Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Yes!

First of all, the problem is *NEVER* a problem in the math. The fixation on math to the exclusion of empirical physics is what got you in trouble, not math.

Secondly, it's pointless to talk about the math if your problem isn't in the math. If I were attempting to stuff magical elves into a GR formula, would you really care if the math came out right?

 

[GeeMack]

The only thing that's obvious is that your sky deity is *AT LEAST* as impotent on Earth as any sky deity we could "name". It's also obvious that your whole belief system revolves around a non-sequitur fallacy: "Acceleration happens, therefore (name your generic metaphysical sky deity) did it." There is no empirical cause effect relationship between acceleration and "dark evil energy'. The is no such thing as "dark energy", just "dark human ignorance". That's what is obvious Tim.

Your repetition of this lie will not make it true. Continuing your tirade against science and math isn't getting you anywhere. Recognize this Michael: You have written millions of words on various forums over the last half dozen years, and not once have you convinced a single solitary professional scientist that you have the scientific understanding of a ten year old, much less actually persuaded any sane intelligent people that your crazy crackpot notions are correct.

So it comes down to one of two most likely possibilities. Either you're wrong, or you've assembled your arguments in the most wholly and completely incompetent manner of any human who ever crossed the threshold of the Internet. As insane as it might be, people are able to convince other people that aliens from space have landed in their back yards for god's sake! You aren't able to convince a single mortal soul that you have even the most rudimentary qualifications to understand science. Don't you see the implications of that?

You have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you aren't qualified to do math at the level of a fourth grade child. You've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you aren't qualified to engage in an honest discussion. You've shown time and again that you have nothing but arguments from incredulity and ignorance to support your fruitcake fantasy. And after millions of words you haven't gained any headway whatsoever. Can you think of any reason short of mental illness that anyone would continue the way you do without even the remotest possibility of success? Do you not think it might be time to try another approach?

 

[Reality Check]

First of all, the problem is *NEVER* a problem in the math. The fixation on math to the exclusion of empirical physics is what got you in trouble, not math.

First of all

• There is no fixation on the math.
• There is no exclusion of empirical physics.
• The only person in trouble is you and your delusional, ignorant fantasies about science.

The problem is that your lack of knowledge has lead to your delusion that dark energy cannot explain the acceleration. This is an argument from ignorance.
Anyone who can follow the math sees that dark energy can explain the acceleration.
Anyone who cannot follow the math should be smart enough to ask a knowledgeable person and trust what they say, i.e. dark energy explain the acceleration.

We start from the empirical observations of the effect and create scientific theories for the possible causes. These are dark energy, modified gravity, void theories, etc. Scientific theories use math. Mathematics is the language of science.

There is your persistent delusion that you can redefine the definition of empirical to suit your own agenda.

Secondly, it's pointless to talk about the math if your problem isn't in the math. If I were attempting to stuff magical elves into a GR formula, would you really care if the math came out right?

Secondly, there are not "magical elves" except in your head.

Michael Mozina's ignorance of the empirical link between acceleration and dark energy​

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here are my answers to some of the true/false questions contained within recent posts. (For the few questions whose answer was not blitheringly obvious, I have added a short comment or link.)

You're safe, Michael. You can't make a mathematical mistake since you aren't qualified to do math and therefore never touch the stuff.

​

True.

It's not your ignorance which is hard to forgive, but your arrogance, dishonesty, and consistent refusal to actually do anything about your ignorance. I've never before seen a poster so intent on not learning.

Possibly true, inasmuch as you are describing your own experience, but a couple of those who post in the 9/11 subforum would deserve consideration.

Since your entity is nothing but a 'sky entity' for lack of a better term, you have a serious empirical problem.

False.

The fact you refuse to acknowledge this flaw in your religion makes you a bit of a "fundy" too by the way.

False.

It's also obvious that your whole belief system revolves around a non-sequitur fallacy

False.

The problem Zig is that you evidently have nothing to "teach" me other than another "sky religion" you've created.

False.

I've come to realize that you don't know squat about physics as that whole Casimir debate clearly demonstrated.

False.

You don't have the common decency to even pick a valid argument that isn't self conflicted.

False.

All you've "taught me" is that you know absolutely nothing about subatomic physics and kinetic energy.

False. (Had Michael Mozina claimed we had taught him nothing, his claim might have been true. Teaching cannot occur without learning. When nothing has been learned, it is fair to say nothing has been taught.)

You're also all peddling what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and not a single one of you can explain what is physically (not mathematically, physically) unique about "magnetic reconnection".

