Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

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

You have shown time and time again that you are a liar, Michael. I've pointed it out probably a dozen times in just the past half dozen pages, your abject ignorance notwithstanding. Look at all the times other people have reminded you that you're dishonest. I don't even have to bring up previous incidents because catching you in a lie in nearly every post you make is child's play.

And as for insults, every time you invoke the name of legitimate scientists like Birkeland you're spitting in their faces. Every time someone takes the time to explain something to you carefully and in simple terms, you kick them in the teeth by stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything they say. Then you have the gall to ask them to explain it again. You are spitting in their faces, too. And as long as you continue to religiously cling to an unsupportable a position that merits nothing but ridicule, you can be certain people will remind you that it's ridiculous. Insults? Your incessant lying and crackpottery are insults to the good name of science and scientists everywhere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not even close. To begin with, we already know for a fact that electromagnetic forces cannot be responsible.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6270538&postcount=3439

Because "dark energy" is by definition the "anything" which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. If it is a problem with GR, then "dark energy" is that problem with GR. If it is electromagnetism, then "dark energy" is that electromagnetism. If it is a repulsive term in Einstein's equations, then "dark energy" is that repulsive term. How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?

You've told me tons of times that you don't know what the empirical cause might be Tim. Which is it? Do you know or not? What's with the sudden change of heart?

I have already discussed this many times, but since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion,

Tim, it is you that are not interested in an "honest" discussion. You constantly go after the individual rather than the issue. That's not "honest" debate Tim, that's a stupid villianization technique.

it is no surprise that you always ignore it (see Dark Energy and Empirical Science II and the classical electromagnetism links therein).

All you links *ASSUME* a closed system ( a locked house). You can't *ASSUME* that Tim.

But more generally, since when is anything that Birkeland did, right or wrong, at all relevant to the dark energy problem anyway?

Did you say a few days ago you didn't know what it was and *IF* it was EM fields responsible that too would be "dark energy"? The posturing around here is dizzying. You folk eliminate the EM carrier particle yet point at the same thing as evidence of negative pressure in a vacuum. You claim it *COULD* be EM fields one day, but it can't be EM fields the next. Which is it? How do you even know it's a "closed" system in the first place?

Birkeland was interested in trying to figure out what caused aurorae, and postulated a flow of charged particles from the sun as an explanation. But cosmological dark energy is not logically connect to the aurorae in any way, nor to the solar wind, nor to any flow of charged particles. So the whole idea you present here is illogical at best.

Baloney. EM field are *THE* most likely candidate to explain "acceleration". You dark energy god is entirely impotent around plasma but EM fields move plasma around at will. There isn't a "more likely" cause of "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe than EM fields Tim.

Not even close, but since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion, it is no surprise that you systematically reject the controlled laboratory experiments in which magnetic reconnection is observed to happen (see Dark Energy and Empirical Science VI and the magnetic reconnection links therein).

You mean "circuit reconnection"" happens Tim. Magnetic reconnection is "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory and your "reconnection" doesn't work without "circuits". More telling it's the "circuits" that reorient themselves, not simply the magnetic lines. You still have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you can't tell a circuit from a magnetic line.

Whether or not dark energy has an observable effect here on Earth is not even relevant to the discussion.

That sounds remarkably like a theist claiming it's not relevant to the discussion that God has no observable effect on Earth. BS.

As for empirical demonstrations, that has already been done. But, since you seem uninterested in an honest discussion,

That is such BS Tim. You NEVER showed any empirical demonstration. Your dark energy deity is entirely impotent in the lab. It doesn't DO anything. You won't even be honest about the actual weakness of your argument, you attack individuals rather than the issue, and you have the nerve to question my honesty Tim? Really? Get over yourself. If you had even admitted to the glaring problem in your theory at least I'd know you were "honest" about it. Your dark energy deity is impotent. It's not "real". Its a name you made up Tim, nothing more. It represents nothing but human ignorance, and probably in the end a dozen of so "specific" metaphysical hypotheses about mythical negative pressure energies.

it is no surprise that you have never even bothered to look at it (see Empirical Evidence for Dark Energy).

All you have Tim is evidence of acceleration, and not a lick of empirical evidence that your impotent dark energy had anything at all to do with it. Unlike a powerful Em field that CAN and DOES accelerate plasma in a lab, your dark energy deity is an empirical weakling and epically fails to show itself empirically.

[QUOTE[Falsifiability does not require laboratory experiments, nor does empirical science in general. [/QUOTE]

Notice your logic. You first claim that 'dark energy' is by "definition" *ANYTHING* that might cause acceleration. EM fields certainly do that. Gravity can do that too. By your own "definition", "dark energy" could be either of these things too. You don't know. You don't even have a clue whether this is an open or closed universe. You have no idea.

I guess I'll stop here since the rest looks to be pure character assassination from the guy that fancies himself to be an 'honest' debater. Sheesh.

