Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

But, Michael, your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school child have been challenged

You're a freaking parrot. Yawn. Your dark energy entity has been challenged. It never showed up.

 

[GeeMack]

You're a freaking parrot.

Your uncivil personal attack is noted.

But you've ignored this question...

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?

You see, if we could find some connection between your lies and the arguments you're trying to make, it's just possible something about your arguments would become compelling. As it is there isn't a single professional physicist on Earth who shares your oddball position on cosmology. There must be a reason why that is, the most obvious being, of course, that you're wrong. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you're not wrong, you've been wholly incapable of expressing your position in a way that any legitimate scientist accepts. Aren't you interested in finding the reason and helping to move this discussion along in a direction that you might find positive?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your uncivil personal attack is noted.

Pot's and kettles.

Aren't you interested in finding the reason and helping to move this discussion along in a direction that you might find positive?

I already know the reason. Your mythical dark entities are impotent. They are imaginary and they only exist in your head. They are based on a logical fallacy called a non-sequitur fallacy. It's essentially a 'dark energy" of the gaps argument. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. If your invisible impotent entities did show up in the lab like an EM field shows up, we'd be done with this conversation. Since they don't, I get insults instead. It's just like any other pointless religious entity in that respect.

 

[GeeMack]

I already know the reason. Your mythical dark entities are impotent. They are imaginary and they only exist in your head. They are based on a logical fallacy called a non-sequitur fallacy. It's essentially a 'dark energy" of the gaps argument. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. If your invisible impotent entities did show up in the lab like an EM field shows up, we'd be done with this conversation. Since they don't, I get insults instead. It's just like any other pointless religious entity in that respect.

Your ignorance of what does and does not show up in a lab, or what is mathematically supportable physics, or what is a valid hypothesis, does not negate that empirical evidence, that scientific support, or the validity of that hypothesis. Your gross misunderstanding of what is or is not a logical fallacy does not support your argument. So far you've blustered through hundreds of posts in this 3000+ post thread without ever providing any more than arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and flat out dishonest representations of what other people are saying and the consensus position of modern cosmology. It's beginning ( ) to look like that's all you've got.

Hey, were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars, Michael?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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."

FYI: "convert all the B's to E's" means exactly the same thing as "substitute E for B" throughout. It also means exactly the same thing as "replace all the B's by E's".

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, you and I and virtually everyone who has been reading this thread are aware you do not even understand the mathematical notations that appear within Maxwell's equations.

That is why you are unable to explain exactly what you would like for us to think you had meant by "convert all the B's to E's". Unable to say what you'd like us to think you had meant, you can only deny the plain meaning of what you actually did say.

If you understood the mathematics or had a scientific argument, your posts wouldn't look like this:

......ignorance...imaginary "dark energy" entities...dark entity...impotent...impotent...religious sky deity...blind faith...impotent invisible entities...take it on faith...mythical magical dark energy entity...pantheon god, imaginary and impotent....pantheon god...figment of human imagination...massive confusion....non-sequitur fallacy...complete nonsense...non-sequitur...mythical magical "dark energy"...in your head....ignorance...consumer products...point at the sky...dark energy entity...completely impotent...invented...ignorance....Pointing at the sky...pointing at the sky...some pantheon god did it....non-sequitur...Zeus did it...astrology...invisible impotent entities...Zeus and astrology.

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...dark entity...all in your head...no tangible or measurable effect...sky god...entirely impotent...non-sequitur fallacy...invisible entities...impotent...human confusion...not real...figments of your imagination.

You're a freaking parrot. Yawn. Your dark energy entity has been challenged. It never showed up.

...mythical dark entities...impotent...imaginary...only exist in your head...logical fallacy...non-sequitur fallacy...invisible impotent entities...pointless religious entity...

 

[tusenfem]

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?

What is that supposed to mean?
You state that just transforming from B to E will give you a circuit representation. Parker and Lui, both actually proponents of Ej, and I, who can't care less wheter I use Ej or Bv, tell you that that is wrong. A circuit representation is a long wavelength approximation of plasma physics, not unlike MHD.

Apparently your notion of "circuit" is not the same as that of Alfvén. Apparently, you think that the electric circuit that is driving the machines is a circuit representation of the plasma physics happening inside. Have you ever actually read Alfvén's books and papers?

Naturally, all of the MRx experiments involve currents and charged particles and fields and the change of topology. However, the topology change cannot be generated by induction. There will be an induced electric field because the magnetic field is time variable, but that is that.

