Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

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

Not really. Most "experiments" include some type of control mechanism, even if it's a relatively simple one. For instance we believed we knew the source of neutrinos, so we turned on and off that "source" to make sure it had the desired effect on those experiments. A control mechanism helps to establish cause/effect relationships. We don't even know where "dark energy" comes from, let alone how to "control' it.

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

That is a good example of a real set of "experiments" that were designed to demonstrate "cause/effect" relationships, yes. His work was not unique however, it is simply *an* example of how cause/effect relationships can be established via active experimentation.

 

[D'rok]

I'm going to ignore most of this post because it is just a re-hash of your conceptual difficulties.

That can also be said about God, no?

No.

Again, what then separates religion from science?

Testability. Exotic matter experiments can be designed and have in fact been performed. God experiments...not so much.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Actually Guth's brand of inflation was discarded in favor of more "modern" variations on the same metaphysical theme, all of which lack qualification.

I think the part your overlooking is the fact that the list of possible brands of inflation are now endless. There's no cause/effect relationship between any of those brands of inflation and "acceleration". All of them simply "assume" that cause/effect relationship is true and then proceed to "make it fit".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

Take a look at this, typical, MM response.

Recast it (anachronistically) in the 1870s, with reference to helium:

They *failed* all those "tests" to date! You expect me to "have faith" *in spite of* the evidence, not because of the evidence.[1] I have "faith" that there is a "missing line" in the spectrum of some elements we have observed. I have no faith that any of that "He line" is a form of exotic matter. See the difference?

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

[1] no "He line" has ever been observed in any lab spectrum

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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

Not really. Most "experiments" include some type of control mechanism, even if it's a relatively simple one. For instance we believed we knew the source of neutrinos, so we turned on and off that "source" to make sure it had the desired effect on those experiments. A control mechanism helps to establish cause/effect relationships. We don't even know where "dark energy" comes from, let alone how to "control' it.

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

That is a good example of a real set of "experiments" that were designed to demonstrate "cause/effect" relationships, yes. His work was not unique however, it is simply *an* example of how cause/effect relationships can be established via active experimentation.

Good start MM, well done!

Now please continue to explain what you mean, so that everyone reading your posts can understand.

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.

 

[D'rok]

Actually Guth's brand of inflation was discarded in favor of more "modern" variations on the same metaphysical theme, all of which lack qualification.

Now that we know your re-definition of "qualification", I translate the last phrase in the above sentence as "all of which lack controlled lab experiments."

I suspect you are wrong about that.

I think the part your overlooking is the fact that the list of possible brands of inflation are now endless. There's no cause/effect relationship between any of those brands of inflation and "acceleration". All of them simply "assume" that cause/effect relationship is true and then proceed to "make it fit".

And I am certain that this is just more of the same misunderstanding from you. "Proceed to make it fit" is the Q part of the syllogism. It is the confirmatory process. Fine tuning is part of the process. If the hypotheses can survive the rigours of testing with some fine-tuning, then it is a good hypothesis. If it can't, then it isn't.

No conspiracy. No religion. Merely the scientific method in action.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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

I have no idea what you can smell MM; indeed, I do not even know whether you can smell.

My answer was also simple; here it is again:

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

.No. Testability. Exotic matter experiments can be designed and have in fact been performed. God experiments...not so much.

Type in "God experiments" into Google. You'll be amazed.

The problem is that as long as P is simply an affirmation of the consequent, there no way to claim "God didn't do it".

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no idea what you can smell MM; indeed, I do not even know whether you can smell.

My answer was also simple; here it is again:

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.

Ya, I get the idea you're avoiding the question.

 

[GeeMack]

Not &@%^@. Most "%$^#$^" include some type of $^@$^@ #%^#^, even if it's a ^!#%^@ %&@^one. For instance we &#@%&@ we knew the source of neutrinos, so we turned on and off that "&@%&" to make sure it had the desired &@@^# on those $%^!#. A ^@$#^! &#%@ helps to establish &#%@ relationships. We don't even know where "&&@^#" comes from, let alone how to "&@^@' it.

That is a good example of a &@^!@ set of "&@%^@" that were designed to ^@^@! "&@%^@" relationships, yes. His work was not unique however, it is simply *an* example of how &@%@%^@ relationships can be established via active ^&^!#@.

The meaning is clear. Well, okay, maybe not.