False.

Every single one of your problems has absolutely nothing to do with math and yet you keep harping on the math like it's your "savior".

False.

First of all, the problem is *NEVER* a problem in the math. The fixation on math to the exclusion of empirical physics is what got you in trouble, not math.

False.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmological Expansion and Laboratories

Also, the analogy I used earlier about the 13 billion lightyear long string, was that an accurate one, do you think? Or do I need to modify it?

That would be ...

Let's say I have a string thirteen billion lightyears long. It's got a bit of a flex to it. Let's say for every inch of that string, it's stretching exactly one planck length. That's pretty much unmeasurable at our level. The ends of the string, however, would be moving away from each other at superluminal speeds.

The idea is OK, but needs a small modification. Just look at the units for the Hubble Constant, around 70 km sec^-1 Mpc^-1. The dimensionality is distance/(time x distance) and so can easily by simplified to just 1/time, but as presented, we see velocity/distance. So for each Mpc of distance we pick up about 70 km/sec of speed. In your analogy there is no mention of time, so you get a stretch but not a velocity. Now if we re-write that as 1 Planck length per second per inch we are in business. Over a distance of 1 mile (about the largest practical "laboratory" distance it seems to me; the original SLAC was 1 mile long) or 63,360 inches, the string would appear to stretch 63,360 Planck lengths per second. That comes out to 4.03x10^-29 inches per second (1.02x10^-30 meters/sec). That's about 10^-14 of a typical nuclear diameter, and I think one would be justified in saying that such an effect would not be measurable with today's technology. Do it in a smaller lab and it just gets harder.

The string is definitely stretching, you just can't measure it, so local observations alone don't tell you what it's really doing. Now if we look again at the Hubble constant, 1 Mpc is about 3.09x10¹⁹ km. So just do (70 km/sec)/3.09x10¹⁹ km (and don't rationalize the units so you can see what's happening more clearly), you get 2.27x10^-18 km/sec of velocity per km of distance. That's 2.27x10^-15 meters, and that's a nuclear diameter distance scale. I have heard that one might be able to measure such an effect using quantum non-demolition techniques, but I don't know if that can really be done. In any case, it is obviously either just plain impossible to do, or just can't be done with current technology.

But that all assumes that the cosmological expansion is not fighting any resisting effects at local scales, and that assumption is wrong. It is well established that bound structures, up to the sale of galaxy clusters, will not feel this effect at all (absent cosmic rip scenarios, and they appear to be ruled out by observation). So for Mozina to constantly complain that it can't be empirical because you can't see it in a lab is both monumentally ignorant, because he has never even bothered to think about what really needs to be measured, and monumentally stupid because he re-defined the concept of empiricism so he could feel like he has an excuse not to think bout anything.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem Zig is that you evidently have nothing to "teach" me other than another "sky religion" you've created.

You give me simultaneously too little and too much credit: I didn't create what you mislabel a "sky religion", and I can teach you the definition of pressure, if you're interested in learning. But you aren't. You are, in fact, intent on remaining ignorant about this very simple bit of freshman physics.

I've come to realize that you don't know squat about physics as that whole Casimir debate clearly demonstrated.

I've long ago realized that you do not understand even basic terms of physics such as pressure.

You don't have the common decency to even pick a valid argument that isn't self conflicted.

You are lecturing me about decency? There's a laugh.

On one hand you all claimed that the Casimir effect was an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Indeed. And had you paid attention, you'd have noticed what happens to this effect when you go to larger and larger length scales.

You then turn right around and attempt to dismiss the EM field from consideration claiming that it is incapable of creating "negative pressure".

You're lying now. The problem is that it can't produce any significant negative pressure at cosmological scales. This distinction has been pointed out to you many times. And guess what, Michael: that fact shows up in the lab. What do you think the pressure will be from the Casimir effect at an inch separation? At 1 mile? At 1 parsec? At 10 billion lightyears?

Can you figure it out? No, you can't. You are incapable of figuring out what actual Earthbound experiments mean.

A ZERO pressure is the lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum.

Again, how would you know, when you don't even know what pressure is?

 

[Tubbythin]

The actual flaws in your arguments are always physical in nature. A ZERO pressure is the lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum.

You can repeat this as many times as you like. It's still a blind assertion you have repeatedly failed to support with a single scrap of evidence.

 

[ben m]

You can repeat this as many times as you like. It's still a blind assertion you have repeatedly failed to support with a single scrap of evidence.