 

[D'rok]

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

Sad, but true.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Finally you get something almost right!
The Casimir effect is an example of negative pressure in a vacuum.

Then EM fields can can be the cause of "negative pressure" RC. You cannot have it both ways. Either the carrier particle of the EM field *DOES* create negative pressure, and therefore it *CAN* be a "cause" of acceleration, or the Casimir effect is not an example of negative pressure in a vacuum. It's most likely an example of "charge attraction" between the two surfaces based on the synchromized movement of electrons inside the material.

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.

Charge attraction and gravitational attraction are not limited to a few micrometers RC. The universe *COULD* in fact be OPEN in which case that same "attraction" to another set of matter could in fact generate "acceleration". It's absolutely amazing to me that you *ASSUME* a closed system and then rant about how it CANNOT be anything like the example your tying to claim is an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum". If the EM carrier particle can attract the plates and that can be considered "negative pressure', then charged mass outside of this physical universe could certainly have the same effect. It's only because you're so emotionally attached to a nice, tidy creation event that you can't see the parallels RC.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the EM field CAN produce "negative pressure" then it CAN be your missing 'dark energy' too. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Called it perfectly.

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

Empirically too, in a lab, right here on Earth.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sad, but true.

The sad but true part is that none of you have even admitted or accepted that the mainstream theory has a serious weakness. If anyone doubted that EM fields can actually "cause" acceleration they can easily go into any lab and demonstrate it to themselves. It's only these religions that require "faith in the unseen" that always require a free pass when it comes to empirical laboratory physics. It's sad you folks can't just be honest and admit that mainstream theory has serious flaws and move on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Empirically too, in a lab, right here on Earth.

Yes, because I am real and your dark deities are impotent. That's the physical difference.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Can you imagine being a physics professor with Mozina in the class?
The only satisfying aspect might be giving him a big bad F.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, because I am real and your dark deities are impotent. That's the physical difference.

There is no evidence in a lab that you are real and so according to your logic you are not real !

We have observed the effects of the "dark Michael Mozina deity". But this "dark Michael Mozina deity" is impotent in a lab and does not exist.

Your ignorance that dark energy has nothing to do with a religious deity is still astounding through. This persistent delusion is just confirming that the answer to Are you aware that you are still showing the symptoms of a crank? remains no.

As for dark energy not showing in a lab - that is your your own personal obsession stemming from your ignorance of the properties of the cause of the acceleration. Any one with 2 brain cells who can read knows that dark energy cannot be tested for:

Since it is not very dense — roughly 10^−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory.

Scientists know that there are things that will never be tested in any conceviable experiemt, e.g. stars. See Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? 20th May 2010 - your silence suggests that you must by your logic think that stars do not exist .
Any one who can read knows that empirical measurments include observations (thus stars and dark energy exist).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you imagine being a physics professor with Mozina in the class?
The only satisfying aspect might be giving him a big bad F.

And so the coercion begins....... "If thou shalt not bow to my impotent invisible gods, I will smite thee with an "F"."

 

[GeeMack]

Can you imagine being a physics professor with Mozina in the class?
The only satisfying aspect might be giving him a big bad F.

If I recall correctly, many years ago on another forum, I offered to reimburse Michael his tuition if he would take a first level physics course at his community college and pass with a B or better. Might be that he never saw the offer since he did turn and run from that discussion. Or was he banned for refusing to answer direct relevant questions about his crackpot conjecture? It was, after all, a long time ago.

This speaks to Michael's lack of ability or willingness to defend his own criticisms of the dark energy hypothesis with legitimate science, as opposed to just more of the same dishonesty, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance, or by providing a rational scientific alternative.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If I recall correctly, many years ago on another forum, I offered to reimburse Michael his tuition if he would take a first level physics course at his community college and pass with a B or better.

No amount of math is going to make up for the fact that your mythical dark energy is *at least* as empirically impotent on Earth as any god of the sky. It's pathetically weak and can't manifest itself on Earth. No amount of "math" will ever change that "fact".

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no evidence in a lab that you are real and so according to your logic you are not real !

Sometimes you say things that are simply so outrageous they make me laugh out loud. Thanks for the giggle.

 

[Reality Check]

Sometimes you say things that are simply so outrageous they make me laugh out loud. Thanks for the giggle.

There is a serious undercurrent to that joke.

You have your own personal definition of empirical that is not shared by scientists in general. This definition seems to be only things that can be detected in a lab can exist. That ignores the fact that empirical includes observations such as the stars in the sky

So I pointed out the following post that you are still ignoring: Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? (asked on 20th May 2010).
This points out the logical inconsistency in your position

Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist?

According to his definiton of science, only things that can be tested in experiments in labs exist. We have never had a star in a lab and so according to MM they cannot exist!



Maybe that is too strict an interpretation of his personal definition of science. He may deduce that stars exist despite not being detected in labs because

• We observe bright lights in the sky.
• Our knowledge of physics tells us that the cause of these bright lights is some form of light emitting objects.
• We call the cause "stars".

