Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Poppycock and balderdash.

All published material on the Electric Universe, that has been proposed in fora such as this, has been extensively, exhaustively, and thoroughly trashed;

Notice your use of terms here. "Trashed" is a good term alright. That's what you're *intent* on doing with it alright, regardless of how well it works in it's own right, and regardless of how well it "explains" things you cannot yet explain. EU/PC theory the evil satanic figure of your religion. God forbid an empirical physics theory should ever give your woo a run for it's money.

almost all of it is so awful that it's hard to see why anyone can claim, with a straight face, it to be science.

So almost all of Alfven's published papers on PC/EU theory are "awful"? All of Birkeland's work is "awful"? All of Bruce's work is "awful"? All of Learner's work is "awful"?

More poppycock and balderdash.

Alfvén published not one word on the Electric Universe.

True, he published much on one plasma cosmology concept (his).

The widespread tendency (among EU fans) to conflate the scientific work of people like Alfvén with non-scientific crackpot EU nonsense is one particularly despicable tactic those fans use.

No, this is a "divide and conquer" approach that you've become infamous for within the EU/PC community. You arbitrarily make distinctions where none are due.

Alfven called your "magnetic reconnection" theories "pseudoscience" because they are always "better" explained from what he called the "particle/circuit" side of MHD theory. The fact you refuse to acknowledge that point is the really "despicable tactic" going on here, along with your emotional need to create some arbitrary division between EU/PC theories.

Sooner or later you'll figure out that a 'magnetic helix' is called a "Birkeland current". Once you get there, things won't seem so "dark" anymore. Until you get there however, you'll continue misrepresent every electromagnetic process as a "magnetic" one.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How far do you figure you're going to be able to observe into an 'infinite' static universe exactly?

Einstein's static cosmology was infinite only in the time dimension. Its space was finite. All its mass lay within the observable universe.

What is absolutely amazing to me at this point is that you seem to not care one iota about the history behind his introduction of a positive lambda or the reason he rejected it. You seem oblivious to the fact it *never* produced "expanding space" (or expanding anything for that matter), simply a "static" universe! It certainly wasn't used to create 'faster than light expansion"!

Wrong again.

In 1956, long before the modern revival of dark energy or the invention of inflationary theory, George Gamow wrote "The Evolutionary Universe", which appeared in Scientific American's September issue and was reprinted in the Cosmology+1 anthology of 1977:

Analyzing the pertinent mathematical equations, Einstein came to the conclusion that the curvature of space must be independent of time, i.e., that the universe as a whole must be unchanging (though it changes internally). However, he found to his surprise that there was no solution of the equations that would permit a static cosmos. To repair the situation, Einstein was forced to introduce an additional hypothesis which amounted to the assumption that a new kind of force was acting among the galaxies. This hypothetical force had to be independent of mass (being the same for an apple, the moon and the sun!) and to gain in strength with increasing distance between the interacting objects (as no other forces ever do in physics!)

Einstein's new force, called "cosmic repulsion," allowed two mathematical models of a static universe....

Gamow then goes on to describe Einstein's static spacetime and (an oversimplified version of) de Sitter's spacetime.

I could quote from chapter 10 of Eddington's Space, Time, and Gravitation, published in 1920. In a previous message, I quoted the English translation of the fourth edition of Weyl's Space --- Time --- Matter, published circa 1920. The experts here could no doubt quote from far more sources than I can.

What's amazing here is that someone who clearly has not read any of the literature on this subject continues to be so certain of his misconceptions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Analyzing the pertinent mathematical equations, Einstein came to the conclusion that the curvature of space must be independent of time, i.e., that the universe as a whole must be unchanging (though it changes internally). However, he found to his surprise that there was no solution of the equations that would permit a static cosmos. To repair the situation, Einstein was forced to introduce an additional hypothesis which amounted to the assumption that a new kind of force was acting among the galaxies. This hypothetical force had to be independent of mass (being the same for an apple, the moon and the sun!) and to gain in strength with increasing distance between the interacting objects (as no other forces ever do in physics!)

Einstein's new force, called "cosmic repulsion," allowed two mathematical models of a static universe....

Emphasis mine.

