Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Tusenfem has put serious effort into reading and interpreting Birkeland's works. He has tried over and over on more than one thread to get you to talk to him about it. He even created an entire thread devoted to Birkeland just to do so.

Where were you?

Evidently busy. Where's the thread?

This is a baldfaced, shameless lie.

When you get T (or anyone else or anyone else, including you) to claim they've read his work cover to cover, then you can tell me that is a lie, and not one second before I hear them say it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

To be serious, Birkeland actually did very well according to the knowledge of the time.

Ya, in fact he did *A LOT* better that you did collectively even with 100 years of what you're calling 'scientific progress".

What the rather deluded people that cite him as support for their bizarre ideas forget is that science progresses.

Sometimes it progresses, sometimes not. Chapman's ideas were considered "progress" for a time. They were not progress at all, and were in fact just wrong. That's true of all your "magnetic reconnection" theories too. Alfven rejected that whole claim in fact as pure "pseudoscience" (his own words).

That means that most of his ideas have been shown to be wrong.

No they haven't. They've been shown to be *RIGHT* to some degree, WRONG occasionally, but so what? His basic model worked. It created "solar wind' (including positively charged particles). It created "coronal loops' which he filmed for you. It created "jets" which he wrote about and filmed. It created all the high energy types of solar atmospheric emissions we see today in modern satellite images. You can't get "magnetic reconnection" do to any of those things in a lab.

It was excusable to think galaxies were wisps of cloud or electrical phenomena inside the Milky Way before the 1920's. The measurement of their actual distances and the determination that they have stars in them rules out Birkeland's idea.

These types of "errors" are completely irrelevant since they really were based on the best information of the time, and simply don't apply anymore. that doesn't mean that his basic concepts are flawed or that you can rule out his other work. You can't just toss out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Tubbythin]

When you get T (or anyone else or anyone else, including you) to claim they've read his work cover to cover, then you can tell me that is a lie, and not one second before I hear them say it.

Firstly:
You claimed:

You folks *REFUSE* to read anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas.

Unless you have evidence to support this statement then the stuff about whatever Birkeland did or did not say is irrelevant to whether you lied or not. Now: are you going to stick by that claim?
Secondly, all I asked for was a simple reference to where Birkeland made the claim you claim he made. In science when we attribute work to others we like to give a precise reference to where the details can be found. After all, the aim of presenting your work is such that it should be understandable to others such that, at least in principle, others can reproduce your work. Your refusal to provide such a simple reference suggests strongly to me that no such reference exists. I am happy to be proved wrong, but ranting about other people's laziness is incredibly hypocritical.

 

[Tubbythin]

These types of "errors" are completely irrelevant since they really were based on the best information of the time, and simply don't apply anymore.

So they're completely relevant. IF we were assesing whether Birkeland was a 'good scientist' or not they'd be irrelevant. But we're not, we're talking about whether Birkeland's results are relevant today or not. For that we need to compare his conjecture with modern results. And, unsurprisingly, most of Birkeland's work doesn't come out to well. That is NOT a dig on his character, it is merely recognition that science has moved on in the last 100 years.

that doesn't mean that his basic concepts are flawed or that you can rule out his other work.

It means we can rule out anything which disagrees with more modern (repeated) measurements. That is how science progresses Michael.

You can't just toss out the baby with the bathwater.

We're not tossing out the baby with the bathwater. We're tossing out the theories which are contradicted by overwhelming amounts of data.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Firstly:
You claimed:

Unless you have evidence to support this statement then the stuff about whatever Birkeland did or did not say is irrelevant to whether you lied or not. Now: are you going to stick by that claim?

Well, ok, I admit you read some things that don't jive with your preconceived ideas. It's not much IMO, but ok, that was "over the top" on my part. I doubt any of you have actually read Birkeland's whole volume of work however and I doubt any of you ever will. I doubt that the majority of critics in this thread have read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven too, and I'm sure I"ve read more of his books and papers than any critic here.

Secondly, all I asked for was a simple reference to where Birkeland made the claim you claim he made. In science when we attribute work to others we like to give a precise reference to where the details can be found.

