Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[D'rok]

If I take some brand of inflationary math, change the term to "Godflation", is "Godflation" now "testable"?

The math is the testing part, not the hypothesis part. Inflation is the hypothesis. Math is part of the confirmation of the hypothesis.

Please, please define the three terms above.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Q is an "observation". There's no point in proceeding to an observation without qualifying any sort of cause/effect relationship between the observation in question and P. You're affirming the consequent and stuck in that loop. Break! Break!.

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"^? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

^ a.k.a. "observation"

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In other words, Michael Mozina truly does not understand the process of falsification: By refusing to consider "if X, then Y" he rejects "if not Y, then not X".

If Y is an observation then "not X" is never an issue and never a possibility. In this case Y has always been observed and X is simply an affirmation of the consequent. You simply *assumed* a "cause". If God, then acceleration. Acceleration is observed, therefore God. Never was an empirical link established between acceleration and God.

You are failing to distinguish between Y as an observation that has been made, and Y as an observation that has not yet been made.

You have been misrepresenting various people's arguments by pretending Y is an observation that has already been made. Even when others have made it perfectly clear that Y is an observation that could be made in principle, but has not yet been made, you have pretended (as here) that your adversaries are taking an already-observed Y and inventing a just-so story X. In ben m's post, however, Y had never been observed. That is, after all, the reason the Fermi satellite was looking for it.

That form of misrepresentation has been a staple of your argument. That's one of the reasons why several posters have concluded you are just being dishonest. One way to defend yourself against that accusation would be to desist from your misrepresentations.

Two other ways to defend yourself against that accusation would be to stop misrepresenting your adversaries' views as motivated by religion, and to stop using apparent nonsense words such as "qualified" while ignoring repeated pleas to explain what you think those words mean.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The following is not GeeMack speaking:

Please define, define, these three terms:

qualify
qualification

Qualify and qualification are simply demonstrations of concept in controlled conditions. If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can try jumping off the planet and I will fail each and every time.

I don't have to accept gravity on faith, I can experience it's effects on me right here and now. If I doubt the math related to gravity, I can create active experiments (with real control mechanisms) to test the formulas.

hypothesis

That term is somewhat tougher and more prone to subjectivity. It seems as though the mainstream uses that term to mean "if...then....", where "if" can be almost anything. I suppose we can just go with that definition but then anything and everything is a legitimate "hypothesis", even astrology.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

That's your definition of intellectually honest behavior I assume?

Of course not.

Discourse proceeds on several levels, simultaneously.

If my many attempts to get you to address the meanings of the key terms you use fail (as they have seemed to have done), then I thought using a different, meta-level, in discourse might succeed.

It seems I was, at least partly, correct.

Bashing the messenger won't solve your qualification problem or your use of a logical fallacy when creating your invisible friends.

(bold added)

However, if the messenger continues to use key terms that no one else understands, is there any message?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The following is not GeeMack speaking:

Please define, define, these three terms:

qualify
qualification

Qualify and qualification are simply demonstrations of concept in controlled conditions. If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can try jumping off the planet and I will fail each and every time.

I don't have to accept gravity on faith, I can experience it's effects on me right here and now. If I doubt the math related to gravity, I can create active experiments (with real control mechanisms) to test the formulas.

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"^? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

^ "in controlled conditions"

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are failing to distinguish between Y as an observation that has been made, and Y as an observation that has not yet been made.

Guth observed that the universe was pretty homogeneous on large scales. He "made up" a "custom fit". Y was observed. Same is true of dark energy and for 'missing mass". These are observations, not "predictions".

In ben m's post, however, Y had never been observed. That is, after all, the reason the Fermi satellite was looking for it.

Boloney!

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/flares.htm

Gamma rays have been observed in space for a long time now. Annihilation signatures are present in the atmosphere of our own sun, so pointing at other stars in the galaxy is bound to show gamma radiation from those stars too! You have no evidence at all that there is any cause/effect relationship between gamma rays and exotic brands of matter. You are again basing the whole argument on a logical fallacy and simply affirming the consequent.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"^?

