where they put crank papers,

c) not one has any references or citations.

All three of those things (especially the last two) are very strong crank indicators.

 

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Skwinty
Are the following statements valid.

1. GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation.


sol invictus No. Almost the opposite - energy conservation follows immediately from the defining principle of GR.


2. By projecting cosmological observations into flat spacetime and using SR, the laws of conservation are restored.


sol invictus Since the law of conservation was never violated, the statement makes no sense. So no.


Does this mean that the paper I quoted is not even wrong, he even included a mathematical proof.

Why do arXiv approve papers like this for publication if they are so erroneous.


http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511178.pdf



ABSTRACT:
Although the Universe is far from understood, we are fairly confident about some key features: Special Relativity (SR) describes the kinematics of inertial frames; General Relativity (GR) explains gravitation; the Universe had a beginning in time and has been expanding since. Nevertheless it is quite difficult to see the ‘big picture’, although the idea of applying GR to the entire Universe has been very successful with a model emerging that is consistent with observation. One unpleasant feature of the model is that cosmological photons appear not to conserve energy, and the only explanation forthcoming is the claim that GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation. It is demonstrated here that cosmological observations may legitimately be projected onto flat spacetime and can then be treated Special Relativistically, whereupon energy conservation is restored. This is not to say that the concordance General Relativistic cosmological model is incorrect, just that in observational terms there is no energy conservation anomaly.

 

[Skwinty]

Point taken.
I was busy posting so missed your last post.

Thanks

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

* you didn't answer my question on why inflation was unacceptable because of some character flaw of Guth's.

I *absolutely* do not blame Guth (et. all) for having an imagination or for writing about his/their ideas. I blame your industry for being so damn gullible and so arrogant. There is no "free lunch". I have never met Alan Guth. I"m sure he's a very nice guy. It has nothing to do with Guth's character it's his *ideas* I don't much care for. What I ultimately resent most however is this attitude that it is "better than" any other cosmology theory. It's not "better than" EU/PC theory because Lambda theory is completely "fabricated". EU/PC theory made real "predictions" from real experiments with real control mechanisms starting with Birkeland. He understood things that your whole industry still hasn't figured out 100 years later because they spend all their time *not* doing actual *science* but instead they point at the sky with math and play "make believe" with inflation faeries and dark evil energy. I want my tax dollars to be spent on something related to actual "science" with real "experiments" and real "control mechanisms". I want you folks to figure out solar wind and coronal loops before you start wasting money postdicting a dark energy gnome.

OK, let's see now ...

Extract from post #818:

because you believe that no aspect of inflation can ever be tested in an Earthly lab, in a controlled experiment - even in principle - is it, by MM definition, scientific woo.

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.

(bold added)

To which I replied: "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"?"

It is this question you did not answer (or if you did, I couldn't find it).

Is this, perhaps, yet another example of MM inconsistency?

Or did you mean something quite different, in post #818, than what you wrote?

(I'll comment on the rest of this post of yours that I'm quoting later).

 

[Michael Mozina]

So this has pretty much descended to the usuall PC stuff,

It really has nothing to do with "PC stuff" per se. Your theory should stand on it's own merits regardless of the validity of any other theory.

no data,

It is you that have no empirical data to demonstrate that inflation or DE have any effect on anything in nature. Again, it is irrelevant what I might personally prefer in terms of cosmology theories, it is you that must demonstrate your case via empirical physics. It's not my fault you chose to put your faith in a dead deity that has no effect on nature today. It was your choice to accept that weird idea, not mine.

no model no observations, no ability to relate model to observations, just objections to semantics and philosophy.

Actually, it's you that are left with only philosophy in the final analysis, because there is no empirical justification for you faith. It's all an arbitrary curve fitting exercise with math and somehow you think the universe has zero energy! I mean this is indeed only a philosophical argument in the end, because you don't have a physical leg to stand on in the realm of empirical physics where energy surrounds you and blows right through you.

As I said all MM meeds to add is the dig at Darwin to get the trifecta.

If you folks were creationists, you would be a trifecta alright. According to your theory.,

1) There is no energy in the universe
2) Inflation and dark evil energies abound
3) The inflation deity created the superluminal heavens and the earth and then rested.

MM will you answer the questions i asked in the Plasma Cosmology thread, the ones about the iron sun model, or will you admit that you mechanism contradicts itself?

The mechanisms cannot 'contradict themselves', they work in a lab. I'll go back to that discussion when I'm done with this one, but my time is not unlimited and I'm still catching up on reading materials from Tim and from DRD. I've learned it's necessary at times to pick my battles and this seems to be the first necessary topic of conversation. I can't even really get into the "physics" until you folks start to accept that we live inside a *positive energy environment".

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't believe this debate about "negative energy" (whatever that is?) is in any way related to the difference between SR and GR, but rather what you are *choosing* to do with GR in a very subjective way, much like the inflation/DE additions.

Well, you're wrong. Which, again, isn't in the least bit surprising. You don't even seem to realize that gravity is the ENTIRE difference between SR and GR.