Your question was actually rhetorical since he had no idea (nor did anyone else) that there were multiple galaxies in the universe. His basic premise however about he movement of charged particles and their relationship to cathode suns wouldn't change in such an instance. Positive ions would still follow one of three paths as they left the galaxy, out and back, out an away to never return, or into orbit around the galaxy. There's no difference in how the basic premise he described in the Times article would be applied. He talks all about this flow pattern of particles in the NY Time article and yet RC is still denying that he suggested the sun was a cathode! Come on.

After all, the aim of presenting your work is such that it should be understandable to others such that, at least in principle, others can reproduce your work. Your refusal to provide such a simple reference suggests strongly to me that no such reference exists. I am happy to be proved wrong, but ranting about other people's laziness is incredibly hypocritical.

In your specific case, my statements were in fact speculative. In terms of his actual solar theories, they are not, they are well documented fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So they're completely relevant. IF we were assesing whether Birkeland was a 'good scientist' or not they'd be irrelevant. But we're not, we're talking about whether Birkeland's results are relevant today or not. For that we need to compare his conjecture with modern results. And, unsurprisingly, most of Birkeland's work doesn't come out to well. That is NOT a dig on his character, it is merely recognition that science has moved on in the last 100 years.


It means we can rule out anything which disagrees with more modern (repeated) measurements. That is how science progresses Michael.


We're not tossing out the baby with the bathwater. We're tossing out the theories which are contradicted by overwhelming amounts of data.

When you start tossing out his solar theories, I know you're going "too far". You have not and cannot produce the solar atmospheric effects that I mentioned with "magnetic reconnection". Alfven rejected that whole claim as "pseudoscience". Even still, you all still somehow perceive MR theory as"progress" of some sort, in spite of the fact you've *NEVER* reproduced *ANY* of the effect Birkeland created in the lab, not aurora, not loops, not jets, not sustained full sphere solar wind, nothing! That isn't empirical scientific "progress". That BS.

 

[D'rok]

Evidently busy. Where's the thread?

C'mon Michael. It's in tusenfem's post. The one you read and responded to. You can do better than this.

 

[nvidiot]

Michael, without using terms like "mythical sky-deity" and such, could you please describe what the terms "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" refer to, as the scientific community understands the terms? I know you have a habit of redefining terms but I think it would be very enlightening if you could explain what you think that current physicists define these things as.

And if everyone including the members here who actually do physics and astronomy/cosmology for a living, tell you that your definition of both is wrong, and point out the correct definition as they use it, will you accept it?

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, ok, I admit you read some things that don't jive with your preconceived ideas. It's not much IMO, but ok, that was "over the top" on my part. I doubt any of you have actually read Birkeland's whole volume of work however and I doubt any of you ever will. I doubt that the majority of critics in this thread have read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven too, and I'm sure I"ve read more of his books and papers than any critic here.

That may be true. It's not really relevant to the topic at hand though.

Your question was actually rhetorical since he had no idea (nor did anyone else) that there were multiple galaxies in the universe. His basic premise however about he movement of charged particles and their relationship to cathode suns wouldn't change in such an instance. Positive ions would still follow one of three paths as they left the galaxy, out and back, out an away to never return, or into orbit around the galaxy. There's no difference in how the basic premise he described in the Times article would be applied. He talks all about this flow pattern of particles in the NY Time article and yet RC is still denying that he suggested the sun was a cathode! Come on.

In other words, Birkeland did not male the claim that you claim he made.

In your specific case, my statements were in fact speculative. In terms of his actual solar theories, they are not, they are well documented fact.

When your statements are your own speculation, you should not attribute them to other people.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, without using terms like "mythical sky-deity" and such, could you please describe what the terms "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" refer to, as the scientific community understands the terms.

The would refer to "missing mass" and "cosmic acceleration" respectively. Of course there is no empirical cause/effect relationship between "dark matter" and "missing mass", nor is there any empirical connection between "acceleration' and dark energy". They simply 'assume" some connection.

I know you have a habit of redefining terms but I think it would be very enlightening if you could explain what you think that current physicists define these things as.

