Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[ben m]

I "object" because we have not established that the mainstream "interpretation" of redshift is correct

Yes we have. Michael, you AGREED TO THIS STATEMENT IN PAST THREADS. You said that you agreed that the data (i.e. the redshift data) clearly showed an expanding universe, and moreover that the expansion was accelerating.

Here it is: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494509&postcount=394

Can I take that statement to mean, "I agree that the data shows that the expansion of the universe is accelerating"? That would be a good first step.

Yes, I'd agree with that statement.

That's it, thread over. Thanks for wasting my time. I'll try not to fall for it next time.

 

[Perpetual Student]

On the one hand, we have Maxwell, Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski, Planck Hubble, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr, Gell-Mann, Guth, Hawking, etc., etc.
On the other hand, we have Birkeland and Alfven. Hmm.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes we have. Michael, you AGREED TO THIS STATEMENT IN PAST THREADS. You said that you agreed that the data (i.e. the redshift data) clearly showed an expanding universe, and moreover that the expansion was accelerating.

Here it is: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494509&postcount=394

That's it, thread over. Thanks for wasting my time. I'll try not to fall for it next time.

Ah, the old dishonest tactic of argument by intentionally "forgetting" something learned in the past in order to recycle the taunts, insults, and lies. It seems to be a minor variation on the argument by misdirection...

That's his argument by misdirection. Here's how he typically applies it: Troll some knowledgeable people into doing a bunch of work he's clearly not qualified to do himself, only to spit on them in the end by adding a couple more impossible assumptions to the mix and expecting them to start over. I've seen him use this technique to take people on rides for pages and pages, then literally ignore all their responses and jump to another topic as if it never happened.

It's a rework of the old stand-by, argument by shifting the burden of proof, but with the addition of kicking people in the teeth after they've invested a lot of time and effort into trying to help him. Like a good con man he'll toss in an occasional insincere thank-you or coy apology, but unlike a good con man, Michael's use of this method to milk a failed argument is pretty transparent. It's a dishonest and manipulative way to work an argument, and one of his most often employed. It might be second only to his preferred method, argument by looks-like-a-bunny.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

On the one hand, we have Maxwell, Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski, Planck Hubble, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr, Gell-Mann, Guth, Hawking, etc., etc.
On the other hand, we have Birkeland and Alfven. Hmm.

Actually, what MM has presented is his personal, idiosyncratic understanding of what Birkeland and Alfvén (and Einstein) wrote.

Now we know that MM has enormous difficulty with mathematics, and has shown no understanding of the math which Birkeland and Alfvén used, so I don't think it's entirely appropriate to categorise them as opposed to Maxwell etc.

Also, I think it's true that every one of the people named has had an idea that didn't pan out, scientifically speaking; those 'didn't work outs' can by no means be used to say their work was unscientific.

The contrast with MM is stark; AFAIK, he has not been able to explain any of his ideas in a way that shows clear consistency with the work of any scientist, including Birkeland and Alfvén; nor has he been able to back up his interpretations of the work of others (such as Birkeland and Alfvén) with consistent, reliable references to original sources.

 

[D'rok]

I posted this back in the Iron Sun thread, but it seems more relevant here:

All this ranting about dark energy is hilariously ironic. Michael was quite the dark energy advocate back when he thought it could account for the measurement discrepancy between the actual density of the sun and how dense he needed it to be for it to have a solid iron surface.

I don't think you are grasping the tenuousness of the density measurements, or the lack of accounting for any of the known forces of our universe in these calculations. For instance, where is there any evidence of "dark energy" being factored into density calculations?

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...chpage=2#78835

"Known forces" eh, Michael? Some interesting hypocrisy going on here.

Now we've determined that the dark energy could affect things in either direction, and we've also demonstrated that these ideas have NOT been factored into density calculations. We therefore cannot use a density calculations that is known to be missing some key components as some sort of "dispoof" of what we see in satellite images, and hear in heliosiesmology, and see in nuclear chemical data.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...chpage=3#78837

Pretty sad, IMO.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark Matter and Science II

By what date shall I expect inflation to show up in a lab experiment?

