Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[ben m]

Every time that one of you folks used his formulas to describe "magnetic reconnection" Alfven chose to ignore it. Well, actually he called it pseudoscience and hoped it would die a natural death. Instead it's simply taken off now that he's dead and cant defend his theory any longer. Of course all your MR "experiments" require "particle" flow and "circuits" to make them work. Nothing new there.

a) Alfven was apparently wrong about reconnection. He made a mistake. You, Michael, are unable to make any correct or intelligent statements about reconnection other than "Alfven said ... ". You don't know enough E&M, vector algebra, or plasma physics to make such statements. You do not hesitate to pretend to know enough; you do not hesitate to make up physicsy-sounding sentences that you think will win arguments for you.

b) Reconnection is particularly relevant to the narrow, narrow, narrow question "what's the exact form of the nonthermal coupling between the Sun and the solar corona". The fact that you're bringing it up in a cosmology discussion is yet more evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I can fall flat on my face and "feel" the effect for myself if I have any doubt about the math.

If falling flat on your face is all it takes, then you're doing just fine.

It's not even relevant whether I understand any specific formula. The only thing that is relevant in this conversation in whether or not your can provide a tangible, empirical cause/effect relationship between any of your invisible friends, and anything in that formula. Care to do that for us?

In the course of this and other threads, many people (including quite a few experts) have explained tangible, empirical cause/effect relationships between the laws of physics (including "that formula") and various experiments and observations in physics and astronomy.

To see why you have learned so little, we need look no farther than the highlighted sentence.

Your lack of understanding has never stopped you from declaring that explanations of a formula in standard textbooks, scientific papers, or JREF postings are incorrect. Indeed, your lack of understanding has enabled you to believe that a formula (or image or experimental result) you don't understand means whatever you want to believe.

For some reason, however, you have accused me and quite a few other people of taking refuge in some kind of "religion", "driven by pure faith" in a "trilogy" (did you mean "trinity"?) of "invisible friends".

The highlighted sentence expresses one of your core beliefs, but you could not be more wrong. When discussing the implications of some proposed or well-accepted law of physics, it really does help to understand the mathematical statement of that law.

 

[Ziggurat]

What you're refusing to acknowledge is the *QUALIFICATION* problem of their theory and trying to cover it up with more math, which in this case you insist I do not understand.

What you are refusing to define is what the hell you mean by "qualification". This term has become a central part of your argument in recent posts, but nobody understands it, because you won't define it even when asked. Again and again and again and again and again and again.

Why can't you even define the terms you use?

 

[ben m]

Since Mozina is being vague as usual, we have the usual guesswork.

I think "MM-qualification" means exactly the same thing as "MM-empirical". When MM sees a science fact that gives him vaguely warm fuzzy feelings, he peers closely at it and announces that it is Qualified and Empirical. When he sees something that gives him vague angry and confused feelings, he announces that it's Unqualified and Not Empirical. The former is Good and the latter is Bad. That is what "MM-qualified" means.

(An early scene from "Willow", of all things, comes to mind. When the hero Willow has to decided what to do with a human foundling, the village wizard/medicine-man figure announces that he will cast bones to read Willow's fate. While furrowing his brows over the bones, the wizard whispers to Willow asking what he wants to do. He then makes a great show of mumbling and incantations before announcing that "the bones have spoken"; what the bones tell them is that Willow should do what Willow was going to do anyway.

Mozina has abandoned even the pretense of furrowing his brow at the data. He simply asks himself what he wants the data to say; he mumbles the incantation "non-empirical, unqualified, etc., ommmm" and announces "the data have spoken". What did the data say, wizard Michael? Exactly what MM always says, data or no data. Michael's skill at understanding data is no better than Willow's wizard's skill at osteomancy. )

 

[Perpetual Student]

...

I don't need to know any math at all to drive a car although I'm sure it requires a lot of math to make one work, especially in a modern one. I don't need to know any math to see my plasma ball "accelerate" plasma using an ordinary Em field. I don't need to know any math at all to experience the effects of gravity. I can fall flat on my face and "feel" the effect for myself if I have any doubt about the math.

What you're proposing here is preposterous PS. My math skills are completely unrelated to the *QUALIFICATION* problem of mainstream theory. It's not like I'm the only one bitching about their use of ad hoc entities either.

...