So, again, I have to state that there is no circuit description of reconnection, if it would exist, MM would long since have either written it down here somewhere on the board or linked to an actual paper describing it. The lack of this shows clearly that MM does not have such a model.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

How would you know? You can't do the math yourself, how can you tell that they're inseparable? Because someone said so? Well, it's not always true. Often enough, B and E can be separated.

You're the only one that has an 'emotional need" to separate them as though they are somehow independent of one another.

I've got no emotional need to do anything. And I separate E and B when the math indicates that it's valid to do so. As for what various astrophysicists actually do, well, you've yet to point to any actual flaw in their works. You keep pointing to objections by Alfven, but those are essentially objections of style. Where are the various calculations of magnetic reconnection wrong? You don't know. In fact, you have no way of knowing. Because you can't distinguish between a valid calculation and an invalid one, because doing so requires an understanding of math. And you wouldn't know anything about that, because, well, you can't do math. One wonders whether you can even do arithmetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI: "convert all the B's to E's" means exactly the same thing as "substitute E for B" throughout. It also means exactly the same thing as "replace all the B's by E's".

BS.

Michael, you and I and virtually everyone who has been reading this thread are aware you do not even understand the mathematical notations that appear within Maxwell's equations.

More BS. I'm disappointed in you Mr. Spock. If you won't even cop to an obvious strawman on your part, even after it's pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How would you know? You can't do the math yourself, how can you tell that they're inseparable?

Is this even an argument of just a personal attack rant?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this even an argument of just a personal attack rant?

It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right? Physics requires math to actually do. Why are you even spending your time thinking about physics when you can't do math? Why do you want to talk about physics if you refuse to talk about it using any math? It's like trying to critique French literature without knowing any French.

Seriously, why are you still wasting out time, and more puzzlingly your own, on a topic you're simply not equipped to understand?

 

[Perpetual Student]

It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right? Physics requires math to actually do. Why are you even spending your time thinking about physics when you can't do math? Why do you want to talk about physics if you refuse to talk about it using any math? It's like trying to critique French literature without knowing any French.

Seriously, why are you still wasting out time, and more puzzlingly your own, on a topic you're simply not equipped to understand?

I believe he persists because people here indulge him and he gains pleasure from all the attention. My guess is that he boasts to his friends and family that he successfully engages a host of real scientists and prevails with his crackpot theories.
For my part, he is on "ignore" since I do not choose to be duped into indulging him in his narcissistic fantasies.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Michael, you and I and virtually everyone who has been reading this thread are aware you do not even understand the mathematical notations that appear within Maxwell's equations.

More BS. I'm disappointed in you Mr. Spock. If you won't even cop to an obvious strawman on your part, even after it's pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?

I'll cop to my mistakes after they've been pointed out to me, but your mere denials of my statements do not rise to the level of pointing out a mistake.

To demonstrate that I have made a mistake, I suggest you show us how the B's that appear within the following equations should be "converted" to E's:

[latex]
\begin{eqnalign*}
B_r & = & \frac{3\left[\frac{r_1(t)}{r}\right]^2}{1 + 2\left[\frac{r_1(t)}{r_0}\right]^3} \cos \theta \hbox{\ \ \ \ $r \geq r_1(t)$} \\
B_{\theta} = 0
\end{eqnalign*}
[/latex]

Those equations come from page 91 of an oft-cited paper on magnetic reconnection:

R.A.Kopp and G.W.Pneuman. Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50 (1976), 85-98.

After you have demonstrated that you yourself actually understand what you meant by "convert all the B's to E's", then and only then will we have an intellectually honest discussion of this matter.

 

[GeeMack]

More BS. I'm disappointed in you Mr. Spock. If you won't even cop to an obvious strawman on your part, even after it's pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?

Oh, Michael, Michael. If you won't even cop to a barrage of lies on your part, even after they're pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?

And by the way, were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right?

You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not. That whole claim about EM fields being ruled out as "dark energy", yet the Casimir effect is supposed to be an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is a great example. You can't have it both ways, yet that's exactly what you're trying to do. Either you must accept that the EM field *IS* capable of producing "negative pressure" (due to say charge attraction from an external set of matter), or you must accept that the Casimir effect is not an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum", one or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too at the level of physics. That only works at the level of mathematics. The reason the physics is important is that it sets *RATIONAL LIMITS* to specific equations and you don't set them correctly. The lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum is "zero". It is physically impossible to achieve a "negative pressure' in a vacuum. You can ATTRACT things in a vacuum, but a vacuum cannot ever contain a negative pressure. If you can't figure out this stuff, why should I trust your math? You simply used a formula that was physically impossible and therefore physically meaningless in terms of empirical physics.