Whether or not inflation shows up in a laboratory is and always has been irrelevant.

Then Godflation did it.

Nice smiley, but the comment is both stupid & dishonest. The interested reader will take note of the rest of that message:

See my earlier post What is "Empirical Science"? V (and previous posts cited therein) for a detailed explanation as to why the point is irrelevant.

Follow the link and you will find this, quote from an earlier message:

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​

Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?

Mozina has seen this before and has consistently ignored it, as if it never existed. Part of his intellectual dishonesty is to ignore anything that might be construed as evidence against his religious pre-conceptions. Notice once again the key line from the E. Bright Wilson quote: "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."

The attentive reader will perhaps have noticed by now that Mozina consistently demands that nothing can be considered in any scientific argument unless it has been unambiguously demonstrated in a controlled, laboratory experiment, here on Earth. Clearly Mozina has in fact redefined the entire concept of science without ever bothering to say so explicitly, and that is an intellectually dishonest thing to do. Mozina has furthermore chosen to deliberately ignore the issue raised here, and that too is an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

Real scientists understand that an intellectually honest exploration of nature is at the heart & soul of science. "Intellectually honest" means that all of the evidence is considered, not just the evidence you like; it means that the conclusion is driven by the weight of evidence and reasonable interpretation thereof. Now we recognize that "interpretation" invariably includes a subjective element, and that is what leads to legitimate disputes within the scientific community. For instance, as I have pointed out before, there is a dispute amongst scientists over the correct interpretation of the data from the XENON100 WIMP dark matter detection experiment. (e.g., ). The basic honesty of the investigation is not in dispute, only the interpretation of the data. But the very fact that the argument exists at all is a problem for Mozina, whose pre-conception requires that claims on behalf of the XENON100 experiment be definitive & unchallenged. So he chose to ignore the argument as if it did not exist, and claim that the results were in fact definitive & unchallenged, allowing him to greatly exaggerate the results of the experiment to the point of ruling out dark matter completely. The intellectual dishonesty comes in the deliberate choice to ignore the disputed nature of the experimental results. This is followed by the wholly unreasonable exaggeration of the affect of the experiment on the laboratory search for dark matter, an unreasonable exaggeration even if the results were in fact definitive & unchallenged. His reaction to the XENON100 experiment was neither intellectually honest nor intellectually intelligent, since he choses to consider only the evidence he likes, not all of the evidence and chooses to vastly exaggerate the affect of he experiment.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Actually, what MM has presented is his personal, idiosyncratic understanding of what Birkeland and Alfvén (and Einstein) wrote.

Point accepted.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Yes it is testable.

So is

• "Satanflation"
• "Carflation"
• "Dogflation"
• "MichaelMozinaflation"
• "Xmanflation"
• etc. etc. etc.
• and of course the scientific inflationary theory ("inflation" in MM-speak) which has actually been tested and passed.

This post in another thread (Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank? ) has a list of the evidence that you are providing us of your crack-pottery.

Now we have:

• The delusion that changing the word that is used to describe something changes what is described.
  As Shakespeare said: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
  A Godrose smells as sweet as a rose.
  A Satanrose smells as sweet as a rose.

There is also the really weird use of quotation marks in your writing (and some other dubious practices such as "*THIS IS IMPORTANT*"). You have "testable" but

1. It is not a quote.
2. Testable has a good definition, i.e. capable of being tested. So using quotation marks to cast doubt on its definition is wrong.

But you have not yet gone as far as real cranks in these dubious practices , e.g. whole posts in upper case and without paragraphs.

 

[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

Michael Mozina has also going mentioned his delusions about Birkland's work. But this is totally irrelevant to the Lambda-CDM model and this thread so I will just link to the Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked! post in the Iron Sun thread which has a section on MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Combine ben's and D'rok's posts, and I think we have a pretty good, straight-forward case of intellectual dishonesty, MM's intellectual dishonesty.

 

[tusenfem]

Point accepted.

