Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

They don't.

Another argument from ignorance.

Have you decided how you're going to respond to that request of mine that you stop lying? Or can we take it by your persistent dishonesty that you intend to continue?

 

[GeeMack]

Um, I did not 'ignore it', I busted your whole show with it.

You order that tuxedo for your Nobel Prize ceremony yet?

​

 

[ben m]

You specifically linked this right back to the Casimir effect that is *CAUSED* by the EM field. We can demonstrate it's related to the EM field simply by using plastic instead of metals. Your VP's don't do much of anything to plastic.

(Yes, the Casimir effect is only sensitive to the EM component of the vacuum. Other experiments, like heavy-ion collisions at RHIC, are sensitive to the QCD component of the vacuum. Nothing we know of is sensitive to the neutrino component of the vacuum. Etc.)

So now you recognize that there is such a thing as virtual particles? That's a step forward, let's cling to that with both hands for a moment.

Virtual particles can have at least behaviors that are *different* than real particles. Do you agree with that statement?

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Yes, the Casimir effect is only sensitive to the EM component of the vacuum.

IOW it's caused by the carrier particle of the EM field which you already eliminated from consideration because it generates *POSITIVE* not negative pressure! Gah! You're really dancing now.

So now you recognize that there is such a thing as virtual particles? That's a step forward, let's cling to that with both hands for a moment.

Oh for goodness sake. I posted *BOTH* images for you, not just the pretty blue and green image of the EM "standing waves", but I posted the blue "VP bubbles" image for you too! For purposes of mathematics, you can describe it either way. In the end however the kinetic energy is transferred by the carrier particle of the EM field. That is why the effect is material sensitive.

Virtual particles can have at least behaviors that are *different* than real particles. Do you agree with that statement?

I'm done going down these endless sidetracks with you. The carrier particle of the EM field was ruled out as a dark energy candidate because it produces *POSITIVE*, not *NEGATIVE* pressures. The EM field carrier particle is doing the work in the Casimir effect too. It's *NOT* an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum" as you guys have been claiming for months if not years now. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim that the EM field is eliminated because it's an example of "positive pressure", and yet you turn right around and try to claim that same carrier particle is an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum". Make up your mind!

 

[GeeMack]

Oh for goodness sake. I posted *BOTH* images for you, not just the EM "standing waves", but the "VP bubbles" concept for you. For purposes of mathematics, you can describe it either way.

How about for the purpose of mathematics you describe it mathematically, Michael? Oh that's right, your qualifications to understand math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook have been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you do indeed possess those qualifications.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I must say that I admire those here who have the patience to continue to try to educate Mozina (who continues to be on "ignore" -- my patience is not admirable), in spite of his continued demonstration of ignorance and arrogance.
His uninformed opinions about what might account for the observed acceleration of cosmic expansion have all been thoroughly ruled out by qualified specialists. Yet his arrogance and narcissism continue to propel him to maintain his beliefs and proselytize his impossible crackpot theories. I personally find it offensive that he demonstrates such lack of respect for the talented people who have spent years training and investigating -- but that's me!

 

[ben m]

I'm done going down these endless sidetracks with you.

Finally we agree on something. Back to the ignore list you go.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Finally we agree on something. Back to the ignore list you go.

Ah. So when your show gets busted into a million virtual particles, the insults start flying and you start running for cover.

Sorry ben, you can put me on ignore, but you can't hide from reality. In reality that Casimir effect has nothing whatsoever to do with "negative pressure in a vacuum". It's an ordinary EM interaction and the carrier particle is the carrier particle of the EM field. You can't rule out the carrier particle of the EM field as a dark matter candidate because it's an example of positive not negative pressure in one breath and in the next breath try to claim it's an example of negative pressure in a vacuum! That's just irrational.

 

[Reality Check]

IOW it's caused by the carrier particle of the EM field which you already eliminated from consideration because it generates *POSITIVE* not negative pressure! Gah! You're really dancing now.

IOW you do not know what you are talking about.
Real photons are not the carrier particle of the EM field. These are already eliminated from consideration because they always generate *POSITIVE* not negative pressure.
Virtual photons are the carrier particle of the EM field. These can generate *NEGATIVE* or *POSITIVE* pressure.

The *NEGATIVE* case is usually cited for the Casimir effect because it is easily shown to be negative

• From the mathematics.
• From the experimental results in controllable laboratory experiments performed in labs here on Earth (thus meeting your personal definition of wmpirical).

In MM-speak: Gah! You're really dancing now.

Oh for goodness sake. I posted *BOTH* images for you, not just the pretty blue and green image of the EM "standing waves", but I posted the blue "VP bubbles" image for you too! For purposes of mathematics, you can describe it either way. In the end however the kinetic energy is transferred by the carrier particle of the EM field. That is why the effect is material sensitive.

Oh for goodness sake - the ignorance and dependence on pretty cartoons continues!
These cartoons are a way to visualize what is happening. They have little to do with the mathematics.
The Casimir effect has nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the virtual photons.