"Decreased" does not mean "negative", it simply means "decreased" as in not yet zero, but less than what it was.

But it must mean negative, because there is no lower limit (in contrast, there is an upper limit). This is freshman physics, and you're failing even after your mistakes are pointed out to you. Unless you want to define gravitational potential as always being infinitely positive (which, really, is unworkable), then it MUST be able to go negative. So if it can sometimes be negative (and again, this MUST be a possibility), what's wrong with having it always negative? The only problem is it offends your sensibilities. You have no other objection. Certainly you cannot point to any physical consequence of gravitational potential being negative which is contradicted by any experiment.

Um, I don't think so.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Try it: do the volume integral for the field squared for two infinitely separated identical massive spheres (high gravitational potential), and then for those same two spheres overlapping each other (low gravitational potential). What happens to that integral? It's larger in the second case, exactly like I said, and completely independent of where we want our zero defined - hell, we didn't define our zero at all in this case. So you are quite simply wrong. Don't believe me? Do the math. If you can. But I doubt you can.

It is still the same *physical* universe, and it there is energy in this universe regardless of what math formula you wish to use.

And what, exactly, do you think energy is? It's not some substance, you know. We cannot measure energy directly. All we have is the math formulas. That's the entire point, actually: the math formulas tell us something important, namely that there's this mathematically defined quantity which doesn't change. There's absolutely no requirement that its total be nonzero.

You're using Lambda-CDM theory

This is getting really annoying: once again, I'm not using Lambda-CDM theory at all. So stop this pathetic attempt at a diversion.

The universe has energy or you and I would not be here today discussing it.

That's an unsupported claim.

Your assignment of anything being 'negative energy' would be utterly arbitrary.

Not at all. In simple terms, it comes from the fact that gravity is unique in having like charges attract.

What is "negative energy" in physical terms?

This too I already told you: it's simply the fact that the volume integral of the field squared increases as our potential decreases. This is only true for gravity. For all other forces, it's the other way around. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

They don't apply here in this case or in the real *physical* universe.

Nonsense. You have yet to formulate ANY real objection to negative potentials. You keep saying that it's unphysical, but you can't actually say why. It offends your sensibilities, but then, your sensibilities about the physical world are absurd to begin with, as evidenced by your iron shell model of the sun, and your ridiculous comparison of that model to water bubbles in freefall.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is really boring, and it doesn't convince anyone - because it's patently obvious that you're simply using the word "energy" in a non-technical (and wrong, in a physics context) sense.

LOL! You are the one who is utterly *abusing* the term "energy" here. Look in the mirror my friend. The real physical universe we live it is an immense sea of "positive energy' in the form of flowing particles, like neutrinos and photons, electrons and ions of all kinds. There is no part of this universe that does not contain energy.

You're arbitrarily playing with the reference point only to evidently justify what amounts to a "poof" theory, where a whole universe "inflates" out of nothing and has no energy. This has to be the single weirdest religion on the planet.

Who said anything about a specific wavelength?

I did. I want to know exactly what started to radiate photons, and how exactly it came to do so. A "black body" is mathematical device, it isn't real. In the real world atoms release energy in very specific wavelengths that are related to their internal structures. Moving electrons can release photons in a unique way as well. "Nothing" doesn't emit photons.

The universe is full of radiation.

So it cannot possibly have "zero energy"!

In fact there is something like a billion photons per proton in the universe today.

But the universe has no energy? What?

Those photons do not all have the same wavelength - they have a spectrum that is extremely close to a blackbody spectrum.

So what? Our own sun has pretty much a "black body spectrum" at 6000K. The concept of a "black body" is actually a mathematical device. In the real world however, atoms emit photons at very specific wavelengths which is how we identify particularly ions and atoms in space.

As you go back in time that spectrum blueshifts - increases in energy. Go back far enough and the temperature becomes high enough to ionize all matter, at which point the matter goes into equilibrium at that temperature as well. Go back still further and you can more or less forget about matter entirely, since the energy in the radiation becomes much, much larger than it.

As you go backwards in time, you're still emitting photons from atoms and things with mass which would crush themselves together and form an event horizon and that would be that.
Only by evoking your inflation deity can your mythos overcome that crushing curvature of real "spacetime".

No. Almost the opposite - energy conservation follows immediately from the defining principle of GR.

True. The conservation laws also insist that energy was neither created or destroyed. It may change "forms", but the energy in our universe today predated the event. There has never been a "zero" energy state, ever.

Since the law of conservation was never violated, the statement makes no sense. So no.

The only thing that makes no sense in you claiming the universe has zero energy and it expands. That is absurd. The universe has positive energy and it continues to have positive energy as you rewind time. It has never had 'zero' energy! Gah. Without any doubt, Lambda theory is the weirdest religion ever!

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, let's see now ...

Extract from post #818:
(bold added)

To which I replied: "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"?"

You know, your debate style really doesn't work well in this sort of environment when it's your own beliefs in question. Do you personally really believe the universe has 'zero' energy by the way?