And, it's an entirely semantic assertion---Mozina doesn't want to call -dE/dV "pressure", he wants to reserve the word "pressure" for the force exerted by particle collisions over an area.

He doesn't want to call -dE/dV anything at all. But who cares? The stress-energy tensor of GR requires you to plug in E and dE/dV. It doesn't care what you call them. The dark energy hypothesis "works" because -dE/dV is negative, not because we call it pressure, and certainly not because dark-energy particles are bouncing off walls and exerting a negative force.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That model of mine isn't mean to explain the HOW of dark energy, just its effect. The string is stretching instead of moving along in a cohesive, non-deforming unit. Heck, if Alfrin's paper is what you go by, then the string itself would never stretch.


The string (physical space analogy) is being pulled / stretched apart by dark energy. At local scales, like my example, it stretches at one planck unit per inch of string, an amount impossible to measure in the lab currently. However, due to the string being 13 billion light years long, the cumulative effect of this is that the ends of that string are speeding away from each other at superluminal speeds.


I didn't see that in Alfrin's paper. Is this your own hypothesis, or is it another paper from someone else? Where is this dark universe, and through what dark conduit is it interfacing with ours?


I'm not positive on that.

I'm sorry Mister Earl, I didn't see this post yesterday. It was busy at work. You're right, that paper from Alfven was written *before* the observation of acceleration that led to "dark energy". Alfven's model would necessarily need an attractive body on the other side of a "void" in order to generate acceleration. I originally cited his paper as an example of the fact that our original "assumptions" will play a direct role in the way we "rewind time". In Alfven's universe, it would never condense to a singular clump and it wouldn't necessarily have a "creation date", where all matter came to exist at a singular point in time. You are right, it would not explain acceleration. Like your string analogy, you'd need something "pulling on" the universe from the outside. It's a bit akin to the solar wind process. As the particles leave the surface they accelerate over time. As they move toward the heliosphere the particles get further and further apart from each other, and they continue to accelerate over time. That analogy breaks down of course because the solar wind stops accelerating at some point, but that's the general idea. The charge attraction between the solar surface and the heliosphere accelerate the particles, and likewise an attraction to an external gravitational field or EM field would be required to generate any sort of acceleration process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And, it's an entirely semantic assertion---Mozina doesn't want to call -dE/dV "pressure", he wants to reserve the word "pressure" for the force exerted by particle collisions over an area.

He doesn't want to call -dE/dV anything at all. But who cares? The stress-energy tensor of GR requires you to plug in E and dE/dV. It doesn't care what you call them. The dark energy hypothesis "works" because -dE/dV is negative, not because we call it pressure, and certainly not because dark-energy particles are bouncing off walls and exerting a negative force.

Ben, even *if* we do that, you *MUST* cop to the fact that an *ATTRACTION* to an external mass/EM field (which is what you're really talking about) would also lead to an accelerating universe! You can't have it *BOTH WAYS*!

The fact your trying to eliminate the EM field because it doesn't cause "negative pressure" and yet your also using that same EM field as an example of "negative pressure" says volumes! Your whole belief system is self conflicted at the level of physics.

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm sorry Mister Earl, I didn't see this post yesterday. It was busy at work. You're right, that paper from Alfven was written *before* the observation of acceleration that led to "dark energy". Alfven's model would necessarily need an attractive body on the other side of a "void" in order to generate acceleration. I originally cited his paper as an example of the fact that our original "assumptions" will play a direct role in the way we "rewind time". In Alfven's universe, it would never condense to a singular clump and it wouldn't necessarily have a "creation date", where all matter came to exist at a singular point in time. You are right, it would not explain acceleration. Like your string analogy, you'd need something "pulling on" the universe from the outside. It's a bit akin to the solar wind process. As the particles leave the surface they accelerate over time. As they move toward the heliosphere the particles get further and further apart from each other, and they continue to accelerate over time. That analogy breaks down of course because the solar wind stops accelerating at some point, but that's the general idea. The charge attraction between the solar surface and the heliosphere accelerate the particles, and likewise an attraction to an external gravitational field or EM field would be required to generate any sort of acceleration process.

What if, instead of something outside the universe pulling everything, it was something inside the universe pushing everything apart?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What if, instead of something outside the universe pulling everything, it was something inside the universe pushing everything apart?

Birkeland believed that all suns were "cathodes in space". If that is true, they might have the effect of "pushing" each other apart, but the further apart they got, the weaker the acceleration would become.