I'm still waiting for an answer on that theist/atheist question. I think I can easily explain it to you on your own terms depending on your answer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course not.

Discourse proceeds on several levels, simultaneously.

GM doesn't do "discourse", just "verbal abuse".

 

[D'rok]

You are failing to distinguish between Y as an observation that has been made, and Y as an observation that has not yet been made.

You have been misrepresenting various people's arguments by pretending Y is an observation that has already been made. Even when others have made it perfectly clear that Y is an observation that could be made in principle, but has not yet been made, you have pretended (as here) that your adversaries are taking an already-observed Y and inventing a just-so story X. In ben m's post, however, Y had never been observed. That is, after all, the reason the Fermi satellite was looking for it.

That form of misrepresentation has been a staple of your argument. That's one of the reasons why several posters have concluded you are just being dishonest. One way to defend yourself against that accusation would be to desist from your misrepresentations.

I think this is a key point.

It's also possible (and probably quite typical) for existing observations to trigger a hypothesis. But that hypothesis is useless if it can't generate predictions that can be confirmed. The unconfirmed hypothesis is always only a potential explanation for the observations that triggered it.

Michael is getting stuck right at the beginning of the process. He refuses, for bizarre reasons which he can't quite explain, to accept exotic matter hypotheses as testable explanations for observed phenomena. So far, AFIAK, these hypotheses have not been dis-confirmed, nor have they been adequately confirmed by predicted observations or experiments. We're still in "Q" mode.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In ben m's post, however, Y had never been observed. That is, after all, the reason the Fermi satellite was looking for it.

Boloney!

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/flares.htm

Gamma rays have been observed in space for a long time now. Annihilation signatures are present in the atmosphere of our own sun, so pointing at other stars in the galaxy is bound to show gamma radiation from those stars too! You have no evidence at all that there is any cause/effect relationship between gamma rays and exotic brands of matter. You are again basing the whole argument on a logical fallacy and simply affirming the consequent.

Charitably, perhaps it's just that you simply don't understand the relevant physics, astronomy, or astrophysics.

Nonetheless, your response is a near-perfect example of just the kind of misrepresentation W.D.Clinger referred to!

 

[D'rok]

Qualify and qualification are simply demonstrations of concept in controlled conditions. If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can try jumping off the planet and I will fail each and every time.

That is a very idiosyncratic definition. It also seems to misuse the term "controlled".

So, when you use "qualify" as a verb, you mean to do an experiment like Birkeland's terella?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm still waiting for an answer on that theist/atheist question. I think I can easily explain it to you on your own terms depending on your answer.

IF DRD is a theist, THEN the MM response is ... {MM to fill in the blanks}

IF DRD is an atheist, THEN the MM response is ... {MM to fill in the blanks}

IF DRD is a theist on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and an atheist on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays^, THEN the MM ... (you get the idea).

^ on Sundays? DRD rests.

 

[ben m]

Guth observed that the universe was pretty homogeneous on large scales. He "made up" a "custom fit". Y was observed. Same is true of dark energy and for 'missing mass". These are observations, not "predictions".



Boloney!

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/flares.htm

Gamma rays have been observed in space for a long time now. Annihilation signatures are present in the atmosphere of our own sun, so pointing at other stars in the galaxy is bound to show gamma radiation from those stars too! You have no evidence at all that there is any cause/effect relationship between gamma rays and exotic brands of matter. You are again basing the whole argument on a logical fallacy and simply affirming the consequent.

Do you read, Michael? Read the post again. Did I say no gamma rays were observed? Where the heck did you get that?

 

[GeeMack]

Why is it that the moderators let you get away with murder when it comes to personal attacks?

The moderators let everyone attack your arguments with, how do they say it over at BAUT, fervor and glee? If your arguments didn't carry the stench of dishonesty, crackpottery, incredulity, and ignorance, if they were actually substantial on some level and smacked even remotely of legitimate science, maybe people wouldn't be shredding them to confetti all the time like they do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think this is a key point.

