Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[D'rok]

When will you acknowledge the qualification problems in mainstream theory?



I've seen all types of folks come up with "testable predictions" about God that were affirmations of the consequent of something already observed.



Then "godflation" can make exactly the same set of "predictions" and therefore it's a valid scientific hypothesis too, along with "god energy" and "god matter". If there are no requirements to show any cause/effect relationships, "God did it" is a valid "hypothesis" too, and equally unfalsifiable.



The only thing that is clear is that you're utterly ignoring the cause/effect qualification problems of standard theory and refusing to acknowledge the danger in using a logical fallacy to support your claim.

Pathetic response devoid of any understanding of the basic conceptual issues under discussion.

 

[Tubbythin]

When will you acknowledge the qualification problems in mainstream theory?

You have completely failed to explain what this is. Stop blaming others for your failures.

I've seen all types of folks come up with "testable predictions" about God that were affirmations of the consequent of something already observed.

That's nice. Were they quantifiable?

Then "godflation" can make exactly the same set of "predictions" and therefore it's a valid scientific hypothesis too, along with "god energy" and "god matter". If there are no requirements to show any cause/effect relationships, "God did it" is a valid "hypothesis" too, and equally unfalsifiable.

Nobody has any idea what these things are. They're terms you made up remember.

The only thing that is clear is that you're utterly ignoring the cause/effect qualification problems of standard theory and refusing to acknowledge the danger in using a logical fallacy to support your claim.

The only thing that is clear is that you don't even have the slightest clue about the topic you have been rambling on about in this thread?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just in case someone besides Michael Mozina has forgotten the question in question, here it is:

Pick something up off the ground and let it go. I assure you gravity will show up and have an effect on that item. Likewise if you jump up, you will come back down because gravity shows up in the lab and has a tangible effect on real things.

The "it" is this:

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)?

Let's see how well MM's experiment/explanation (if that's what it is) of qualification works.

"Pick something up off the ground" - OK, did that.

"and let it go" - OK, did that too.

"I assure you gravity will show up and have an effect on that item" - um, if you say so ... but what "effect" did you predict "will show up"? And how did you relate the effect to "gravity"?

"if you jump up" - OK, did that

"you will come back down" - um, no, that did not happen ... does that mean that "gravity" does NOT "show up in the lab"? That it does NOT "have a tangible effect on real things"?

Also, does that mean that "gravity" affects only human beings who can jump up?

 

[Ziggurat]

Qualify and qualification are simply demonstrations of concept in controlled conditions.

You are attempting to establish a standard which no scientist has previously used, and which you don't even use consistently yourself.

If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can try jumping off the planet and I will fail each and every time.

And if I doubt that space-time is curved... what can I do, Michael? How can I measure the curvature of space-time? According to your own definition (such as it is), Einstein's theory of general relativity was completely unqualified.

I don't have to accept gravity on faith

And the curvature of space-time? How do you qualify that, Michael?

If I doubt the math related to gravity, I can create active experiments (with real control mechanisms) to test the formulas.

Einstein couldn't.

Every objection you have ever leveled against cosmology is equally true of general relativity. But you are too ignorant of both to even understand that. You accept general relativity not because you understand it, or the evidence behind it, but merely because you accept the authority of Einstein. You take it on faith. You pretend that you're being objective, but you're not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Correction: It would be dishonest of me to attack you personally instead of noting that your argument reeks of rhetorical tactics that are widely associated with dishonest arguments.

And yet the mainstream argument reeks of rhetorical logical fallacies where they simply affirm the consequent of whatever they happen to point at! It's dishonest to simply ignore that they have a serious problem qualifying even one of their three invisible entities.

Unlike you, however, I am willing to entertain scientific hypotheses,

So you entertain "godflation did it" too?

to deduce the consequences of those hypotheses, to design experiments that can test whether those consequences are true, and to reject hypotheses that fail those tests.

But that xenon 100 tests isn't a "failure" because.....?

What will it take to falsify something that was never verified in the first place?

Since no cause/effect demonstration was ever performed, and no other branch of physics requires these things to exist, what exactly is "scientific" about an ad hoc assertion about a new form of matter and/or energy?

 

[Tubbythin]

Calling someone a little turd is hardly attacking the argument. You'll rationalize anything eh?

That wasn't an attack on you... unless you think you have a load of followers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Pathetic response devoid of any understanding of the basic conceptual issues under discussion.

IMO you're doing some serious mental gymnastics to simply avoid accepting the fact that the mainstream theory has three different qualification problems going on at the moment. It's not *just* that exotic matter has thus far failed to show up in the lab. Their "dark energy" deity is shy around all forms of matter. Their inflation god is dead. It's absolutely impossible to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships with any of these things and the 'effects" they are associated with, and the properties that they are claimed to posses!

 

[Michael Mozina]

That wasn't an attack on you... unless you think you have a load of followers.

And you think that's an "intellectually honest" way to go about debating these issues I presume? You guys are incredible. You'll rationalize anything and everything so long as it supports your faith. Lovely.