Do you have a reference of Einstein using the term "cosmic repulsion"? I would be interested in seeing that quote. We're talking now about what happened *after* he realized it would not remain static due to mass alone, and what he might have proposed *after* that point. It's still an interesting historical issue and I would be interested in reading *Einstein's* "fix". In no way however did his "fix" include faster than light speed expansion of objects made of mass.

You still seem to be trivializing the significant difference between proposing a "static" universe with a lambda, and proposing a faster than light expansion process.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Gotta hand it to you, MM, your ability to continue to invent new meanings for perfectly good standard terms is quite amazing - have you ever considered going into new age poetry?

You're comparing metaphysical apples to empirical oranges.

Now we have not only "empirical physics", "empirical support", etc, but we also have "empirical oranges"!

The (empirical) mind boggles.

Ironically, quantum energy would probably have done the trick in his lambda. No, QM energy isn't "dark energy" either! Unfortunately for Einstein, he didn't really grok QM and he abandoned lambda anyway.

Wow!

Now we have "quantum energy" AND "QM energy"!

What next, "holographic energy"? or, perhaps, you meant to write "OM energy"?

Seriously MM, do you think anyone understands what any of this actually means (other than you)?

About all I can say here is I can try to lead you to the pure physical waters, but I can't make you drink it.

Right.

Like Moztronium, the Mozode, Mozeparation, Mozplasma, the Mozwind, and Mozcharges.

 

[GeeMack]

I think [...] to the point of absurdity. [...]

How far [...]

In the sense [...]

Notice your use of terms here. [...]

Emphasis mine. [...]

Speaking of use of terms, this ongoing list shows the terms Michael uses differently than any legitimate scientist, yet refuses to define so that anyone else might be able to understand what he's talking about.

I added a few more terms. The term "quantify" was added this time, but we knew from thousands of Michael's previous postings that he didn't understand it and doesn't use it the way others do. Here is the update...

Michael applies meanings different than the common usage for the words and phrases that he puts in quote marks. Below is an ongoing list of terms which he has surrounded with quotes but is so far unable or unwilling to define. Until he can define these terms, all of his arguments using any of them amount to meaningless nonsense.

The list...

• absolute
• acceleration
• accepted
• act of faith
• ad hoc
• assumed
• assumes
• attractive
• awful
• background
• balance
• ballpark
• bang
• believer
• best
• better
• Birkeland current
• caught on
• cause
• cause/effect
• confused
• control mechanism
• correct
• cosmic repulsion
• create
• creativity
• crock
• current flow
• current flows
• dark
• dark energies
• dark energy
• dark energy did it
• dark energy of the gaps
• dark evil thingies
• dark flow
• dark matter
• dead
• decent
• demonstrate
• despicable tactic
• discovery
• divide and conquer
• electromagnetic
• emotional
• empirical science
• empirically
• empirically demonstrated
• empirically qualified
• empirically quantified
• empty space
• expand
• expanded
• expanding
• expanding space
• explaining
• explains
• extra energy
• failed
• fairly
• falsified
• fantasy
• faster than light expansion
• fix
• flavors
• gravity
• guess
• guessing
• gumby
• hairy inflation
• hairy moflation
• hope
• ignore the cause of the lambda
• in the ballpark
• infinite
• inflation
• inflation did it
• interpret
• invent
• invented
• invisible
• it's not my fault
• lab tested
• lamba
• logically impossible
• magnetic
• magnetic helix
• magnetic reconnection
• making up
• mathematical perfection
• measurable
• metaphysical
• metaphysical baggage
• modified to fit
• narrow the range
• need
• negative
• negative pressure
• negative pressures in a vacuum
• new
• new and improved inflation genie
• no show
• not having faith
• observational evidence
• observed acceleration
• other mass
• particle/circuit
• physics
• physics in general
• popular
• positive pressure vacuum
• postdicted
• postdicting a fit
• predicted
• pretend
• pretend entities
• properly
• properties
• pseudoscience
• put faith
• qualification
• qualify
• quantify
• relative
• religion
• repulsive gravity
• ruled in
• scale
• science
• sciences
• simplicity
• space
• space expands
• spacetime
• special pleading
• spin
• static
• superiority
• test
• theory
• throw it out
• too convenient
• trashed
• tweak
• tweaked
• tweaked to fit
• unseen
• unseen entities
• unusual
• verification
• verify
• wind down
• woo
• woo with make believe math
• zero

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What's amazing here is that someone who clearly has not read any of the literature on this subject continues to be so certain of his misconceptions Mozceptions.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Gotta hand it to you, MM, your ability to continue to invent new meanings for perfectly good standard terms is quite amazing - have you ever considered going into new age poetry?