Actually, I am still waiting on MM's comments on my discussion of Birkeland's papers/book. Apparently, MM does not think it is very important to discuss the real science that Birkeland has done. I could have written chickenpoop, and he (MM), most likely, would not have noticed. MM does not understand how science works, and idolizes A, B and E and whatever these three have written (mind you they may even have commented on things they have written, e.g. E claiming that the cosmological constant was his greatest mistake ever, which will NOT be taken into account as that would crumble the Mount Olymp on which A, B and E are living).

Naturally, this message will get me scorn from MM, whereas when I discuss real things about B for example, I get a nice message like "thanks that you did this, I will get back to you later, when I have time." However, "when I have time" is usually NEVER!! This clearly shows the mindstate MM is in. He prefers to hackle on the side lines, throw some press releases out, which he does not understand, and that's that. And yes, he once published one paper, sure, but after that I guess it went down hill faster and faster.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I posted this back in the Iron Sun thread, but it seems more relevant here:

All this ranting about dark energy is hilariously ironic. Michael was quite the dark energy advocate back when he thought it could account for the measurement discrepancy between the actual density of the sun and how dense he needed it to be for it to have a solid iron surface.

A long time ago I had a conversation with Nereid/DRD about the possibility that the sun could be accelerating in the Z axis. I used Newton's original rock on a string analogy to explain an additional acceleration "force" if you will. That was the only way I have ever personally proposed that we "might" be underestimating the mass of the sun. It wouldn't necessarily change anything by a large margin, and therefore it's not that "big of a deal" and it's never been "that big of a deal". I never actually advocated "dark energy" because IMO any "acceleration" of plasma is directly related to the EM field. Any "extra energy" is certainly going to be found in that form IMO.

"Known forces" eh, Michael? Some interesting hypocrisy going on here.

IMO you missed the whole point of the post. It is a "known" process according to the mainstream, but it's never factored into anything inside the solar system. It's the ultimate woo because their brand of "acceleration" never works in the lab. I think you took a single post of context.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Combine ben's and D'rok's posts, and I think we have a pretty good, straight-forward case of intellectual dishonesty, MM's intellectual dishonesty.

Let's you and I talk about "intellectual honesty" for a moment. When are you going to admit to the fact that you have three serious "qualification" problems in your theory? How long will this denial process continue before you simply admit your theory is "weak" in these areas?

How long did you intend to ignore that information about the amount of "dust" in the universe in terms of your mass estimation techniques? How long did you intend to ignore that information about the gross *UNDERESTIMATION* of smaller stars in a given galaxy compared to the larger ones we can observe? How long did you simply intend to ignore that information DRD? Forever? What need do I have for "exotic matter" when I know for a fact you *GROSSLY* underestimate the normal mass of a galaxy and I know for a fact you've done nothing about it for years?

You've created a nice little "religion" where no "cause/effect" relationships have ever been established, nor could they ever formally be established in the lab, not ever.

How long did you intend to continue to "dumb down" the electromagnetic events in space to "magnetic yada yada yada"? How long did you and Tim and the other hardcore EU/PC haters intend to persecute empirical physics in cyberspace?

If you had any intellectual honesty you would simply admit your theory has weaknesses like any other scientific theory.

If you had any intellectual honesty you wouldn't attack the messenger, you'd simply "fess up" and be done with it. Instead its one personal attack after another, denial galore on your part, and not a shred of scientific integrity when it comes to revising your mass estimation techniques! Don't even *THINK* about lecturing me about "intellectual honesty" DRD. You don't personally have a leg to stand on.

 

[D'rok]

A long time ago I had a conversation with Nereid/DRD about the possibility that the sun could be accelerating in the Z axis. I used Newton's original rock on a string analogy to explain an additional acceleration "force" if you will. That was the only way I have ever personally proposed that we "might" be underestimating the mass of the sun. It wouldn't necessarily change anything by a large margin, and therefore it's not that "big of a deal" and it's never been "that big of a deal". I never actually advocated "dark energy" because IMO any "acceleration" of plasma is directly related to the EM field. Any "extra energy" is certainly going to be found in that form IMO.




IMO you missed the whole point of the post. It is a "known" process according to the mainstream, but it's never factored into anything inside the solar system. It's the ultimate woo because their brand of "acceleration" never works in the lab. I think you took a single post of context.