The above comments demonstrate how out of touch you are with reality. You have no idea how modern physics and cosmology are done. Your fantasies are merely that -- fantasies -- the fantasies of an uneducated, uninformed, self-deluded *PRETENDER*.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Micheal Mozina

Any problems with this analysis of the evidence for nonbaryonic matter?
First asked 18 July 2009 and asked again 19th May 2010

This question was first stated as an example of the hypocrisy of MM's belief that only things that can be seen in a lab exist. But maybe he has an answer:
Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist?
20th May 2010

And now he is going on about his delusions about Birkland's work.

Birkeland understood physics too and he "predicted' high speed solar wind that you *still* cannot explain and recreate in the lab.

This is totally irrelevant to the Lambda-CDM model and this thread.

However it is appropriate to list MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book from this post (Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked! ) in the Iron Sun thread:

An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.

1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
3. 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).
4. Is Saturn the Sun?
5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
   First asked 28 December 2009
7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?

 

[tusenfem]

a) Alfven was apparently wrong about reconnection. He made a mistake. You, Michael, are unable to make any correct or intelligent statements about reconnection other than "Alfven said ... ". You don't know enough E&M, vector algebra, or plasma physics to make such statements. You do not hesitate to pretend to know enough; you do not hesitate to make up physicsy-sounding sentences that you think will win arguments for you.

b) Reconnection is particularly relevant to the narrow, narrow, narrow question "what's the exact form of the nonthermal coupling between the Sun and the solar corona". The fact that you're bringing it up in a cosmology discussion is yet more evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, to be honest, magnetic reconnection cannot happen in the ideal MHD framework that Alfvén developed.

However, ideal MHD does not exist in regions where reconnection will happen. The plasma will get resistive, small scale effects (that have no place in MDH) start to become important, etc. etc.

But, ofcourse, MM believes in reconnection, he just wants to give it another name particle/circuit reconnection or induction. That is the problem in every thread with MM, he just want to give new names to things that already exist and then claim that the real name and process is wrong, without giving any real explanation why it is wrong or how it should function in his view.

Instead of doing some real work, MM preferst to continually repeat himself with "Alfvén said" and "Birkeland predicted" etc. etc., throwing away valuable time in which he could attempt to show that the electric universe is for real.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You see, no one (other than you) knows what ""real" physics" is (and you are most reluctant to explain),

Oh I've explained that "real physics" shows up in the lab. EM fields show up in the lab. They are "real" and have a real and measurable physical effect on real things. Likewise gravity is "real physics". It's not shy around the lab. Gravity shows up all the time, right on command. Neutrinos are also "real". They have a known empirical source. They have been detected in empirical experiments on Earth. They have a real effect on real things.

Coming back to this.

If this is all that there is, to what you mean by ""real" physics", then astronomy cannot be ""real" physics", nor can it use ""real" physics".

But as you have a website devoted to the Sun, and as you (presumably) think ""real" physics" can be used to study the Sun, then there must be more to it than this (unless, of course, you accept that what you have written is founded on an extraordinary logical inconsistency).

Elsewhere you've written a few words on how the study of the Sun is, indeed, ""real" physics". IIRC, you had some vague idea about the acceptability of "scaling up" from lab experiments.

Would you care to say more about this?

Specifically, what are the MM rules for determining acceptability of scaling up, when it comes to ""real" physics"-based explanations of astronomical observations?

 

[GeeMack]

Coming back to this.

If this is all that there is, to what you mean by ""real" physics", then astronomy cannot be ""real" physics", nor can it use ""real" physics".

But as you have a website devoted to the Sun, and as you (presumably) think ""real" physics" can be used to study the Sun, then there must be more to it than this (unless, of course, you accept that what you have written is founded on an extraordinary logical inconsistency).

Elsewhere you've written a few words on how the study of the Sun is, indeed, ""real" physics". IIRC, you had some vague idea about the acceptability of "scaling up" from lab experiments.

Would you care to say more about this?

Specifically, what are the MM rules for determining acceptability of scaling up, when it comes to ""real" physics"-based explanations of astronomical observations?

Keeping in mind of course that Michael, by his own admission, couldn't care less whether he communicates in a rational, intelligent, and understandable manner...

Doesn't your evident failure to communicate worry you?

Not in the slightest.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Keeping in mind of course that Michael, by his own admission, couldn't care less whether he communicates in a rational, intelligent, and understandable manner...

I think there's plenty of objective evidence to say that, in some way, at some level, he does.

It's also abundantly clear that his worldview is wildly internally inconsistent; it may be that part of the lack of pertinent responses to the many questions which go to establishing this are indirect acknowledgements that MM himself realises this, at some level.