I'd done going down these endless sidetracks with you. The carrier particle of the EM field was ruled out as a dark energy candidate because it produces *POSITIVE*, not *NEGATIVE* pressures.

An EM field that is contrained to a few micrometers between parallel metalic plates produces *NEGATIVE* pressures.
An EM field that is not contrained to a few nanometers between parallel metalic plates (e.g. on cosmological scales) produces *POSITIVE* pressures.

The EM field carrier particle is doing the work in the Casimir effect too. It's *NOT* an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum" as you guys have been claiming for months if not years now. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim that the EM field is eliminated because it's an example of "positive pressure", and yet you turn right around and try to claim that same carrier particle is an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum". Make up your mind!

Try to understand some science - the pressure that is exerted by virtual photons (an EM field) depends on the system:

• Unconstrained EM fields always exert *POSITIVE* pressure.
• Two close together metallic plates give *NEGATIVE* pressure (the classical Casimir effect).
• You can also have set things up to have a replusive Casimir effect that exerts *POSITIVE* pressure.

And a few of the questions that you have been ignoring for months in various threads.

From Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

• What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
  First asked 9 January 2010
• Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
  First asked 12 January 2010

What is wrong with the derivation of the pressure of the Casimir Force?
(11 January 2010)
This results in an equation for the pressure that is negative for any value.

Simple physics questions for Micheal Mozina
26 March 2009
This is simple enough to quote:

Consider these 2 scenarios

1. A force F pushes on a surface that has an area of A.
2. A force F pulls on a surface that has an area of A.

What is the pressure in these 2 scenarios?
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

IOW you do not know what you are talking about.
Real photons are not the carrier particle of the EM field. These are already eliminated from consideration because they always generate *POSITIVE* not negative pressure.
Virtual photons are the carrier particle of the EM field. These can generate *NEGATIVE* or *POSITIVE* pressure.

Um, how then did you rule out the EM field as a dark energy candidate again?

 

[D'rok]

I just have to delurk to say...

It is telling (and pathetic) that Mozina ignores Tim's posts. Tim's posts are full-spectrum awesome. They authoritatively answer all of Mozina's questions with exactly the kind of science that Mozina supposedly favours, at the same time as they utterly demolish Mozina's flawed reasoning and dishonest debate tactics. Tim's posts are a masterful combination of science and rhetoric.

All Mozina can offer in response is his one-note refrain. Sad. I could program a bot that would pass a Michael Mozina Turing test.

 

[Reality Check]

In reality that Casimir effect has nothing whatsoever to do with "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Finally you get something almost right!
The Casimir effect is an example of negative pressure in a vacuum.
It has nothing to do with the negative pressure exerted by a non-zero cosmological constant, etc.
It is however everything to do with the negative pressure in an EM field constrained to be between 2 parallel metallic plates.

It's an ordinary EM interaction and the carrier particle is the carrier particle of the EM field. You can't rule out the carrier particle of the EM field as a dark matter candidate because it's an example of positive not negative pressure in one breath and in the next breath try to claim it's an example of negative pressure in a vacuum! That's just irrational.

That is where you go totally wrong as usual.
It is totally irrational to ignore that the situations are different.

1. The universe is not a few micrometers wide.
2. The universe is not bounded by 2 parallel metallic plates.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I just have to delurk to say...

It is telling (and pathetic) that Mozina ignores Tim's posts.

I don't ignore Tim's posts he just gets to wait his turn.

Tim's posts are full-spectrum awesome.

Nah, just long winded.

They authoritatively answer all of Mozina's questions with exactly the kind of science that Mozina supposedly favours,

No. I "favor" empirical physics. EM fields show up in the lab. I don't have to "have faith"" in "unseen" (in the lab) entities to believe it can cause acceleration. Tim's "dark stuff" is a complete dud in the lab. Instead of giving me what I ask for, I get a song, a dance, and an insult. That's all Tim's posts really amount to typically although I admit he's been a wealth of interesting reading materials over the years.

at the same time as they utterly demolish Mozina's flawed reasoning

The only "flaw" in any reasoning going on around here relates to the fact that none of these guys can show any cause/effect relationships. Instead it's all based on blind faith in the unseen (in the lab).

and dishonest debate tactics.

Pfft. Your side has nothing to complain about on that score. The insults alone are enough to make me want to barf.

Tim's posts are a masterful combination of science and rhetoric.

No, just rhetoric. It's all rhetoric except for the MR debate which is actually more interesting. It's interesting because it supposedly does take place in the lab, but not without "circuits". Since the circuits change orientation, it can just as rightfully be called "circuit reconnection" however and that's really the only difference between us on that particular issue. The rest is just rhetoric because Tim can't get dark energy to show up in a lab either, and he can't produce a gram of dark matter for us with all his superpowers.

All Mozina can offer in response is his one-note refrains. Sad. I could program a bot that would pass a Michael Mozina Turing test.