 

[D'rok]

IMO you're doing some serious mental gymnastics to simply avoid accepting the fact that the mainstream theory has three different qualification problems going on at the moment. It's not *just* that exotic matter has thus far failed to show up in the lab. Their "dark energy" deity is shy around all forms of matter. Their inflation god is dead. It's absolutely impossible to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships with any of these things and the 'effects" they are associated with, and the properties that they are claimed to posses!

Round and round we go.

Care to redeem yourself by taking your reading comprehension exam at the bottom of the previous page?

 

[Tubbythin]

And yet the mainstream argument reeks of rhetorical logical fallacies where they simply affirm the consequent of whatever they happen to point at! It's dishonest to simply ignore that they have a serious problem qualifying even one of their three invisible entities.

Utter nonsense. There are thousands of papers giving quantitative analyses of tests of these theories.

So you entertain "godflation did it" too?

Nobody knows what Godflation is except you.

But that xenon 100 tests isn't a "failure" because.....?

Michael. We observe an apple in a shop window. I propose that the apple ways less than 100 g. You propose it ways more than 150 g. We happen to have a set of scales with us. However, the maximum measureable mass on the scales is 130 g. We stick the apple on the scales. The pointer goes all the way to the end of the scales. Do you conclude:
a) I'm right and you're wrong;
b) I'm wrong and you're right;
c) I'm wrong and you may or may not be right;
d) Something else?

What will it take to falsify something that was never verified in the first place?

Indisputable evidence that it doesn't exist.

Since no cause/effect demonstration was ever performed, and no other branch of physics requires these things to exist, what exactly is "scientific" about an ad hoc assertion about a new form of matter and/or energy?

Well for starters it isn't even remotely ad hoc. Consequently the rest of the paragraph is utterly meaningless.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

No, your evasion continues. You epically failed to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships between:

A) acceleration
B) mass

I did?

I wasn't aware that you had asked me to make such a demonstration (can you cite a post in which you do?)

and any of the following items:

1) inflation
2) dark energy
3) exotic forms of matter

Again, I wasn't aware that you had asked me any such question.

In any case, I don't think I could "demonstrate any cause/effect relationship" between inflation and exotic forms of matter.

Nor could I "demonstrate any cause/effect relationship" between inflation and dark energy.

Nor could I "demonstrate any cause/effect relationship" between dark energy and exotic forms of matter.

May I ask why you think I could (or should)?

If you refuse to acknowledge your lack of qualification, how is that being "intellectually honest"?

Again, I can't acknowledge (or not acknowledge) something I don't understand (so whatever I say cannot possibly be intellectual dishonesty).

Again, what do you mean by "qualification"?

You might like to consider the following as a way to start to answer this key question:

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The "it" is this:

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)?

Let's see how well MM's experiment/explanation (if that's what it is) of qualification works.

"Pick something up off the ground" - OK, did that.

"and let it go" - OK, did that too.

"I assure you gravity will show up and have an effect on that item" - um, if you say so ... but what "effect" did you predict "will show up"? And how did you relate the effect to "gravity"?

"if you jump up" - OK, did that

"you will come back down" - um, no, that did not happen ... does that mean that "gravity" does NOT "show up in the lab"? That it does NOT "have a tangible effect on real things"?

Also, does that mean that "gravity" affects only human beings who can jump up?

What is the point in responding to you when you go out of your way to *not* address the point?

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment. Your three metaphysical invisible friends never show up in the lab. You're comparing something "real" to something "imaginary" and you refuse to acknowledge their key differences. Your dark energy never shows up in the lab. Your inflation friend is dead and is evidently incapable of *EVER* showing up in a lab. Your exotic matter hypothesis lacks any sort of empirical support in the lab.

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. Your three metaphysical entities are complete no shows in the lab.

 

[Tubbythin]

And you think that's an "intellectually honest" way to go about debating these issues I presume?

I have no particular opinion. I know that your comments are, at times intellectually dishonest. For example:

what exactly is "scientific" about an ad hoc assertion about a new form of matter and/or energy

And other times just plain ridiculous:

So essentially "God did it" is a valid hypothesis and it is completely indistinguishable from what you're calling "science".

You guys are incredible.

Thanks.

You'll rationalize anything and everything so long as it supports your faith. Lovely.

What are you talking about? I wasn't supporting anything. I was merely pointing out that GM wasn't calling you a turd unless you believed you had a number of followers.

 

[GeeMack]

IMO you're doing some serious mental gymnastics to simply avoid accepting the fact that the mainstream theory has three different qualification problems going on at the moment. It's not *just* that exotic matter has thus far failed to show up in the lab. Their "dark energy" deity is shy around all forms of matter. Their inflation god is dead. It's absolutely impossible to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships with any of these things and the 'effects" they are associated with, and the properties that they are claimed to posses!