Hey, Michael, why the absolute refusal to define the words and phrases you use? Do you really not care in the slightest that you're spending all this time talking but not a single soul in a half a decade has understood a word you've said?

Doesn't your evident failure to communicate worry you?

Not in the slightest.

 

[ben m]

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.

Yay! Good! Finally! Yes, anything whatsoever that can be evaluated and generate predictions qualifies (or qualified) as a hypothesis.

Yes, astrology qualified as a hypothesis. This hypothesis predicted, clear, measurable differences between (e.g.) January babies and April babies, among other things. These differences are explicitly contradicted by huge piles of reliable data (see Carlson 1985 for a recent example). Therefore the hypothesis must be false.

Isn't that nice? I can now say "astrology is false" and people know what I mean. I can say "astrology is false" to people whose preconceptions were pro-astrology, anti-astrology, indifferent, ignorant, etc. I can say "astrology is false" to people who think that it wasn't an epistemologically sound hypothesis to begin with. The scientific method works, Michael.

The statement "dark matter is made of 100 GeV, 10^-20 barn WIMPs" is a hypothesis. "dark matter is made of TeV, 10^-50 barn WIMPs" is another hypothesis. "dark matter is made of rocks" is another hypothesis. "There is no dark matter and the galaxy-rotation-curve data is explained by plasma forces" is another hypothesis. Each of these hypotheses make explicit predictions. The rocks hypothesis is false, the evidence says so. The plasma-forces hypothesis is false, the evidence says so. I don't care whether these hypotheses were made up, why, and by whom---they're false because of the data. Get it?

 

[D'rok]

Type in "God experiments" into Google. You'll be amazed.

Done. Not a single scientific experiment actually testing the God hypothesis.

The problem is that as long as P is simply an affirmation of the consequent, there no way to claim "God didn't do it".

That's because it isn't possible to confirm that God did it.

You're getting so close.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ya, I get the idea you're avoiding the question.

I don't see how; can you elaborate please?

 

[ben m]

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?

Read the post again. And go look up "hypothesis".

This is really astoundingly unscientific; I'm glad we're having this discussion because it's becoming clearer and clearer where your real problems lie.

I don't yet know whether or not my hypothesis ("there exists a gamma-ray-emitting dark matter particle") is true. You are insisting that I must have evidence that gamma-ray-emitting dark matter exists ---- before you will allowed me to look for evidence that gamma ray emitting dark matter exists? Go read the "hypothesis" definition again, Michael. Maybe two or three times.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Done. Not a single scientific experiment actually testing the God hypothesis.

Ditto on your invisible friends. You've shown no cause/effect relationships between "cause" and "effect" in any of your so called "tests". God did it works equally well with exactly the same pilfered math.

That's because it isn't possible to confirm that God did it.

You're getting so close.

You're getting close too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yay! Good! Finally! Yes, anything whatsoever that can be evaluated and generate predictions qualifies (or qualified) as a hypothesis.

So "Godflation" did it is a "valid hypothesis" as long as I pilfer your inflation math?

Yes, astrology qualified as a hypothesis. This hypothesis predicted, clear, measurable differences between (e.g.) January babies and April babies, among other things.

Ya and your stuff also epically fails to show up in real double blind experiments too.

 

[Tubbythin]

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

Its not just a case of using key terms nobody else understands, its a case of using key terms others do understand but giving them a whole new meaning. Like "empirical" and "controlled experiment". I understand these terms perfectly. I could include them in conversation with my peers and they'd know exactly what I mean. But Michael uses them to mean whatever the hell he likes. I think sometimes he changes the definitions too. Just so he can wriggle out of the logical consequences of one of his ridiculous arguments when they're pointed out to him.

 

[ben m]

So "Godflation" did it is a "valid hypothesis" as long as I pilfer your inflation math?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have a hypothesis which you call "godflation" which makes a coherent prediction for something?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have a hypothesis which you call "godflation" which makes a coherent prediction for something?

Sure. Take any inflation theory you like, change the one term "inflation" to "godflation" and tell me how to falsify the topic of "godflation".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Its not just a case of using key terms nobody else understands, its a case of using key terms others do understand but giving them a whole new meaning.

You mean like "dark energy", and "dark matter" and Guth's ever magical "inflation"? Hell, you not only made them up, you gave them your own meanings too. In fact you can't even all agree on their meanings because there are dozen different forms of inflation now.