Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Just like Mozplasma, a Mozode, and Moztronium, eh?

You guys make up stuff as you go. All I need is "current flow". You need three new forms of mass and energy! Fail!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You evidently never read it.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That seems to be directly related to your unwillingness to read or respond to any of the materials I have provided. Did you ever even sit down and read Birkeland's work after all these years of playing the role of Grand EU Inquisitor keeping you honest?

Fixed that for you.

Yep read it, except for some of the tables.

Don't you remember the exchanges of posts we had? The ones where I asked you about some of the math in the tomes (and you didn't even acknowledge my posts, let alone respond)? About how you could, so confidently, extrapolate from photographs taken, in the visual waveband, of a largish object in a soft vacuum to data reconstructed as images, taken in the soft X-ray band, of features in a hard vacuum hundreds of thousands of km in size?

I also read the comments of RC, Tim Thompson, tusenfem, and others who have also read the work, and who also - like me - failed to understand how you could possibly conclude that Birkeland had a "cathode solar theory".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You evidently never read it thoroughly.

Fixed that for you.

Yep read it, except for some of the tables.

Don't you remember the exchanges of posts we had? The ones where I asked you about some of the math in the tomes (and you didn't even acknowledge my posts, let alone respond)? About how you could, so confidently, extrapolate from photographs taken, in the visual waveband, of a largish object in a soft vacuum to data reconstructed as images, taken in the soft X-ray band, of features in a hard vacuum hundreds of thousands of km in size?

I also read the comments of RC, Tim Thompson, tusenfem, and others who have also read the work, and who also - like me - failed to understand how you could possibly conclude that Birkeland had a "cathode solar theory".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You guys make up stuff as you go. All I need is "current flow" Mozode, Mozplasma, Mozwind, Mozcharge, and Mozeparation.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fixed that for you.

Everything on your list relates right back to "current flow" DRD. It's the one thing that you *REFUSE* to consider or accept. It's the pseudoscientific-religious equivalent of "satan" in your little cult. Hey look it acts as a Mozode (cathode), ionizes plasma (MoPlasma), creates solar wind acceleration (Mowind), creates a Mocharge, and causes plasma separation. One simply *KNOWN* force of nature fixes all of my problems. You could probably fix that "unknown acceleration" with some electricity too, but then that would be heresy in your religion.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If a theist told me that "dark evil energy Mozeparation did it", I would want to see empirical evidence to support that claim. Likewise when you say "dark energy Mozcharge did it" I expect exactly the same from you as I would expect from the theist. If you or the theist cannot demonstrate that dark evil energies the Mozode, Mozcharge, and Mozeparation did it, via standard empirical physics, how is that my personal fault?

Fixed that for you.

So, you'll be providing empirical evidence, via standard empirical physics, sometime soon?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fixed that for you.

Yep read it, except for some of the tables.

Don't you remember the exchanges of posts we had? The ones where I asked you about some of the math in the tomes (and you didn't even acknowledge my posts, let alone respond)? About how you could, so confidently, extrapolate from photographs taken, in the visual waveband, of a largish object in a soft vacuum to data reconstructed as images, taken in the soft X-ray band, of features in a hard vacuum hundreds of thousands of km in size?

I also read the comments of RC, Tim Thompson, tusenfem, and others who have also read the work, and who also - like me - failed to understand how you could possibly conclude that Birkeland had a "cathode solar theory".

That's because you don't want to acknowledge the rest of his work DRD. It's denial city for you at this point because anything else hurts your case. If you even admit that Birkeland espoused a cathode solar model it hurts your case. You therefore ignore his life's work, pretend *I PERSONALLY* came up with the idea and then GM pretends to defend his good name while calling him a Bozo. You guys are *SO* out there at this point, you refuse to acknowledge the rest of Birkeland's solar system theories. It's all denial, denial, and more pure denial from your side of the aisle.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fixed that for you.

So, you'll be providing empirical evidence, via standard empirical physics, sometime soon?

Birkeland already did all of that for you, but you'd have to accept his cathode solar model, and you won't do that.

 

[edd]

IMO the only reason EU/PC theory isn't "in the running" is because your industry is too busy playing with metaphysical friends, and too busy to notice empirical solutions. Birkeland already "predicted" things like solar wind acceleration, solar jets, coronal loop activity, etc. Once you folks get your collective head out of the metaphysical sand, EU theory will do fine IMO.

It's just getting you to let go of your trio of metaphysical security blankets that is tricky.

If you produce a model that describes observations better, it becomes undeniable. Make real hard cosmological predictions, and show they fit better. It's not actually that hard, it's pretty routine in how we compare the range of theoretical models (going beyond LCDM in a range of ways that are seriously considered) to observation.

It's not some personal decision I make, nor is it, despite you saying 'IMO', actually in your opinion. Just compare your model to LCDM and show the numbers come out better.

Where are your predictions of the measurements that LCDM does so well in predicting?

 

[Reality Check]

Birkeland already did all of that for you, but you'd have to accept his cathode solar model, and you won't do that.