From an educational perspective, there a lot of good material to illustrate the sorts of knots you can get yourself tied up in when you try to re-interpret contemporary physics^ from an Aristotelian perspective.

^ actually, even Newtonian or possibly Galilean physics too

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM's distain for mathematics exposes his status as an uneducated pretender. That the universe behaves mathematically is a trivial truth; in fact, the universe can be seen as mathematics in action. Without mathematics there is no physics, no astronomy, no cosmology. MM’s claims are nothing more than pretensions – the pretensions of a crackpot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM's distain for mathematics exposes his status as an uneducated pretender. That the universe behaves mathematically is a trivial truth; in fact, the universe can be seen as mathematics in action. Without mathematics there is no physics, no astronomy, no cosmology. MM’s claims are nothing more than pretensions – the pretensions of a crackpot.

The only pretender is yourself PS. You "pretend" that a qualified empirical connection was made between "acceleration" and your favorite invisible friends. Nothing could be further from the truth. You pretend that my math skills (or lack thereof) are in any way related to your qualification problem.

Nobody doubts that the universe can be seen a mathematics in action. I simply lack belief that your invisible friends have anything at all to do with it.

You can continue to pretend your show isn't busted, but you failed to provided any cause/effect demonstrations for your invisible biddies, and that DM thing bit the dust in the last round of "tests". What pretend reason will you make up for not noticing that recent lab failure PS?

 

[GeeMack]

The only pretender is yourself PS. You "pretend" that a qualified empirical connection was made between "acceleration" and your favorite invisible friends. Nothing could be further from the truth. You pretend that my math skills (or lack thereof) are in any way related to your qualification problem.

Your lack of qualification to understand math at a level necessary to even add and subtract three digit numbers makes it certain that you can't possibly understand the material you're criticizing. That is your qualification problem. Everyone here recognizes it, and it's supported by the fact that not a single professional astrophysicist on the planet agrees with your position. Add to that the fact that your qualifications to communicate in a sane, rational, and intelligent manner on the subject of astrophysics and cosmology have been challenged and you have been unable to demonstrate that you are so qualified, and it makes all of your crackpot arguments nothing more than meaningless gibberish.

 

[Ziggurat]

You "pretend" that a qualified empirical connection was made

Once again, Michael: what the hell does this mean? There is really no excuse for your continued failure to define your own terminology. This demonstrates once again that you are not interested in honest debate.

 

[elipse]

Interestingly, rhetorically speaking, "to qualify" means, colloquially, "to hedge", or "give your opinion in a way that leaves wiggle room."

It's interesting that in refusing to define terms, MM is a master "qualifier", although not in the way he defines it, which almost seems like the opposite, some version of "to prove beyond all doubt." (?)

MM: Imagine a group of kids wants to play baseball. A new kid comes up and asks to join the game, saying he's played for years in his old neighborhood. They say sure, but then find out that the new kid has different names for everything, and sometimes uses a term they understand one way to mean something entirely different. The kids end up in a screaming match and finally tell the new kid to hit the road. He leaves, convinced they are a bunch of jerks who can't play baseball. They feel the same way about him. This has nothing (necessarily) to do with his athletic ability. It's simply a communication problem, but it means they are absolutely incapable of playing together, because they cannot understand each other.

None of the other people here, Michael, have any way of determining if you have any athletic ability, because you don't speak the same terminology, even about very basic concepts, you won't agree to use their terminology, and you won't define your own. So how do you expect to play Physics with them?

Why don't you go back to the very basic, and see if you can't come to an agreement of what pressure is. That would be a start.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You "pretend" that a qualified empirical connection was made

Once again, Michael: what the hell does this mean? There is really no excuse for your continued failure to define your own terminology. This demonstrates once again that you are not interested in honest debate.

I think I can answer this (MM is free to jump in and qualify my answer).

Imagine viewing the world as Aristotle and his contemporaries did^.

Or as an animist might^.

Things - objects, processes - have essences, or spirits. And once a correct characterisation of the essence (or spirit) of a thing is made, we have mastered the universe (or at least that part of it under the influence of the essences and spirits we have successfully identified).

The primary method for identifying the essence (or spirit) of a thing is visual inspection - you observe how it behaves with your eyes.

Now consider "gravity" ... "attraction" is its essence (note that "attraction" and "repulsion" are separate essences, as are "acceleration" and "deceleration").