It's also possible (and probably quite typical) for existing observations to trigger a hypothesis. But that hypothesis is useless if it can't generate predictions that can be confirmed. The unconfirmed hypothesis is always only a potential explanation for the observations that triggered it.

The problem with say inflation is that that there are numerous brands of inflation theory floating around out there and every one of them can be "tweaked" at any time. There's no way then to eliminate all potential brands of "inflation" as a potential "cause" of acceleration. Inflation theory is based on a never ending, ever growing list of metaphysical options to choose from. How could one ever falsify them all when none of them enjoy any cause/effect qualification in the first place?

Michael is getting stuck right at the beginning of the process. He refuses, for bizarre reasons which he can't quite explain, to accept exotic matter hypotheses as testable explanations for observed phenomena.

They *failed* all those "tests" to date! You expect me to "have faith" *in spite of* the evidence, not because of the evidence. I have "faith" that there is "missing mass" in some galaxies we have observed. I have no faith that any of that missing mass is contained in a form of exotic matter. See the difference? IMO 'dark matter' is the least "metaphysical" and therefore the most vulnerable of the unseen trilogy of mainstream hypotheses.

To date however there is not a single empirical test that demonstrates the existence of exotic forms of matter, and only Lambda-CDM theory needs it. It sounds like that one particular "hypothesis" needs to be tossed out to me.

So far, AFIAK, these hypotheses have not been dis-confirmed, nor have they been adequately confirmed by predicted observations. We're still in "Q" mode.

That can also be said about God, no? Again, what then separates religion from science?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you read, Michael? Read the post again. Did I say no gamma rays were observed? Where the heck did you get that?

Where Ben did you establish that:

A) exotic forms of "dark" matter even exist?
B) let alone that these forms of matter annihilate and emit gamma rays?

 

[Michael Mozina]

IF DRD is a theist, THEN the MM response is ... {MM to fill in the blanks}

Do I smell fear or what? It's a simple enough question DRD.

 

[D'rok]

Guth observed that the universe was pretty homogeneous on large scales. He "made up" a "custom fit". Y was observed. Same is true of dark energy and for 'missing mass". These are observations, not "predictions".

This is the source of your confusion. Please read my previous post.

Observations trigger hypotheses, which are tentative explanations to be confirmed or dis-confirmed by subsequent testing, where such testing includes observing previously unobserved phemomena that were predicted by the hypotheses.

In other words, the made-up custom fit must be shown to actually fit.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I think this is a key point.

It's also possible (and probably quite typical) for existing observations to trigger a hypothesis. But that hypothesis is useless if it can't generate predictions that can be confirmed. The unconfirmed hypothesis is always only a potential explanation for the observations that triggered it.

Michael is getting stuck right at the beginning of the process. He refuses, for bizarre reasons which he can't quite explain, to accept exotic matter hypotheses as testable explanations for observed phenomena. So far, AFIAK, these hypotheses have not been dis-confirmed, nor have they been adequately confirmed by predicted observations. We're still in "Q" mode.

There's a particularly ironic consequence of MM's approach, which can be shown by a historical example.

Lines^ of a new element were observed in the spectrum of the Sun, in 1868; the new element was given the name "helium".

The same lines^ were observed here on Earth, in 1882.

However, helium was not isolated, and studied, in controlled lab experiments until 1895.

By MM's logic, helium was an "invisible friend", or "exotic matter", from 1868 to at least 1882 (and, strictly, until 1895).

Worse, by MM's logic, 19th century scientists were not doing science when they went looking for evidence of this new element; instead, they should have limited themselves to examining only the spectra of already known elements.

What happens if, one day, a WIMP turns up in some lab? If MM had total authority over doing controlled experiments in labs on Earth, the only way such a thing could happen is serendipitously (all controlled experiments to look for WIMPs, here on Earth, would be verboten in the MM regime).

^ actually only one