Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

You have reality standing on it's head now DRD. I reject your religion for exactly the same reason I reject other religions.

My religion?

Care to share with us all what you think it is, and the empirical^, objective, independently verifiable evidence for your conclusions?

Your unseen entities are evidently entirely impotent on Earth!

My unseen entities?

Care to share with us all what you think they are, and the empirical^, objective, independently verifiable evidence for your conclusions?

It's really not my fault that you choose to "have faith" in the "unseen". It's not my fault you have no physical justification for claiming "dark energy did it" or "inflation did it" when it comes to lambda. The fact you cannot show an empirical cause/effect relationship in the lab is no more my fault than it's my fault that a creationist cannot support their beliefs in the lab! You're simply blaming me for not "having faith" in *your* religion.

To use GM's technique, here's how to read this:

It's really not my fault that you choose to !@#$% in the "&*(#. It's not my fault you have no physical justification for claiming *&$# or %$%#@& when it comes to lambda. The fact you cannot show an empirical cause/effect relationship in the lab is no more my fault than it's my fault that a creationist cannot support their beliefs in the lab! You're simply blaming me for not $(&#@@ in *your* religion.

As has been pointed out, several times, GR has indeed been tested "in the lab" (as well as in the lab) - check out the Pound Rebka experiment^WP, for example. It's also been tested, in a great many ways, in the lab which is the observable universe, as well as in orbit around the Earth (e.g. Gravity Probe B).

Now I'll be the first to admit that it's possible none of these demonstrations of an empirical cause/effect relationship - whether in the lab or not - meet your own, personal, criteria ... but then, so far, you are the only one who can say! And why is that? Well, in part because no one else (it seems) understands what you mean by the key terms you use, much less how to apply those criteria in an objective, independently verifiable way.

^ as opposed to "empirical", which, as you've never defined it, is meaningless

 

[Michael Mozina]

Naturally, every first year physics student learns that only mass inside the sphere makes gravity. The notion of a huge universe outside of what we can observe pulling our little corner apart is preposterous.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

Unless of course you folks propose it and add the word "dark" in there somewhere, is that it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

As has been pointed out, several times, GR has indeed been tested "in the lab" (as well as in the lab)

Yes, and it is consistently "attractive", not "repulsive". Shall we just call your religion the "dark repulsive religion"?

Show me one experiment on Earth where gravity becomes "repulsive".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now I'll be the first to admit that it's possible none of these demonstrations of an empirical cause/effect relationship - whether in the lab or not - meet your own, personal, criteria ... but then, so far, you are the only one who can say! And why is that?

Um, probably because you're all working hard at not comprehending the difference between something that shows up in the lab and something that does not? Where do I go to get some "dark energy" to play with in a the lab? Where can I expect to round up a specific measured quantity of inflation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4345

Oh ya, I almost forgot, even with all your invisible friends, you still have an age problem that just won't seem to go away.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As has been pointed out, several times, GR has indeed been tested "in the lab" (as well as in the lab)

Yes, and it is consistently "attractive", not "repulsive". Shall we just call your religion the "dark repulsive religion"?

Show me one experiment on Earth where gravity becomes "repulsive".

Sorry, I ran this through the elgooG translator, and it came out thus:

Yes, and it is consistently %@##( not (*!!%. Shall we just call your religion the $$%%##?

I have no idea what you just wrote - care to clarify, using ordinary English (not MM) words?

 

[Reality Check]

I was really a very simple question. I take it that means "no"?

It was a simple question with a simple answer - Your ignorance has lead you to think there is a "an empirical cause/effect relationship between lambda and inflation". There is no relationsihip at all between lambda and inflation.

You were wrong in reading his mind. dogguy's'swer was that you continue to spout nonsense and so there is not point in reading your posts.

Michael,
Nothing you have to say has any interest for me. I stopped reading your posts a long time ago. I only read this one because it was a direct reply to my post. I will now continue to skip over your nonsense and learn from the posts of those who know what they are talking about. Goodbye.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What is amazing to me is that fact that you personally give them a "free pass" when it comes to "qualifying" their claims. ...

Them? Who is "them?" "Them" are us: physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists are mankind's specialists in this arena. They are those who have paid their dues, worked, studied, learned and expanded our knowledge of the universe. If there is a "them" here it is those lazy petulant crackpots who refuse to attempt to understand real science and persist in pursuing toddler-level physics.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Now I'll be the first to admit that it's possible none of these demonstrations of an empirical cause/effect relationship - whether in the lab or not - meet your own, personal, criteria ... but then, so far, you are the only one who can say! And why is that?

Um, probably because you're all working hard at not comprehending the difference between something that shows up in the lab and something that does not?

What part of this sentence do you not understand?

GR has indeed been tested "in the lab" (as well as in the lab).

Where do I go to get some "dark energy" to play with in a the lab?

Sorry, I ran this through the elgooG translator, and it came out thus:

Where do I go to get some **&&%%# to play with in a the lab?

The answer to your question is: I have no idea, if only because I do not know what **&&%%# is.

Where can I expect to round up a specific measured quantity of inflation?

Perhaps if you'd care to clarify what you mean by "a specific measured quantity of", I may be able to take a stab at answering this.

Specifically, please give a concrete example (and be sure to specify the units).

 

[Reality Check]

Um, probably because you're all working hard at not comprehending the difference between something that shows up in the lab and something that does not? Where do I go to get some "dark energy" to play with in a the lab? Where can I expect to round up a specific measured quantity of inflation?