More dishonesty from you, Michael. I linked to two posts, not one, and anyone can follow those links to see for themselves the pages and pages of arguments by you where you insist that dark energy and dark matter are real and need to be accounted for when calculating the density of the sun.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually, I am still waiting on MM's comments on my discussion of Birkeland's papers/book. Apparently, MM does not think it is very important to discuss the real science that Birkeland has done. I could have written chickenpoop, and he (MM), most likely, would not have noticed. MM does not understand how science works, and idolizes A, B and E and whatever these three have written (mind you they may even have commented on things they have written, e.g. E claiming that the cosmological constant was his greatest mistake ever, which will NOT be taken into account as that would crumble the Mount Olymp on which A, B and E are living).

And I'm still waiting on Michael to falsify his crackpot Sun conjecture now that there is enough SDO data available to do it just as he said he could. I've done it myself and posted about it a week ago. But incredulity and ignorance are a couple of skills Michael has developed thoroughly and applies in some fashion to every one of his ludicrous arguments.

Naturally, this message will get me scorn from MM, whereas when I discuss real things about B for example, I get a nice message like "thanks that you did this, I will get back to you later, when I have time." However, "when I have time" is usually NEVER!! This clearly shows the mindstate MM is in. He prefers to hackle on the side lines, throw some press releases out, which he does not understand, and that's that. And yes, he once published one paper, sure, but after that I guess it went down hill faster and faster.

He didn't so much publish the paper. Oliver Manuel did. Manuel was taken in by the same dumb kid's optical illusion that Michael was. He was stupid enough to bring Michael into the fold and put Michael's name on his own crank science paper. In discussions about the paper over at BAUT it was clear that Michael didn't even understand it himself. Given Manuel's unwillingness to come to Michael's side, and his outright denial of agreement with Michael's crackpot conjectures, it seems he may now regret bringing Michael into the mix.

And of course the point is, as has been discussed above, the intellectual dishonesty and lack of any scientific integrity whatsoever. It seems to be a common trait among crackpots. They lie, refuse to quantify anything, taunt and insult and jeer at legitimate scientists, and treat those scientists as well as math and the scientific process with utter disdain. They possess an irrational arrogance, believing they alone hold the truth while believing that literally tens of thousands of educated professionals are too stupid to notice some amazing little detail in some PR picture or newspaper article. And they are convinced that those scientists are living in denial of something which would, in reality, earn any of them a Nobel prize while totally overturning the entire consensus view of astronomy, cosmology, and physics.

From my observation these crackpots actually think they're pulling one over on the other people in the discussions. And while they might be fooling their friends, family, and neighbors, who might also be stupid as a bag of rocks, they are transparent to anyone with a lick of sense and even a rudimentary understanding of how science works. The worst of these crackpots are too ignorant to realize how nutty they look from the outside, often to the point of appearing mentally ill, and they're too dishonest, even with themselves, to know how badly they've failed.

 

[ben m]

Let's you and I talk about "intellectual honesty" for a moment. When are you going to admit to the fact that you have three serious "qualification" problems in your theory? How long will this denial process continue before you simply admit your theory is "weak" in these areas?

The post you quoted and then ignored entirely makes it clear that you're not actually discussing the alleged "problems" to begin with. No one agrees with you that there are problems. I'm not sure you agree with yourself that there are problems---things that you write about as "beliefs" appear to be lies adopted for the sake of an argument.

How long did you intend to ignore that information about the amount of "dust" in the universe in terms of your mass estimation techniques?

And here it goes again! See, Michael, you can't possibly believe that we've been ignoring dust. There have been whole threads about dust. You're apparently pretending that we've been ignoring dust, because shouting the accusation sounds like a good argument-starter. Not this time, Michael.

"Shhot the messenger"? What messenger? All I see is a guy wearing a messenger costume who gets his kicks yelling "Hear me! hear me!", but who makes up nonsense messages to get people to listen.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Let's you and I talk about "intellectual honesty" for a moment. When are you going to admit to the fact that you have three serious "qualification" problems in your theory? How long will this denial process continue before you simply admit your theory is "weak" in these areas?

Once again, there can only be "three serious "qualification" problems" when ""qualification" problems" are understood (by more than just you).

