Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

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.

Where do you think the labs are where they've observed and measured the accelerating expansion of the Universe?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

You aren't even a distant cousin. Your posts bear no relationship to math at all. What's more, you have displayed no knowledge of physics.

According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0

Combine that with one of Maxwell's equations that your preposterous substitution leaves untouched, and we get ρ=0.

Congratulations, Michael. You have just told us there is no electric charge anywhere in the universe.

Yes, folks, Michael Mozina says there is no such thing as electricity. All that electric universe/plasma cosmology theory must be pure bunkum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where do you think the labs are where they've observed and measured the accelerating expansion of the Universe?

What does that observation have to do with your mythical impotent form of "negative pressure" energy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism,

Er, no. That was you own strawman Mr. Spock.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Er, no. That was you own strawman Mr. Spock.

Not mine. Yours. You're the only person in this thread who has ever suggested substituting E for B.

Your suggestion was stupefyingly ignorant, so there was no way any of us could have known you were only kidding. When you want to say something stupid but don't want us to think you're serious, you should use a smiley face (as in the quotation above).

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Wow. How... ignorant.

You know why astrophysicists don't use a "circuit" picture? Because it's too limited. In a circuit, current only flows in fixed wires, because solids have a work function. Plasmas don't, so current is NOT similarly constrained. Circuits are closed. Space isn't. Your understanding is exactly backwards: it is a circuit picture which puts blinders on you, using Maxwell's equations directly constitutes a broader view.

GM's mindset is fascinatingly parallel to any zealous religious evangelist.

Oh the irony.

The kicker here, Michael, is that not only are you completely wrong in your understanding of the theories you object to, you don't even understand freshman physics. Yet you sail ever onward into the storm of your own ignorance, never worrying that your failure to grasp basic physics concepts (like what pressure actually is) might have any impact at all on your understanding of advanced topics.

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".

That's quite true. Of you.

 

[tusenfem]

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

Just replacing B with E does not a circuit representation make. Eugene Parker and Tony Lui, in their papers on the case for Ej or Bv paradigm explicitely write that down, that taking the Bv model and transforming it to the Ej model does not create a circuit representation (I am sure you have both papers). A circuit representation is a "long wavelength approximation of the plasma physics" I am sure Alfvén writes that too when he introduces circuit theory.
"My friend" was writing about oscillations of magnetic loops, which can well be described by circuits (because ... ) but it has nothing to do with reconnection.
Yes I have read Alfvén's papers and books, but nothing there that describes reconnection. There is only the paper on "exploding double layers" and "unwinding of a flux tube through a double layer" which don't describe anything that can even remotely describe what Cluster (10 year anniversary right now) has measured in great detail.
As I have no idea what you mean with induction, there is no way I can write down your model, and if I did understand what you mean, I still would not do it, because that is your model, not mine. But apparently there is no such "circuit model" of reconnection, otherwise you would have long presented it to show your supremacy.

 

[Reality Check]

I really don't have any problem with you scaling up anything you can find on Earth to any size that seems appropriate.

Lets confirm this:
You are now saying that we do not need to have a chunk of dark energy (or a star) in a lab to deduce that it exists?

Guess what - that is what scientists have been doing for centuries!
We can use the laws of physics that we measure to deduce things from observations.
For example we measure gravity, describe it using GR and so can use GR to deduce things like a non-zero cosmological constant would cause an acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.



In that case:

1. Stars exist!
   The demonstrated cause/effect relationship between light and the observations of stars is a well tested theory called QM.
2. Dark energy exists.
   The demonstrated cause/effect relationship between dark energy and the observations (there is not only the supernova data) is a well tested theory called GR.

 

[Reality Check]

What does that observation have to do with your mythical impotent form of "negative pressure" energy?

GeeMack's post has everything to do with the little fact that effects of dark energy are detected in labs.

Your post has everything to do with your continued and persistent ignorance that

Dark energy is not impotent - it is measured to accelerate the universe !
​

 

[Tim Thompson]

E and B

Well, Mozina did say ...

Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it.

And Clinger did respond ...

According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding ...

To which Mozina further responded with ...

Er, no. That was you own strawman Mr. Spock.

So here is where we stand: Mozina says "convert all the B's to E's" and then claims it is a straw man for Clinger to say he said it. I trust the interested reader can understand how it is possible to doubt Mozina's sincere support for simple honesty.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? VII

Consider this exchange of comments:

Falsifiability does not require laboratory experiments, nor does empirical science in general.

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.

Notice that Mozina quoted me, but then in his response totally ignores it. What's going on here? There is no logical connection between the passage of mine that he chose to quote and the response he chose to make.