Missing mass and cosmic acceleration would be appropriate terms, but they can't claim "dark energies" make up 3/4th of the universe.

And if everyone including the members here who actually do physics and astronomy/cosmology for a living, tell you that your definition of both is wrong, and point out the correct definition as they use it, will you accept it?

Would you personally accept the word of a 'Priest" that told you that "God did it"? If not, why not?

 

[Tubbythin]

When you start tossing out his solar theories, I know you're going "too far".

When I toss out solar theories that disagree completely with vast amounts of experimental dat then I'm going to far?

You have not and cannot produce the solar atmospheric effects that I mentioned with "magnetic reconnection".

Hardly surprising since I'ne never tried.

Alfven rejected that whole claim as "pseudoscience".

I couldn't care less. And this is a thread about LCDM.

Even still, you all still somehow perceive MR theory as"progress" of some sort, in spite of the fact you've *NEVER* reproduced *ANY* of the effect Birkeland created in the lab, not aurora, not loops, not jets, not sustained full sphere solar wind, nothing!

We can't make a working model of the Sun in a lab? So what? We have overwhelming amounts of data from the real thing. We don't need some little model that bares little resemblance to the real thing.

That isn't empirical scientific "progress". That BS.

Throwing out theories that disagree with observations in favour those which agree isn't scientific progress?

 

[Tubbythin]

Would you personally accept the word of a 'Priest" that told you that "God did it"? If not, why not?

Huh?!? You really don't understand the meaning of the word "definition" do you?

 

[D'rok]

Of course there is no empirical cause/effect relationship between "dark matter" and "missing mass".

That's because they're synonyms.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That may be true. It's not really relevant to the topic at hand though.

You don't *KNOW* that! That's my whole complaint! Birkeland *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would NOT be found in suns or even slow moving plasma. You can't find most of the mass of the universe. His model PREDICTS and *EXPLAINS* a method of particle acceleration. You observe "acceleration". How you know these things are "unrelated"? You don't! You *ASSUME* they are unrelated.

In other words, Birkeland did not male the claim that you claim he made.

His theory would still apply! You can't blame me for extending his basic concept one step further based on what we have learned since his death.

When your statements are your own speculation, you should not attribute them to other people.

His statements about the flow pattern of particles is not "speculation". It's based on "direct empirical experimentation" and it's been "lab demonstrated". All I am doing is extending the particle movements one size larger and I'm following the same basic logic he used to describe suns, planets, "dark asteroids" (I think he only knew of "hundreds" of them) and applying to to a larger scale. There's nothing unique about what I'm doing that he didn't do himself in relationship to solar events.

What most amazes me that is your 'dark matter" is mostly located right where Birkeland's theories predict "rings of matter" to form. That "acceleration" is most likely due to EM fields too. You don't want to hear it, but that is a fact. The EM field is *THE* most likely culprit if we're trying to explain an acceleration of a plasma universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Huh?!? You really don't understand the meaning of the word "definition" do you?

Yes, I do. By your "definition" God (or any invisible entity of choice) did it.

 

[nvidiot]

The would refer to "missing mass" and "cosmic acceleration" respectively. Of course there is no empirical cause/effect relationship between "dark matter" and "missing mass", nor is there any empirical connection between "acceleration' and dark energy". They simply 'assume" some connection.

Missing mass and cosmic acceleration would be appropriate terms, but they can't claim "dark energies" make up 3/4th of the universe.

So Dark Matter is defined as "missing mass" but there is no connection between "dark matter" and missing mass.

What mass are they referring to and why is it "missing"?

And Dark Energy is "cosmic acceleration" but there is no empirical connection between "Dark Energy" and "cosmic acceleration.

What "cosmic acceleration" are they referring to?

Would you personally accept the word of a 'Priest" that told you that "God did it"? If not, why not?

Your lack of answering the question is telling, and your analogy fails miserably.

Were I a theist, (which I'm not) and I was asking a priest for a definition of "sin" for instance, and he told me that "sin" has a very specific descriptive definition, and that every other priest used that definition the same way, and he showed me numerous texts and papers and pointed me to other priests who said the same thing, then I would be inclined to listen to the guy if I had a mistaken impression that "sin" meant something completely different, like "pleasing god".