But of course the same logic tells scientists dark energy exists despite not being detected in labs because

• They observe that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
• Our knowledge of physics tells us that the cause of this increase is some form of energy.
• They call the cause "dark energy" (because "energy" is already taken).

So if MM states that dark energy does not exist because some kind of a logic error then he is also stating that stars do not exist.

Of course there are many other things that exist in the universe that we have never had in a lab, e.g.

• planets
• comets
• galaxies
• the interstellar medium
• the intracluster medium

According to your logic these do not exist either. According to your rather naive and personal defintion of empirical, nothing exists outside of the Earth unless we have a chunk of it !

 

[tusenfem]

You mean "circuit reconnection"" happens Tim. Magnetic reconnection is "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory and your "reconnection" doesn't work without "circuits". More telling it's the "circuits" that reorient themselves, not simply the magnetic lines. You still have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you can't tell a circuit from a magnetic line.

Hey Mozie! Still waiting for your detailed model of your "circuit reconnection" and how it e.g. applies in the Earth's magnetotail. Anytime soon, we are going to get that or is it only words and claims and nothing of substance?

 

[Vorpal]

MM is a living incarnation of a strange attractor.
Exact behavior unpredictable, but it still goes round and round the same points with no end in sight...

Yes, because I am real and your dark deities are impotent. That's the physical difference.

Iä! Iä! Lambda fhtagn!
(Who will be ripped apart first?)

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM is a living incarnation of a strange attractor.
Exact behavior unpredictable, but it still goes round and round the same points with no end in sight...

There really is just one key point, specifically the lack of a demonstration of real empirical cause/effect relationships. It's the same flaw in most religions. Anyone can point at the sky and claim their invisible entity did it. It's another thing entirely to demonstrate it physically in controlled experimentation. All the round and round stuff seems to be directly related to their collective inability to simply admit that their theory has a gaping empirical flaw, three of them actually, two in Lambda-CDM.

There is no cause/effect demonstration that "dark energy" actually causes acceleration. It's was a *DEFINITION* of their sky god. It simply goes down hill from there from the perspective of empirical tangible physics. Their aversion to all things "circuit" oriented is like having an extra heavy set of blinders on, and their *INSISTENCE* that the system *MUST BE* closed prohibits them from looking outside the box. It's a "religion' that requires faith in the unseen. Unfortunately, based on the impotence of their entities, and the way they claim it works, it's simply physically impossible for a human being to *EVER* physically verify their claims related to 'cause/effect" relationships.

GM's mindset is fascinatingly parallel to any zealous religious evangelist. In his mind the 'dark energy" entity *must* exist by 'definition'. He really hasn't a clue what the empirical cause might be, but he and Tim *INSIST* that "by definition' dark energy is the 'cause" of acceleration. It's a blind faith in something that's never been done, and something that has no empirical connection to acceleration. They could have called it "sky god energy". They could have called it "ignorance on a stick energy'. They could have called it anything and everything and *INSTANTLY* that "name" becomes "real' and their 'name" becomes the "cause". He also personally attacks anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint with all the veracity of any religious zealot. It's fascinating from the standpoint of religious psychology, but sad that it is being applied to what is supposed to be a field of 'empirical physics".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey Mozie! Still waiting for your detailed model of your "circuit reconnection" and how it e.g. applies in the Earth's magnetotail. Anytime soon, we are going to get that or is it only words and claims and nothing of substance?

Why wait for me? Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it. I'm not your math mommy. Didn't your friend write that solar atmospheric paper that had a circuit orientation? I'm sure he could help you out if you can't figure it out by yourself. Have you read any of Alfven's papers on those circuits? Why do you need *ME* to do this stuff for you anyway since Alfven wrote about it extensively?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is a serious undercurrent to that joke.

You have your own personal definition of empirical that is not shared by scientists in general. This definition seems to be only things that can be detected in a lab can exist. That ignores the fact that empirical includes observations such as the stars in the sky

But RC, I can shake your hand, take you to dinner, buy you a beer and prove to you that I'm real. Your dark energy entity can't do that for you. The sun can heat your skin in the morning. You can tangibly feel it's effect on your skin. You can see and feel the energy emanating from it in physically tangible ways. Your dark energy entity is so weak as to be immeasurable on Earth. There is a significant empirical difference between me and dark energy RC and you will have to accept that sooner or later. At least I can actually respond to you.

I really don't have any problem with you scaling up anything you can find on Earth to any size that seems appropriate. What you can't do is point at the sky and claim "my invisible entity did it' without demonstrating any cause/effect relationships between your entity and the observation in question.

 

[GeeMack]

There really is just one key point [...]

And that key point, as you continue to stress, is your argument from incredulity and ignorance.

[* Ranting arguments from incredulity and ignorance snipped. All rational criticism of contemporary dark energy theory, all alternative explanations, and all legitimate scientific commentary left intact. *]