Have you ever thought about *not* playing the role of EU/PC skeptic and adopting more of a "live and let live" approach to science?

Now we have not only "empirical physics", "empirical support", etc, but we also have "empirical oranges"!

Those are all things that show up in the lab, unlike your three metaphysical amigos.

Now we have "quantum energy" AND "QM energy"!

What next, "holographic energy"? or, perhaps, you meant to write "OM energy"?

Seriously MM, do you think anyone understands what any of this actually means (other than you)?

No, I doubt it. That's the energy that "pushed" the plates together, but you still think that the cause is "negative pressure in a vacuum".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Emphasis mine.

The sentence you bolded refers to Einstein's original field equations, without lambda. The sentence you bolded explains why Einstein added lambda to his equations.

Do you have a reference of Einstein using the term "cosmic repulsion"? I would be interested in seeing that quote.

No. It's Gamow's term. I do not have Einstein's papers or letters in my personal library, and would not be able to read the German even if I did.

Einstein was communicating with Eddington and Weyl at this time, however, and I can quote from their books. Eddington is pretty clear on this.

We're talking now about what happened *after* he realized it would not remain static due to mass alone, and what he might have proposed *after* that point.

What he *did* propose after that point was lambda, whose purpose and consequences you have so often denied.

You still seem to be trivializing the significant difference between proposing a "static" universe with a lambda, and proposing a faster than light expansion process.

The possibility of faster-than-light expansion was known at the time. In particular, de Sitter's hyperboloidal solution (which helped to inspire Einstein's cylindrical solution) had that property, as Einstein was well aware.

As many people have tried to tell you, there is no inconsistency between general relativity and faster-than-light expansion of the universe, because no actual thing ever travels faster than light.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Notice your use of terms here. "Trashed" is a good term alright. That's what you're *intent* on doing with it alright, regardless of how well it works in it's own right,

Yet another Mozception.

As religious texts, I'm sure your fave EU tomes work perfectly well ("in it's [sic] own right").

Despite years of posting on internet fora, you seem to still have missed a critical element of science, namely falsification.

EU ideas fail - spectacularly - when it comes to being consistent with empirical results, from the lab and from astronomy.

But they fail even more spectacularly (if that's possible) in terms of their internal consistency (even logical consistency, and that requires some truly epic failures).

and regardless of how well it "explains" things you cannot yet explain.

Right, and as we have seen, through thousands of posts, across numerous fora, that your term ""explains"" in plain English means "does not explain".

Are you trying to emulate George Orwell now?

So almost all of Alfven's published papers on PC/EU theory are "awful"?

Alfvén published stuff on (his) plasma cosmology.

"PC/EU theory" is something you, MM, made up, and what it is (or means) is known only to you.

No, this is a "divide and conquer" approach that you've become infamous for within the EU/PC community. You arbitrarily make distinctions where none are due.

You might want to consult Lerner on this, or Peratt - see, for example, Lerner's mock-Wikipedia page on plasma cosmology.

You could even ask Ian Tresman - (former?) editor of one of your fave crackpot websites.

Alternatively, you could quote Birkeland or Alfvén, and provide their definitions (in their own words) of "EU/PC theory". No Mozceptions allowed though, each must use the exact words "electric universe/plasma cosmology theory" (the slash may be substituted by "and/or", or similar).

 

[Michael Mozina]

The sentence you bolded refers to Einstein's original field equations, without lambda. The sentence you bolded explains why Einstein added lambda to his equations.


No. It's Gamow's term. I do not have Einstein's papers or letters in my personal library, and would not be able to read the German even if I did.

Einstein was communicating with Eddington and Weyl at this time, however, and I can quote from their books. Eddington is pretty clear on this.

There's a timing issue/disagreement going on here that seems to be important. Your earlier quote from Weyl is consistent with my understanding of Einstein's introduction of lambda and what it represented initially to Einstein. If you have something from Eddington that illuminates this issue, I would be appreciative of such a reference.