We would almost certainly need something external to our physical cone to explain that increasing acceleration process. If you imagine our galaxy as being like a solar wind particle that is accelerating toward the heliosphere and getting further apart from other particles/galaxies over time, and accelerating over time, you might get a similar effect. In order for the acceleration to increase over time, it would almost certainly require an external force/curvature to work properly.

 

[temporalillusion]

If there's something outside the observable universe attracting everything leading to the movement and acceleration we see, doesn't that put us in the exact middle of things?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ben, even *if* we do that, you *MUST* cop to the fact that an *ATTRACTION* to an external mass/EM field (which is what you're really talking about) would also lead to an accelerating universe!

No, it wouldn't. This is Freshman physics, Michael. Your understand of it is quite clearly wrong, and it's leading you to conclusions which are similarly misguided.

The fact your trying to eliminate the EM field because it doesn't cause "negative pressure" and yet your also using that same EM field as an example of "negative pressure" says volumes! Your whole belief system is self conflicted at the level of physics.

I've already addressed this. Laboratory experiments here on earth demonstrate that the Casimir effect produces negative pressure, AND that this pressure will be irrelevant on cosmological scales.

 

[Mister Earl]

In order for the acceleration to increase over time, it would almost certainly require an external force/curvature to work properly.

That's pretty much the idea behind dark energy. It's a force not yet directly observed that is stretching space.

 

[GeeMack]

Birkeland believed that all suns were "cathodes in space". If that is true, they might have the effect of "pushing" each other apart, but the further apart they got, the weaker the acceleration would become.

Was Birkeland a liar, too?

We would almost certainly need something external to our physical cone to explain that increasing acceleration process. If you imagine our galaxy as being like a solar wind particle that is accelerating toward the heliosphere and getting further apart from other particles/galaxies over time, and accelerating over time, you might get a similar effect. In order for the acceleration to increase over time, it would almost certainly require an external force/curvature to work properly.

Of course you can imagine anything, sometimes totally ridiculous things. In fact there are people out there who are apparently so stupid, ignorant, or mentally ill that they imagine the Sun has a solid iron surface! Ain't that right, Michael? But would the ranting of such insane or unintelligent people make that imagined idea true? Of course it wouldn't, would it, Michael?

Remember, your qualifications to understand science at the level of a typical eleven year old child have been challenged, and you have been unable to show that you do indeed possess any such qualifications. Therefore the validity of your opinion on any issue of science is at best questionable, and in thousands of instances on record, has been shown to be flat out stupidly and ridiculously wrong. Don't you agree, Michael?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's pretty much the idea behind dark energy. It's a force not yet directly observed that is stretching space.

In your rope analogy, the molecules might be moving further apart and the distance between them is changing over time, but it's not "space" that is stretching, it's "spacetime". In other words, it's all the objects (atoms) that are in the rope that are moving, it's not that the "space" between the atoms magically expanded. There was an external (to the rope) force applied that "caused" the space between the atoms to increase over time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If there's something outside the observable universe attracting everything leading to the movement and acceleration we see, doesn't that put us in the exact middle of things?

Not necessarily, but the acceleration process would need to be nearly constant and nearly universal in scope. It would need to operate like the solar wind, but we wouldn't necessarily need to be in the center IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it wouldn't. This is Freshman physics, Michael. Your understand of it is quite clearly wrong, and it's leading you to conclusions which are similarly misguided.

I've already addressed this. Laboratory experiments here on earth demonstrate that the Casimir effect produces negative pressure, AND that this pressure will be irrelevant on cosmological scales.

Man the mental gymnastics are intense. You're claiming that the EM field produces negative pressure, and also claiming you can rule out the EM field because it does *NOT* produce negative pressure. Which is it?

You don't know how any form of acceleration works at cosmic scales. In fact you don't even know how solar wind works. You can't "rule out" anything unless you *ASSUME* things, starting with your assumption of a "closed" system.

 

[Mister Earl]

In your rope analogy, the molecules might be moving further apart and the distance between them is changing over time, but it's not "space" that is stretching, it's "spacetime". In other words, it's all the objects (atoms) that are in the rope that are moving, it's not that the "space" between the atoms magically expanded. There was an external (to the rope) force applied that "caused" the space between the atoms to increase over time.

When spacetime stretches, it's literally the space itself that is expanding, not that matterwithin it. The matter itself is being dragged along. I suspect that is what caused the universe to "bang" instead of collapsing to or staying a singularity.

The fabric of spacetime is stretch. We've seen that. We've seen the sun distort it already. This isn't a new concept. What *is* new is seeing that while spacetime is expanding at pan-galactic scales, it's accelerating as it does so.