Why not take the time and trouble to write what you think these things are, in a way that others can understand? Until you do, all you are saying is "No one else understands what I am trying to say".

I cannot "admit" something unless I understand it.

My theory? What are you talking about?

How long did you intend to ignore that information about the amount of "dust" in the universe in terms of your mass estimation techniques?

Huh? Perhaps you could remind us all of what you are referring to?

Dust is a very minor component of the mass-energy of the universe; even if the estimates were out by a factor 10, they'd likely be no more than a small fraction of the uncertainty in the estimate of the total baryonic component.

How long did you intend to ignore that information about the gross *UNDERESTIMATION* of smaller stars in a given galaxy compared to the larger ones we can observe?

Huh? Perhaps you could remind us all of what you are referring to?

Stars - indeed whole galaxies - comprise only a modest fraction of the estimated total baryonic mass of the universe (most of it is in the WHIM, and the plasma which pervades clusters of galaxies), so even doubling their estimated total mass would barely register, in terms of the estimated uncertainty of the baryonic component.

How long did you simply intend to ignore that information DRD? Forever? What need do I have for "exotic matter" when I know for a fact you *GROSSLY* underestimate the normal mass of a galaxy and I know for a fact you've done nothing about it for years?

(bold added)

How do you "know" this, MM?

I have "underestimated the normal mass of a galaxy"? What are you talking about?

How long did you intend to continue to "dumb down" the electromagnetic events in space to "magnetic yada yada yada"?

Perhaps you didn't read this post of mine?

How do Maxwell's equations ""dumb down" the electromagnetic events in space to "magnetic yada yada yada""?

How does QED do this?

Or are you saying that astrophysicists do not build their models ultimately on Maxwell's equations? QED?

How long did you and Tim and the other hardcore EU/PC haters intend to persecute empirical physics in cyberspace?

What are you talking about?

Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by "empirical physics in cyberspace"? I, for one, have no idea what you intend to mean.

If you had any intellectual honesty you would simply admit your theory has weaknesses like any other scientific theory.

My theory? What are you talking about?

If you had any intellectual honesty you wouldn't attack the messenger, you'd simply "fess up" and be done with it. Instead its one personal attack after another, denial galore on your part, and not a shred of scientific integrity when it comes to revising your mass estimation techniques! Don't even *THINK* about lecturing me about "intellectual honesty" DRD. You don't personally have a leg to stand on.

MM, intellectual dishonesty can be defined in an objective fashion, and one can write criteria for establishing its existence, in an objective, independently verifiable way.

In the case of your posts, here and in other threads, I think the evidence - objective, independently verifiable, remember - is overwhelmingly in support of the hypothesis that you have been intellectually dishonest.

Would you be interested to go through some of that evidence?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes we have. Michael, you AGREED TO THIS STATEMENT IN PAST THREADS. You said that you agreed that the data (i.e. the redshift data) clearly showed an expanding universe, and moreover that the expansion was accelerating.

Here it is: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494509&postcount=394



That's it, thread over. Thanks for wasting my time. I'll try not to fall for it next time.

I have not wasted anyone's time and I do personally favor an expanding, accelerating universe. I simply lack belief that your invisible friends have anything to do with those physical processes. I'm not personally as emotionally attached to the whole redshift phenomenon being directly related to expansion, but I do think it's the most logical explanation for most of it. I doubt it has anything at all to do with "space expansion", rather I suspect it's a phenomenon of time dilation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

 

[GeeMack]

I have not wasted anyone's time and I do personally favor an expanding, accelerating universe. I simply lack belief that your invisible friends [...]

Ben probably doesn't have any invisible friends. Remember where I reminded you that when you suggest that, you're lying? Michael, you are lying.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I have not wasted anyone's time and I do personally favor an expanding, accelerating universe. I simply lack belief that your invisible friends have anything to do with those physical processes. I'm not personally as emotionally attached to the whole redshift phenomenon being directly related to expansion, but I do think it's the most logical explanation for most of it. I doubt it has anything at all to do with "space expansion", rather I suspect it's a phenomenon of time dilation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe

I don't think even you would claim the universe is empty, MM.