As many people have tried to tell you, there is no inconsistency between general relativity and faster-than-light expansion of the universe, because no actual thing ever travels faster than light.

No actual thing in "space" ever expands either. The problem is that "space" doesn't "expand" in the lab, so your notion that objects of mass can all separate by these distances in such a short period of time is completely dependent on one's "faith" in "expanding space" that only happens 'somewhere out there' where humans can never reach.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Have you ever thought about *not* playing the role of EU/PC skeptic critic

Fixed that for you.

And no, literary criticism is not my thing.

and adopting more of a "live and let live" approach to science?

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be internally consistent? No.

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be consistent with well-established theories, where their domains of applicability overlap? No.

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results? No.

Like abandoning the critical requirement that theories (and models) be capable of being objectively, and independently, verifiable? No.

Those are all things that show up in the lab

Can I go to Tesco and buy a Mozode?

Got some Mozplasma in that lab of yours?

Where do I find a gram of Moztronium, here on Earth?

In which lab has Mozeparation been demonstrated?

And so on.

Got it, thanks.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Despite years of posting on internet fora, you seem to still have missed a critical element of science, namely falsification.

That's a irony overload coming your side. You have three invisible friends, all of which defy falsification even when the xenon experiment blew your "dark exotic matter god" away. Your inflation deity is evidently dead and comes in an infinite number of hairy flavors, so that "Guthism" could *never* be falsified at this point. The "dark energy goddess" seems to only show up where you need her to show up, and never inside the solar system where we might find her. What about your theory is "falsifiable" anyway? If that xenon experiment doesn't falsify your magic matter beliefs, what will?

EU ideas fail - spectacularly - when it comes to being consistent with empirical results, from the lab and from astronomy.

What?!?!?!? Birkeland's ideas *ALL* worked in the lab DRD. It's your three metaphysical friends that always fail to show up in the lab! You have history and physics standing on it's head now. Your dark matter elves are spectacular failures in the lab, but you don't even care!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

all of which defy falsification even when the xenon experiment blew your "dark exotic matter god" away.

The only thing blown away has been any claims you might have made to understand what CDM is (astrophysically speaking), what it is (particle physics-ly speaking), and what the XENON experimental result is.

The creation of strawmen is a hallmark of creationists, is it not?

EU ideas fail - spectacularly - when it comes to being consistent with empirical results, from the lab and from astronomy.

What?!?!?!? Birkeland's ideas *ALL* worked in the lab DRD.

Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't.

What is under examination here is whether anything Birkeland did has any relevance to "EU/PC theory", and specifically whether he himself actually used any of those terms.

After all, the Mozode is your own "EU/PC theory" invention, not Birkeland's.

Ditto Mozcharges, Mozplasma, Mozeparation, Moztronium, and the Mozwind.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If you have something from Eddington that illuminates this issue, I would be appreciative of such a reference.

Sir Arthur Eddington. Space, Time and Gravitation: an outline of the general relativity theory. Cambridge University Press, 1920. (Reprinted 1959 by Harper & Brothers, New York, which is the edition I have.)

In chapter 10, Eddington offers his (rather poor) explanation of why there is no nontrivial static solution without lambda, leading up to this:

....Thus a cause which creates intervals and geodesics must, so to speak, extend the world. We can imagine the world stretched out like a plane sheet....An alternative way is to inflate the world from inside, as a balloon is blown out....We thus get the idea that space-time may have an essential curvature on a great scale independent of the small hummocks due to recognized matter....

It will be remembered that one clue by which we previously reached the law of gravitation was that flat space-time must be compatible with it. But if space-time is to have a small natural curvature independent of matter this condition is now altered. It is not difficult to find the necessary alteration of the law^*. It will contain an additional, and at present unknown, constant, which determines the size of the world.

The asterisk refers the reader to "Appendix, Note 14." That note adds lambda to the field equations and states its critical values for spherical and cylindrical space-times.

No actual thing in "space" ever expands either. The problem is that "space" doesn't "expand" in the lab, so your notion that objects of mass can all separate by these distances in such a short period of time is completely dependent on one's "faith" in "expanding space" that only happens 'somewhere out there' where humans can never reach.