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Everything on your list relates right back to "current flow" DRD.

It does?

What is ""current flow""?

Hey look it acts as a Mozode (cathode)

Um, no.

A cathode emits only electrons; a Mozode emits electrons and protons, in equal number.

, ionizes plasma (MoPlasma)

But, no matter what the ""current flow"", tens of thousands of km of dense Mozplasma is transparent, in the VUV and EUV wavebands; an equally dense plasma, composed of some 20 elements, is not.

, creates solar wind acceleration (Mowind)

Nope, not in any lab on Earth, nor in any simulation (unless, of course, you can point to both "Empirical Experimentation" and "Numerical Prediction"; can you?)

, creates a Mocharge

Nope, not in any lab on Earth, nor in any simulation (unless, of course, you can point to both "Empirical Experimentation" and "Numerical Prediction"; can you?)

, and causes plasma separation

It may, indeed, do this; however, it does not cause Mozeparation.

. One simply *KNOWN* force of nature fixes all of my problems.

MM, not for one nanosecond do I doubt that you truly believe this.

However, by your very own standards, it obviously does not.

You could probably fix that "unknown acceleration" with some electricity too

I doubt that *I* could; my attempts to quantify - "Numerical Prediction" remember - your ideas clearly failed (as have, apparently, everyone else's).

And why did my attempts fail? Shall I remind you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you produce a model that describes observations better, it becomes undeniable.

Ya, but in this case one has to compete not just with physics, but with "metaphysics". The concept of "better" becomes blurry at best.

Make real hard cosmological predictions, and show they fit better. It's not actually that hard, it's pretty routine in how we compare the range of theoretical models (going beyond LCDM in a range of ways that are seriously considered) to observation.

It's not some personal decision I make, nor is it, despite you saying 'IMO', actually in your opinion. Just compare your model to LCDM and show the numbers come out better.

Where are your predictions of the measurements that LCDM does so well in predicting?

Define "well" for me. I trust you'll try to be fair. I don't know how to define 'well' when the DM "test" is a failure and the galaxies are way more "mature" than you "predicted". What exactly does it predict "well" in terms of empirical physics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).

Please keep the solar conversation in that thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It does?

What is ""current flow""?


Um, no.

A cathode emits only electrons; a Mozode emits electrons and protons, in equal number.

Did Birkeland's sphere emit only electrons, or did he 'predict' the solar wind would also have positively charged particles? Who said anything about "equal numbers"? That's your assertion, not mine. If Birkeland predicted both postive and negative ions, shouldn't you call it a Birkelandode?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You two aren't purposefully changing the subject in this thread to avoid dealing with the two major epic fails of your theory this week are you?

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, but in this case one has to compete not just with physics, but with "metaphysics". The concept of "better" becomes blurry at best.

Nope. Not in the slightest. How well a theory matches with experiment can be determined by the difference between the value of a data point and the value predicted by the theory, with the size of the error bar(s) taken into account. All this relies on is an understanding of your equipment and some proficiency with statistics.

Define "well" for me. I trust you'll try to be fair.

How well theory and experiment match when the size of the error bars are taken into account. This is completely quantifiable.

I don't know how to define 'well' when the DM "test" is a failure and the galaxies are way more "mature" than you "predicted".

We don't know this. You have already clearly had this explained to you.

What exactly does it predict "well" in terms of empirical physics?

The agreement with the CMBR power spectrum is absolutely phenomenal.

 

[Tubbythin]

You two aren't purposefully changing the subject in this thread to avoid dealing with the two major epic fails of your theory this week are you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. Not in the slightest. How well a theory matches with experiment can be determined by the difference between the value of a data point and the value predicted by the theory, with the size of the error bar(s) taken into account. All this relies on is an understanding of your equipment and some proficiency with statistics.

That's fine until you stuff "magic energy" in there. How do we judge the validity of something like magic?

We don't know this. You have already clearly had this explained to you.

You've also ignored the implication of that finding entirely. Your theory 'predicts' younger, less mature galaxies as we look further back in time. That is *NOT* what we've been finding. We've been finding *large*, well developed and mature galaxies and even galaxy clusters as far back as we can really see at the moment. What exactly is it going to take to kill off this theory if your predictions don't matter and they don't have to match what we observe?

The agreement with the CMBR power spectrum is absolutely phenomenal.

It's hardly absolutely phenomenal considering that you have *THREE* invisible friends to play with! That's the whole advantage of using metaphysics in the first place. With enough Gumby factors (as I like to call them) you can make gravity do anything and everything. You've got gravity doing push me - pull you tricks with invisible religious like constructs galore!

It you could make it match the spectrum without your three metaphysical amigos, *THAT* would be absolutely phenomenal.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I was getting tired of always being on the defense, but those two articles also both caught my eye this week. I'm fascinated to see how you folks will respond. Thus far it's been a pretty weak response IMO. There's no acknowledgment of failures of Lambda-CDM theory yet.