Answer the question directly please. If you think these terms means one thing, or describes one thing, and you are the ONLY person who thinks this, and those who do physics and cosmology ALL tell you that it doesn't mean that at all and you have made a fundamental definitional error, why wouldn't you listen?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's because they're synonyms.

In terms of empirical physics, they are "unrelated" synonyms. Dark energy doesn't "accelerate" anything in a lab. So far I've seen nothing in a lab that confirms the existence of any exotic forms of matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So Dark Matter is defined as "missing mass" but there is no connection between "dark matter" and missing mass.

This is telling me that "God is defined as missing mass" and you somehow are confused that I don not accept that the missing mass is related to God? Really? Show me the "connection"' in terms of empirical physics.

What mass are they referring to and why is it "missing"?

Maybe because our technology is limited? I don't know why they can't find it.

And Dark Energy is "cosmic acceleration" but there is no empirical connection between "Dark Energy" and "cosmic acceleration.

When did "dark energy" ever "accelerate" even one single atom?

You've shown no "cause/effect" connection between missing mass and "exotic forms of matter". You've shown no cause/effect connection between acceleration and 'dark energy'. You simply 'made up' both terms and you started pointing at the sky and claiming your dark entities did it.

Your claim is no different than pointing at the sky and claiming 'dark gods did it'.

 

[D'rok]

In terms of empirical physics, they are "unrelated" synonyms. Dark energy doesn't "accelerate" anything in a lab. So far I've seen nothing in a lab that confirms the existence of any exotic forms of matter.

You really do struggle with definitions, don't you? If the universe is filled with matter that cannot be directly detected, then it is by definition both exotic and dark.

Also, is it getting about time for me to repost your past advocacy in favour of dark matter and energy? There might be some new lurkers here who are labouring under the misapprehension that you are honest.

 

[Tubbythin]

You don't *KNOW* that! That's my whole complaint! Birkeland *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would NOT be found in suns or even slow moving plasma. You can't find most of the mass of the universe.

The missing mass is dark. Birkeland's missing mass would be very much visible. Therefore it is trivially obvious to conclude that whatever Birkeland predicted does not match with what is observed.

His model PREDICTS and *EXPLAINS* a method of particle acceleration. You observe "acceleration". How you know these things are "unrelated"? You don't! You *ASSUME* they are unrelated.

No. No assumption involved. The dynamics of the situation from observations rule out anything to do with EM forces.

His theory would still apply! You can't blame me for extending his basic concept one step further based on what we have learned since his death.

Have you got a proof that his theories are completely scalable? If not, it's wild speculation and nothing to do with Birkeland.

His statements about the flow pattern of particles is not "speculation". It's based on "direct empirical experimentation" and it's been "lab demonstrated".

WI couldn't give a monkeys about lab demonstration which are completely at odds with the experimental evidence from the real-world physics. Which bit of this do you not get?

All I am doing is extending the particle movements one size larger and I'm following the same basic logic he used to describe suns, planets, "dark asteroids" (I think he only knew of "hundreds" of them) and applying to to a larger scale. There's nothing unique about what I'm doing that he didn't do himself in relationship to solar events.

You're making claims he never made. Stop attributing those claims to him.

What most amazes me that is your 'dark matter" is mostly located right where Birkeland's theories predict "rings of matter" to form.

You've jjust told us that Birkeland didn't know about galaxies and now you're claiming he predicted exactly where dark matter in the galaxies he didn't know about was located.

That "acceleration" is most likely due to EM fields too.

No, it cannot possibly be due to EM fields.

You don't want to hear it, but that is a fact.

No, its not a fact. Its your unsupported claim which goes entirely against mountains and mountains and mountains of observational evidence.

The EM field is *THE* most likely culprit if we're trying to explain an acceleration of a plasma universe.

a) The universe is not a plasma.
b) No, the acceleration cannot possibly be explained by EM forces (remember Gauss' law and all that).