Other than the fact that the effects are measurable. That's where the numbers come in, Michael. It's quantification, the way real science is done. And unless you want to postulate that the cause of the effect is that magic stuff you keep blathering about, there is a real, genuine, scientifically supportable cause. So much for your crackpot claim that "it's absolutely impossible to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships with any of these things". These "things", as you call them, at the simplest level, are the cause of the effect.

Oh, and dark matter and dark energy are names that have been given to the causes. After all, we have to call them something, don't we?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's dishonest to simply ignore that they have a serious problem qualifying even one of their three invisible entities.

It might be ... if everyone understood what "qualifying even one of their three invisible entities" means.

However, it cannot possibly be dishonest if the only person who knows what this means is you, and if you continue to refuse to explain it (or, charitably, are utterly unable to explain it).

But that xenon 100 tests isn't a "failure" because.....?

This is, again, another example of misrepresentation, dishonesty, or (charitably) abysmal reading comprehension.

Since no cause/effect demonstration was ever performed, and no other branch of physics requires these things to exist, what exactly is "scientific" about an ad hoc assertion about a new form of matter and/or energy?

Let's get into an anachronistic time machine, and go back to the 1870s.

Since no cause/effect demonstration was ever performed, and no other branch of physics requires these things helium to exist, what exactly is "scientific" about an ad hoc assertion about a new form of matter and/or energy (a.k.a. element)?

Is this a valid application of your "qualification" MM?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So you entertain "godflation did it" too?

If someone were proposing a scientific hypothesis involving "godflation", and that hypothesis made testable predictions, then I would certainly be willing to entertain the hypothesis no matter how bad a name had been given to one of its components.

What will it take to falsify something that was never verified in the first place?

Congratulations. You have just demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that you have no idea how falsification works in science.

In return for performing that service to this thread and to the world at large, I will answer your question. A scientific hypothesis X makes testable predictions of the form "if X, then Y". (If there were no such predictions, then X would not be a scientific hypothesis.) If we can come up with observations and/or experiments that will determine (with some reasonable level of confidence) whether Y is true, then we attempt to perform those observations and/or experiments. If we find that Y is not true, then X is falsified.

Someone who is unwilling even to consider predictions of the form "if X, then Y" until X has been "qualified" will never be able to falsify X.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no particular opinion. I know that your comments are, at times intellectually dishonest.

The only intellectually dishonest thing going on in this thread is the complete unwillingness to acknowledge the qualification problems in mainstream theory. The rest of this conversation is pointless trash talking because you folks can't produce the goods in the lab.

It is not my personal fault that all you elected to place your faith in no less that three invisible unseen entities, none of which ever bother to show up in the lab. I've seen religions that requires fewer acts of faith on the part of the believer.

 

[Tubbythin]

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment.

No it doesn't. It consistently fails to show up in almost all particle physics experiments.

Your three metaphysical invisible friends never show up in the lab. You're comparing something "real" to something "imaginary" and you refuse to acknowledge their key differences. Your dark energy never shows up in the lab.

So? Should the Universe obey laws of physics that can be tested with equipment available to the human population on or before the 4th of June 2010. If you think so, please explain why?

Your inflation friend is dead and is evidently incapable of *EVER* showing up in a lab.

I suggest you look up the definition of the word "dead". You seem to have no grasp of what it means.

Your exotic matter hypothesis lacks any sort of empirical support in the lab.

So? Why should the laws of the Universe be such that all aspects of physics should be testable in a lab on or before the date of June the 4th 2010.? I really would like to know this. If you cannot justify your answer then you simply have no argument.

Gravity isn't shy around the lab.

It is often very shy. Try measuring the gravitatinal force in a proton-proton collision at the LHC.

Your three metaphysical entities are complete no shows in the lab.

What metaphysical entities. And, for good luck, why should the laws of the Universe be such that all aspects of physics should be testable in a lab on or before the date of June the 4th 2010?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Other than the fact that the effects are measurable.

Godflation, god energy and god matter have exactly the same measurable effect as your three metaphysical amigos. All we have to do is rename the metaphysical variables!

That's where the numbers come in, Michael. It's quantification, the way real science is done.

Except you can't distinguish godflation from inflation with exactly the same math and they both enjoy exactly the same empirical support-none.

And unless you want to postulate that the cause of the effect is that magic stuff you keep blathering about, there is a real, genuine, scientifically supportable cause.

Oh, but "godflation" did it.

So much for your crackpot claim that "it's absolutely impossible to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships with any of these things".

You cannot demonstrate your mythical buddies even exist in nature, let alone demonstrate they "cause" anything!

These "things", as you call them, at the simplest level, are the cause of the effect.

No, you simply affirmed the consequent like any "religion" and like any standard religion you epically failed to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships!

Oh, and dark matter and dark energy are names that have been given to the causes. After all, we have to call them something, don't we?

Why not call them god energy and god matter then?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it doesn't. It consistently fails to show up in almost all particle physics experiments.

I thought we were being intellectually honest? Does gravity show up on Earth in controlled experiments? Does inflation show up on Earth in the lab?