In MM's worldview, "empirical" means something like "determine a thing's essences (or spirits) by visual inspection", and the universe is divided into Heaven (or the Heavens) and Earth (or "in the lab").

To "qualify" something is to determine if the thing behaves true to its essence (or spirit) on Earth.

So because the essence of "gravity" is "attraction", and because high-z Ia SNe observations point to "repulsion", "gravity" cannot possibly cause it.

However, "EM fields"^^ have both "attraction" and "repulsion" essences (or spirits). Therefore "EM fields" very likely cause the observed phenomenon.

MM's distain for mathematics exposes his status as an uneducated pretender. That the universe behaves mathematically is a trivial truth; in fact, the universe can be seen as mathematics in action. Without mathematics there is no physics, no astronomy, no cosmology. MM’s claims are nothing more than pretensions – the pretensions of a crackpot.

Remember Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

Here we have a rational explanation for much of what MM has written: to him, mathematics is just such a "sufficiently advanced technology". In fact, he often uses exactly this word, magic, to describe its application (example: negative pressure)!

We can now explain one other feature of MM's posts, in this thread; namely, his use of the word "deities". These are, in MM's worldview, found only in the Heavens, and they have minds of their own, meaning that they are not fully bound by their essence(s). In fact, given that mathematics cannot be "qualified" (it's a form of magic, which is, by definition, beyond "qualification"), I "predict" that there are quite a few posts by MM in which inflation (to take one example) is described using both words.

^ actually, we may not be able to do so, if only because the mental image we have of these worldviews is likely itself a mischaracterisation!
^^ or something like this - I don't pretend that my characterisation is complete or consistent, and I don't think MM's can be either

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Maybe not magical deities, but plenty of things like ""dark exotic matter god"", "magic dark elves", "magic invisible faeries", "Magic invisible elves", "Magic energy God energy Dark energy", ""invisible magic elves"", "magic elves and invisible rainbow creatures", "elf magic", "inflation deity", "dead inflation deity", "a "supernatural deity"" (magic is, by definition, supernatural), "redshift inflation deity", "magic faeries", "the "new and improved inflation/dark energy deity"", and "(inflation/GR) deity" (I'm sure there are more).

This one is particularly revealing (remember that maths is magic to MM): "It's like "prediction' based on magic"

 

[Perpetual Student]

Maybe not magical deities, but plenty of things like ""dark exotic matter god"", "magic dark elves", "magic invisible faeries", "Magic invisible elves", "Magic energy God energy Dark energy", ""invisible magic elves"", "magic elves and invisible rainbow creatures", "elf magic", "inflation deity", "dead inflation deity", "a "supernatural deity"" (magic is, by definition, supernatural), "redshift inflation deity", "magic faeries", "the "new and improved inflation/dark energy deity"", and "(inflation/GR) deity" (I'm sure there are more).

This one is particularly revealing (remember that maths is magic to MM): "It's like "prediction' based on magic"

Remember Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

This is a key for understanding MM. *"MATH BUNNIES"* are magic for him. Since he does not want to be seen as believing in magic, he rejects mathematics as he does other supernatural explanations. He cannot distinguish math from religion and superstition because all appear to be para-normal from his uneducated perspective. The root of all this may be that he probably found mathematics too difficult as a student, but his ego would not allow him to face the reality of this limitations. So, the rejection of mathematics as useless magic we see here is a compensating device. Of course, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that he is committed to the fantasy that he understands physics and cosmology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a key for understanding MM. *"MATH BUNNIES"* are magic for him.

Math that is based upon metaphysical entities is "magic". Just look at astrology and it's relationship to birthdays. Math that is based on physics is not. Since you can't show that your invisible friends are real in any empirical way, your use of them to make "space expand" is pure "magic".

EM fields aren't magic. They show up on Earth. Gravity isn't magic. It holds us to Earth. Inflation is magic because it's non existent and "made up" and has no effect on any empirical test on Earth. You're pointing to the sky and claiming my magic (insert flavor of choice) inflation faerie did it!

 

[Perpetual Student]

math that is based upon metaphysical entities is "magic". Just look at astrology and it's relationship to birthdays. Math that is based on physics is not. Since you can't show that your invisible friends are real in any empirical way, your use of them to make "space expand" is pure "magic".

Em fields aren't magic. They show up on earth. Gravity isn't magic. It holds us to earth. Inflation is magic because it's non existent and "made up" and has no effect on any empirical test on earth. You're pointing to the sky and claiming my magic (insert flavor of choice) inflation faerie did it!

q e d