As I explained to you already, I don't blame anyone for being creative. I blame your industry from being gullible and arrogant. Not only is Lambda theory based on 3 hypothetical entities, you also insist on *excluding* other forms of cosmology theory from consideration! They somehow all have to be judged by exactly the same set of criteria you set forth, or you refuse to hear them. Look at BAUT! You folks literally act like a cult and exclude the discussion of empirical physics beyond 30 days, and that's it. How could anyone "compete", when the whole thing gets only 30 days of consideration? The only way you people keep people in line is by virtually executing all dissent. Even most religious websites are not nearly as oppressive as this industry.

Your search for inconsistencies in my beliefs only demonstrates to me that your own beliefs simply don't hold up to scrutiny. The universe has lots of energy folks. We would be here if it did not. This is the strangest, most backwards, most oppressive cult on the planet. You attempt to rule by fear and intimidation, and since you can't empirically demonstrate any of it, it's always the messengers fault for not being able to "see things your way". It's all an act of faith in zero energy nonsense.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Whatever. I'm still blown away by the notion that you think the whole universe has no energy or that gravity has "negative energy". What the hell *is* negative energy? You have a universe *full* of energy all around you. Wake up and smell the coffee. [...]

The laws of conservation of energy *insist* that the energy inside this universe was neither created nor destroyed in any event. Period. Gravity is not "negative energy" and it never will be. There is a direct correlation between mass and energy and the universe is full of both.

Hmm ...

I wonder who wrote the following words?

"I accept GR as taught by Einstein."
(Hint: post #370 in this thread)

So, in GR "as taught by Einstein", can gravity be "negative energy"? can the whole (observable) universe have no energy?

May I ask if you have studied GR, as taught by Einstein, MM? If so, what papers (etc) of his did you use as your primary sources?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You know, your debate style really doesn't work well in this sort of environment when it's your own beliefs in question.

AOHDH (annoying old habits die hard).

Do you personally really believe the universe has 'zero' energy by the way?

Our last two posts crossed ...

As I explained to you already, I don't blame anyone for being creative. I blame your industry from being gullible and arrogant.

Yes, you did.

And you also said "Ya, that and the fact that I know which individual made up the woo", in reply to my comment "because you believe that no aspect of inflation can ever be tested in an Earthly lab, in a controlled experiment - even in principle - is it, by MM definition, scientific woo".

IOW, there is an additional MM criterion for judging whether something (in cosmology) is scientific woo or not, namely, some (implied) character flaw of Guth (and any others who had a hand in developing the concept of inflation).

I mean, what else could you have possibly meant by the phrase I have bolded?

Not only is Lambda theory based on 3 hypothetical entities,

Lather, wash, rinse, repeat.

you also insist on *excluding* other forms of cosmology theory from consideration!

AOHDH.

In the other thread (PC woo or not), I concluded that PC, as presented by Z, quoting Lerner, was the very definition of scientific woo, because it declared - by fiat - that GR could not, should not, and never would be acceptable if applied to the universe as a whole.

I personally have not excluded any other cosmological theories, models, whatever from consideration ... though I must say that the case that EU/PC theory (or is it EU theory?), as defined by MM in this thread, is scientific woo is quite strong, if only because it is incoherent or inconsistent.

They somehow all have to be judged by exactly the same set of criteria you set forth, or you refuse to hear them. Look at BAUT! You folks literally act like a cult and exclude the discussion of empirical physics beyond 30 days, and that's it. How could anyone "compete", when the whole thing gets only 30 days of consideration? The only way you people keep people in line is by virtually executing all dissent. Even most religious websites are not nearly as oppressive as this industry.

AOHDH.

Your search for inconsistencies in my beliefs only demonstrates to me that your own beliefs simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

Is this not a pretty clear-cut case of the logical fallacy known as false dichotomy? Or perhaps some other logical fallacy?

The universe has lots of energy folks. We would be here if it did not. This is the strangest, most backwards, most oppressive cult on the planet. You attempt to rule by fear and intimidation, and since you can't empirically demonstrate any of it, it's always the messengers fault for not being able to "see things your way". It's all an act of faith in zero energy nonsense.

I'm looking forward to learning which of Einstein's papers (etc) you used in your study of GR.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I am not familiar enough with the physics involved to comment on the concept of negative energy from the perspective of cosmology. However, in general, the concept of any quantity in nature being negative is one of convention from the perspective of the mathematics used. It all depends on where one puts zero. Negative points on the real line are just as valid as positive points. Similarly, any quantity that can be increased or decreased can have a negative value at some point, which will depend on where one assigns zero. It's that simple.
I can place an object on a table and decide to assign its gravitational potential energy at zero. If I raise it a few feet I can now decide it has a positive energy . If I lower it under the table it will now have a negative energy (in my coordinate system). I have no doubt that valid results can be obtained in doing physics using this convention. The fact that the energy is negative under the table has no mystical meaning; it's merely a way of doing the math.