However, a bit later we do find this:

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.

Mozina once again ignores the real point that he has dramatically re-defined the entire concept of "empirical". And there is no getting around the point that he has done exactly that:

Emphasis mine:

Anything that doesn't show up on Earth on any scale is a horse of a different color (non empirical color).

There you have it, about as explicit as anything gets. As far as Mozina is concerned, if it does not show up in a controlled laboratory experiment here on Earth then it is not empirical. According to Mozina astronomy is neither empirical nor science. Mozina must be the only person in the entire world who thinks that is what the word empirical means. See my previous post Dark Energy and Empirical Science and other posts cited therein.

It is well established in the world of science ex-Mozina that laboratory experiments are not the sole determinant of empiricism. Do remember my earlier post:

Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

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?

While Mozina did respond to question 1 above, he did not ever respond to, or acknowledge in any way, the remaining question, so far as I can remember or find in the page or 2 after my post. I followed up with What is "Empirical Science"? IV, but to no avail. There was no further movement from Mozina on this point.

Now let me make myself clear: I think that Mozina is not capable of engaging in an honest discussion, and this is an exact case in point: He will not acknowledge that he has in fact re-defined the entire concept of "empirical" away from its common use in science, so as to conform to his own personal prejudice. He could at least drum up the minimum level of integrity required to admit it, but he can't do it. He side-steps or simply ignores the real issue ever single time. My opinion of this behavior is clear & obvious and I trust the interested reader (or lurker) understands my point, even if perhaps disagreeing with it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

GeeMack's post has everything to do with the little fact that effects of dark energy are detected in labs.

Your post has everything to do with your continued and persistent ignorance that

Dark energy is not impotent - it is measured to accelerate the universe !
​

You know RC, after reading that quote from Hawking about getting something from nothing, it's pretty darn clear that your entire industry and your entire argument is based upon a series of non-sequitur fallacies.

There is no "cause/effect' link between the observation of acceleration and 'dark energy'. That's a term you simply 'made up' to essentially cover up your own ignorance. There's no link between acceleration and your imaginary "dark energy" entities except in your head. Your dark entity is impotent RC.

It has not measurable tangible effect on Earth. It's at least as impotent here on Earth as any religious sky deity that only has an effect "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to. The whole thing is based upon 'blind faith" in impotent invisible entities.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets confirm this:
You are now saying that we do not need to have a chunk of dark energy (or a star) in a lab to deduce that it exists?

Let's try this again. You can "see" a star. You can 'feel' the energy coming from it. You can measure it. You can move something toward that object, or around that object to measure it from various points. It exists in nature. I don't have to "take it on faith", I can watch the sun come up over the horizon every single day.

Your mythical magical dark energy entity has no measurable effect on me whatsoever. It's like a pantheon god, imaginary and impotent. It's not real. It's a name you literally "made up". It has no more substance than any pantheon god. It's a figment of human imagination and it's not the 'cause' of anything other than massive confusion.

The statement "acceleration happens, therefore dark energy exists" is a non-sequitur fallacy, nothing more.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just replacing B with E does not a circuit representation make.

Demonstrate that statement empirically. Which of the empirical MR "experiments" (and I agree there are empirical experiments) require no "circuit' and no "current flow"? Which of these experiments does *NOT* involve a change in the topology of the current flow of moving charged particles?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow. How... ignorant.

You know why astrophysicists don't use a "circuit" picture? Because it's too limited.

Quite the contrary Zig. Without it MHD theory is "too limited". Alfven taught *TWO* different methods of MHD theory, one related to the 'field' (B) orientation of Maxwell's equations, and one method related to what he called the "particle" or E orientation. You guys only do the B orientation and you utterly and completely (well almost completely) ignore the E orientation. As a result, your solutions are limited. They essentially have nothing to do with nature in the end, because in nature the E and B are inseparable. You're the only one that has an 'emotional need" to separate them as though they are somehow independent of one another. You have the B cart in front of the E horse too. The Earth's atmosphere generates gamma rays and x-rays. They are *CAUSED* by something called an "electrical discharge". We see that same process occurs on other bodies inside the solar system, and size matters. Somehow you look at the sun emitting gamma rays from it's atmosphere and you "imagine" that they are caused by "magnetic reconnection". That's exactly like claiming a lightening bolt is a "magnetic reconnection" event. It's only because you cannot look beyond the B orientation of MHD theory that you *IMAGINE* it to be related only to the magnetic field, or that it is "caused by" the magnetic field. The magnetic field is simply a byproduct of the discharge, it's not the "cause' of the process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not mine. Yours. You're the only person in this thread who has ever suggested substituting E for B.