That same lack of a conceptual understanding of subatomic physics shows up in your great love of what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". You can't physically tell me the difference between induction and magnetic reconnection, or ordinary particle collisions in plasma. Instead you simply cling to the concept in spite of the fact that every electrical textbook on the planet points out that magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic line. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". Circuit reorientation is not "magnetic reconnection". Alfven rejected that whole concept as pseudoscience his *ENTIRE* career, yet you prattle on about it in paper after paper.

There's never a problem with your math, just a serious problem with the physics. What's the point in discussing the math when your entire physical premise is based upon a non-sequitur?

 

[GeeMack]

You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not.

Where did you get your degree in physics, Michael?

Oh, and were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?

 

[GeeMack]

There's never a problem with your math, just a serious problem with the physics. What's the point in discussing the math when your entire physical premise is based upon a non-sequitur?

Where did you get your degree in math, Michael? I'm sure I'm not the only one who is curious, because your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school child have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you posses even that level of qualification.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not.

You still can't even define pressure, Michael. You haven't demonstrated that you understand any level of physics, only that you think you understand far more than you do.

That whole claim about EM fields being ruled out as "dark energy", yet the Casimir effect is supposed to be an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is a great example. You can't have it both ways, yet that's exactly what you're trying to do.

All this demonstrates is that you don't understand the difference between virtual photons and real photons. They don't behave the same. This is bog-standard quantum mechanics, and you don't have a clue. Not surprising since you can't even get your head around frreshman physics.

Either you must accept that the EM field *IS* capable of producing "negative pressure" (due to say charge attraction from an external set of matter)

The vacuum expectation value of the field is. Real photons are not. The distinction is obvious to everyone but you. You keep blaming everyone else for your willful ignorance.

The reason the physics is important is that it sets *RATIONAL LIMITS* to specific equations and you don't set them correctly. The lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum is "zero".

How would you know? You don't even know what pressure is.

If you can't figure out this stuff, why should I trust your math?

If you don't know the definition of pressure, why should I trust your intuition?

You simply used a formula that was physically impossible and therefore physically meaningless in terms of empirical physics.

You don't know what formula I used, and wouldn't know what it meant even if it did. Because you can't do math.

There's never a problem with your math

and you never use math at all. Hmmm... who's more credible...

What's the point in discussing the math when your entire physical premise is based upon a non-sequitur?

Because the language of physics is math. And you can't speak the language. It's the equivalent of yelling "Frommage! Croissant! Eu de Toilette!" You're just wasting our time and yours.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Honesty

Could I have made myself more clear?

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.

In his response to me (quoted in full below), does Mozina address the issue of his re-definition 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."

The answer is no. Mozina proves his own lack of honesty through his own words.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The answer is no. Mozina proves his own lack of honesty through his own words.

Boloney Tim. The lack of honesty comes from you. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your ignorance isn't "tangible" simply by virtue of giving it a name, in this case "dark energy". If you were honest you would admit that your hypothetical invisible negative pressure buddies are as impotent on Earth as any pantheon god. Your dark energy is entirely impotent in the lab Tim. It has no measurable effect on anything. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your theory begins (and ends) with a complete non-sequitur; "Acceleration happens, therefore dark energy did it". You can't get your dark energy entity to accelerate squat in a lab and that's the honest truth. It's at least is impotent in the lab as Zeus.

 

[GeeMack]

Boloney Tim. The lack of honesty comes from you. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your ignorance isn't "tangible" simply by virtue of giving it a name, in this case "dark energy". If you were honest you would admit that your hypothetical invisible negative pressure buddies are as impotent on Earth as any pantheon god. Your dark energy is entirely impotent in the lab Tim. It has no measurable effect on anything. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your theory begins (and ends) with a complete non-sequitur; "Acceleration happens, therefore dark energy did it". You can't get your dark energy entity to accelerate squat in a lab and that's the honest truth. It's at least is impotent in the lab as Zeus.

I, and several other people here, continue to point out where your arguments are lies. And you have the audacity to lie again and say someone else is being dishonest. You can't lie to get yourself out of a lie, Michael. Were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?