I'll bet you could make it work in a lab too. When Tim comes down from his PhD soap box and actually produces some tangible lab results, I'll worship at his feet too. Until then it's just rhetoric.

 

[Reality Check]

Um, how then did you rule out the EM field as a dark energy candidate again?

Um, what a stupid question that has been answered many times before.
Learn to read, MM, or maybe consult someone about your severe inability to remember things.

Which reminds me:
From Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
First asked 12 January 2010
​

 

[D'rok]

I don't ignore Tim's posts he just gets to wait his turn.



Nah, just long winded.



No. I "favor" empirical physics. EM fields show up in the lab. I don't have to "have faith"" in "unseen" (in the lab) entities to believe it can cause acceleration. Tim's "dark stuff" is a complete dud in the lab. Instead of giving me what I ask for, I get a song, a dance, and an insult. That's all Tim's posts really amount to typically although I admit he's been a wealth of interesting reading materials over the years.



The only "flaw" in any reasoning going on around here relates to the fact that none of these guys can show any cause/effect relationships. Instead it's all based on blind faith in the unseen (in the lab).



Pfft. Your side has nothing to complain about on that score. The insults alone are enough to make me want to barf.



No, just rhetoric. It's all rhetoric except for the MR debate which is actually more interesting. It's interesting because it supposedly does take place in the lab, but not without "circuits". Since the circuits change orientation, it can just as rightfully be called "circuit reconnection" however and that's really the only difference between us on that particular issue. The rest is just rhetoric because Tim can't get dark energy to show up in a lab either, and he can't produce a gram of dark matter for us with all his superpowers.



I'll bet you could make it work in a lab too. When Tim comes down from his PhD soap box and actually produces some tangible lab results, I'll worship at his feet too. Until then it's just rhetoric.

Michael, I, unlike you, have read many of the links that Tim has provided. You can't BS me. I know that he has done exactly what he has claimed to do and has shown your bravado to be pathetic posturing and lies.

But I'll bet you'll respond to that jab of mine before you read any of the research that Tim has presented to you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, I, unlike you, have read many of the links that Tim has provided. You can't BS me. I know that he has done exactly what he has claimed to do and has shown your bravado to be pathetic posturing and lies.

But I'll bet you'll respond to that jab of mine before you read any of the research that Tim has presented to you.

That simply isn't true. Most of the links Tim provides are links to his own prior messages that contain links that I've already been through. I do actually appreciate a lot of the material he's sent my way over the years but my time at work is limited. Ya, sometimes I read his stuff later and then respond later, but then I get bitched at by your for waiting to respond till I've had time to go through his links. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

The BS here is directly related to the fact that none of them (you) can produce an actual cause/effect process in a real lab. Instead we just have to "have faith" that some unseen entity did it. Baloney. Just because wee can't explain something doesn't mean "God did it". LIkewise, just because they can't explain cosmic acceleration doesn't mean "dark evil energy did it".

The BS is coming from Tim's side of this debate. There is no empirical cause/effect link between "dark energy" and "acceleration". It's all in their head. Just like any impotent deity, their dark deities fail to show up in lab experiments. What can I say. It's a "religion" based on blind faith in the "unseen".

 

[D'rok]

That simply isn't true. Most of the links Tim provides are links to his own prior messages that contain links that I've already been through. I do actually appreciate a lot of the material he's sent my way over the years but my time at work is limited. Ya, sometimes I read his stuff later and then respond later, but then I get bitched at by your for waiting to respond till I've had time to go through his links. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

The BS here is directly related to the fact that none of them (you) can produce an actual cause/effect process in a real lab. Instead we just have to "have faith" that some unseen entity did it. Baloney. Just because wee can't explain something doesn't mean "God did it". LIkewise, just because they can't explain cosmic acceleration doesn't mean "dark evil energy did it".

The BS is coming from Tim's side of this debate. There is no empirical cause/effect link between "dark energy" and "acceleration". It's all in their head. Just like any impotent deity, their dark deities fail to show up in lab experiments. What can I say. It's a "religion" based on blind faith in the "unseen".

Called it perfectly.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The universe is not a few micrometers wide.
The universe is not bounded by 2 parallel metallic plates.

 

[ben m]

Called it perfectly.

It's easy when the experiment has been repeated so often.

 

[GeeMack]

Ah. So when your show gets busted into a million virtual particles, the insults start flying and you start running for cover.

Your inference that you have shown anyone's position to be wrong is another flat out lie. Apparently you've chosen to ignore my request that you stop lying. Oh well, I guess that's your idea of legitimate science. Fortunately that habit of lying isn't a characteristic of people who actually do posses qualifications in the field of science, which clearly you don't, not even at the level of a grade school child.

Your arguments are pathetic, Michael. The position you advocate is crap. Never once in all the years you've been babbling that BS on the Internet have you made an argument compelling enough to get a single sane soul to buy it. Dam, aren't you embarrassed that you've spent thousands of hours typing pure manure and at every turn you've met such utter and complete failure?