Um, probably because you're all working hard at not comprehending the difference between something that shows up in the lab and something that does not? Where do I go to get some "Sun" to play with in a the lab? Where can I expect to round up a specific measured quantity of quasar?

​

Um, probably because you're working hard at not comprehending the scientific process that exists in the real world and believing in a inconsistent delusion in your head?​

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

Unless of course you folks propose it and add the word "dark" in there somewhere, is that it?

No not even then.
And most certainly not from a space.com press release.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Them? Who is "them?" "Them" are us: physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists are mankind's specialists in this arena. They are those who have paid their dues, worked, studied, learned and expanded our knowledge of the universe. If there is a "them" here it is those lazy petulant crackpots who refuse to attempt to understand real science and persist in pursuing toddler-level physics.

If I were asking you to demonstrate a qualified cause/effect relationship between acceleration and gravity it would be a walk in the park for you. Likewise If I asked you to demonstrate a cause effect relationship between plasma acceleration and the EM field, you could easily do that too. It's only because you cannot show any empirical cause/effect relationship between "acceleration' and inflation or dark energy that I am now being belittled and ridiculed instead of you simply providing the information I requested. Oh well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gah! No! Einstein's lambda was directly related to gravity.

So is inflation.

There is a clear empirical link between gravity and acceleration of objects in spacetime.

Which produces repulsion... how? Sorry, never seen that happen in a lab. Yet you think Einstein was justified in inserting this repulsive term into an equation, even without any empirical evidence for its existence. Why?

Einstein's lambda was empirically qualified even if it was eventually falsified.

Once again: what the hell does this mean?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4345

Oh ya, I almost forgot, even with all your invisible friends, you still have an age problem that just won't seem to go away.

Interesting preprint.

What makes you so certain that the authors' conclusions will even make it into a published paper (an awful lot of preprints have significant changes made to them, before they are accepted for publication)?

And even if (when) it is published, what makes you so certain that the authors' conclusions will stand up to the usual scrutiny?

In short, aren't you using one of the standard tactics of creationists (cherry picking, to give it a two-word name)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It was a simple question with a simple answer - Your ignorance has lead you to think there is a "an empirical cause/effect relationship between lambda and inflation". There is no relationsihip at all between lambda and inflation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5952457&postcount=2857

Really? You guys really need to keep your stories straight and come to some sort of "consensus' on this stuff.

 

[ben m]

Yes, and it is consistently "attractive", not "repulsive".

(I can parse this at all only by foolishly assuming that the words mean what they normally mean and that there are meant to be logical connections between them. But that's as generous as I can be on this nonsense.)

Your statement is wrong wrong wrong. GR experiments cannot be described as "consistently attractive". The only thing you can say about them is that they're consistently motion through spacetime obeying GR. Frame dragging isn't an attraction. Gravitational radiation (from the Hulse-Taylor pulsars) isn't an attraction. Geodetic precession isn't an attraction. The ergosphere around a Kerr black hole isn't straightforwardly attractive. Two masses accelerating towards each other? That IS an attraction, but more importantly it's motion through spacetime obeying GR.

Objects in Lambda-CDM cosmology are also motion through spacetime obeying GR. It's not just two-masses attracting, so what? Neither is it just-frame-dragging nor just-gravitational-radiation. It's like rejecting Kepler's laws "because the planets are not apples and Newton's Laws apply to apples" or something.

If you think GR is right enough to describe attraction, then it's also right enough to include lambda and/or dark energy. There's no in-between belief unless you're just making stuff up, which you are.

Mercy! Mercy! Let it die!

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5952457&postcount=2857

Really? You guys really need to keep your stories straight and come to some sort of "consensus' on this stuff.

Really? You need to learn to understand what you read:

It's related to both, of course. As someone that has spent uncounted hours deriding inflation and dark energy as nonsense, you really should know that.

One of your problems, Michael, is that you never take the time to learn the basics of these topics, and when people explain them to you you ignore the explanations (which is why I'm not expounding on my comment).

There is no statement in the post that lambda caused inflation and so there is a causal relation.

Lambda is related to both dark energy and inflation. The relation is .... lambda is in General Relativity, GR is used in inflationary theories !
(sorry folks, I know that mentioning that there are different inflationary theories will really confuse MM)

 

[Perpetual Student]

Let's see: I am a layman with an interest in physics and cosmology. On the one hand, I have the theories of thousands of specialists throughout the world, who have dedicated their lives to these subjects, whose conclusions are based on the methods and standards of evidence of science. On the other hand, I have (I think) a computer programmer with a minimal education in physics and cosmology claiming he has the inside scoop on GR and its application to cosmic expansion and acceleration and his statements are inconsistent with history, logic and my own knowledge of physics. Who to believe? Who to believe? Who to believe? It's a troubling dilemma!

 

[sol invictus]

I was really a very simple question. I take it that means "no"?

IMO, I'd take that as N/A.

Um, how exactly can it be N/A that you stuck invisible magic keebler elves into lambda?

It was more like a divide-by-zero error. You're the zero.

 

[sol invictus]

You are completely wrong.

Is there anything we can explain to you, any equation we can write, any reference we can give you, that will get you to understand and admit that you are mistaken? If not, do you think there is any point in continuing the conversation?

Would you continue to argue with someone who claimed that the primary language spoken in France was Japanese, and stubbornly kept insisting on that no matter what evidence and logic to the contrary you presented? To make the analogy more exact you are a linguist, you live in France, speak French fluently, have many French friends from all walks of society and from all over the country, and travel regularly across France doing research on French dialects. The other person lives in Australia, speaks only English, and has never traveled outside her small town in the outback.

Yes or no?

Well?