No, I did not use the word "substitute". Here are the words I actually used:

"Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it."

First off I suggested you start with a paper on MR theory, not Gauss's Law. By the term "convert" I *ASSUMED* that an intelligent individual like yourself would immediately understand that you would need to USE MAXWELL"S EQUATIONS to convert from one orientation to the other (B->E). I didn't say:

"According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0"

If I had said "Start with Gauss's law and *REPLACE* all the B's with E's, *THEN* and only then would your statement make any sense. Since I said nothing of the sort, your statement is a strawman of your own creation. Do you see the difference between my statements and your statement Mr. Spock?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina once again ignores the real point that he has dramatically re-defined the entire concept of "empirical".

That is complete nonsense Tim. Your argument is a non-sequitur. There's no empirical connection between acceleration and your mythical magical "dark energy". The connection only exists in your head. It's no more empirically real or tangible just by virtue of giving your ignorance a "name".

EM fields are "empirical". They show up here on Earth and cause "acceleration" of plasma in real experiments with real control mechanisms. They show up in consumer products as well. You're therefore welcome to point at the sky and claim EM fields did it.

Your dark energy entity is completely impotent in the lab because its a "name" that you invented to cover up your ignorance. It's not real. It has no tangible effect on anything in the lab. Pointing at the sky and claiming your dark energy entity did it is no better than me pointing at the sky and claiming some pantheon god did it. BS. The phrase "Acceleration happens, therefore "dark energy" did it" is a non-sequitur. It's exactly like claiming "Acceleration happens, therefore Zeus did it."

 

[GeeMack]

You know RC, after reading that quote from Hawking about getting something from nothing, it's pretty darn clear that your entire industry and your entire argument is based upon a series of non-sequitur fallacies.

Your ignorance does not indicate a flaw in the contemporary scientific understanding of cosmology.

There is no "cause/effect' link between the observation of acceleration and 'dark energy'. That's a term you simply 'made up' to essentially cover up your own ignorance. There's no link between acceleration and your imaginary "dark energy" entities except in your head. Your dark entity is impotent RC.

This cause/effect has all been explained to you. For you to continue lying about it shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity.

It has not measurable tangible effect on Earth. It's at least as impotent here on Earth as any religious sky deity that only has an effect "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to. The whole thing is based upon 'blind faith" in impotent invisible entities.

This empirical observation and measurement thing has all been explained to you. For you to continue lying about it shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity. Again. Still.

Hey, Michael, I asked you many posts ago if you'd have the decency to knock off the lying. It's pretty obvious to me, and pretty much everyone else too, since most other participants have stated they see your argument as dishonest, that you don't intend to honor that request.

But maybe you can tell us what logic you find in trying to support an inane crackpot conjecture or to discredit the well supported contemporary view of cosmology by lying. Do you suppose Birkeland was a liar? Alfvén? Bruce? Do you think those heroes of yours were liars, Michael? Do you suppose if they were, like you are, they'd have gotten any traction in the world of science?

 

[GeeMack]

No, I did not use the word "substitute". Here are the words I actually used:

"Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it."

First off I suggested you start with a paper on MR theory, not Gauss's Law. By the term "convert" I *ASSUMED* that an intelligent individual like yourself would immediately understand that you would need to USE MAXWELL"S EQUATIONS to convert from one orientation to the other (B->E). I didn't say:

"According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0"

If I had said "Start with Gauss's law and *REPLACE* all the B's with E's, *THEN* and only then would your statement make any sense. Since I said nothing of the sort, your statement is a strawman of your own creation. Do you see the difference between my statements and your statement Mr. Spock?

But, Michael, your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school child have been challenged, and you have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. So pretty much everything you've said above is pulled out of your... uh... thin air. Everyone here knows it, and you know it, too!

 

[Michael Mozina]

This cause/effect has all been explained to you.

I've had astrology "explained" to me before too. So what? What they (and you) never do is SHOW ME that it actually works in controlled experimentation. Ditto on your invisible impotent entities. They have as much effect on me as Zeus and astrology.

For you to continue lying about it shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity.

For you to lie and not acknowledge the non-sequitur fallacy of your argument shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity on your part. Look in the mirror. You dark entity is all in your head. It has no tangible or measurable effect. It's a "sky god", and entirely impotent on Earth.

This empirical observation and measurement thing has all been explained to you.

Ya, and the non-sequitur fallacy of your argument has been explained to you too. Your invisible entities are impotent. They aren't the empirical "cause" of anything other than human confusion. They are not real. They are figments of your imagination.