As Eddington said in the passage quoted above, Einstein's static solution is obtained by postulating the very thing you are denying: an inherent tendency of empty space to stretch or to inflate.

Please note the word "inflate". Please note the phrases "independent of matter" and "at present unknown".

 

[Michael Mozina]

The only thing blown away has been any claims you might have made to understand what CDM is (astrophysically speaking), what it is (particle physics-ly speaking), and what the XENON experimental result is.

In other words you're in complete denial of the epic fails of your own theories. It's only the perceived EU/PC failures that you're personally interested in, is that it?

The creation of strawmen is a hallmark of creationists, is it not?

What strawman? Your exotic matter hypothesis was a complete flop in the lab!

Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't.

What is under examination here is whether anything Birkeland did has any relevance to "EU/PC theory", and specifically whether he himself actually used any of those terms.

More denial. They worked and he wrote about them. His "terminology" is irrelevant. That's just another of those things you simply don't want to deal with, so you're intent on finding some loophole. Yes or no did Birkeland believe the sun was a "cathode"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

As Eddington said in the passage quoted above, Einstein's static solution is obtained by postulating the very thing you are denying: an inherent tendency of empty space to stretch or to inflate.

Thank you very much for the links and quotes. You'll have to let me chew on them awhile.

For one thing I see no evidence at all that "space" is "empty". It's full of photons, neutrinos, quantum energy galore, not mention plasma, cosmic rays, etc. It's simply not "empty" at all. When you say "space" is 'expanding' what does that physically mean to you? What is "stretching" and what is making it "stretch" (cause/effect)?

Your use of the term "empty space' is meaningless IMO because it's physically undefined.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The only thing blown away has been any claims you might have made to understand what CDM is (astrophysically speaking), what it is (particle physics-ly speaking), and what the XENON experimental result is.

What strawman?

This one: "the xenon experiment blew your "dark exotic matter god" away"

And this one: "Your exotic matter hypothesis was a complete flop in the lab!"

More denial. They worked and he wrote about them. His "terminology" is irrelevant crucial.

Fixed that for you.

We can all read what Birkeland wrote, and, with sufficient time and effort, repeat the experiments he did in his lab.

However, no one can even read what "EU/PC theory" is, if only because the only person who knows what it is (you) has not explained it in a form that anyone else understands.

That's just another of those things you simply don't want to deal with, so you're intent on finding some loophole. Yes or no did Birkeland believe the sun was a "cathode"?

I have no idea what Birkeland believed.

However, there is no (objective, independently verifiable) evidence to support the claim that he thought "the sun was a "cathode""!

As you have made perfectly clear, in hundreds, if not thousands, of posts, your ""cathode"" is, in fact, a Mozode.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no idea what Birkeland believed.

However, there is no (objective, independently verifiable) evidence to support the claim that he thought "the sun was a "cathode""!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

Pure denial on your part.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

Pure denial on your part.

Pure strawman on your part.

To repeat: ""cathode"" is your term (not Birkeland's), and to the extent that any of the special, idiosyncratic terms you have invented can be understood, a ""cathode"" is a Mozode (can I buy one in Tesco?).

 

[Ziggurat]

Have you ever thought about *not* playing the role of EU/PC skeptic and adopting more of a "live and let live" approach to science?

That sounds an awful lot like "don't pick on me for being so completely and transparently wrong".

I know you think there's a double standard going on here, that your ideas are being treated critically when mainstream ideas are not. But you're wrong. The difference is that mainstream ideas HAVE been subjected to considerable scrutiny, and they've mostly passed that scrutiny with flying colors. But your ideas keep falling down at the simplest tests.

The fact that you can't understand why your ideas fail and mainstream ideas succeed is not the result of conspiracy, it's not the result of ignorance on the part of the physics community, it's not the result of fear of new (or old) ideas, it's not the result of a distaste for electromagnetism. It's the result of you not knowing what you're talking about. You don't understand basic physics, Michael. And you won't understand it until you make a concerted effort to learn it. Resources are available to teach you. Posters on this forum are willing to help. But you need to make an effort. And you haven't.

No, I doubt it. That's the energy that "pushed" the plates together, but you still think that the cause is "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Ah yes... Michael still can't figure out what pressure is.