Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

In terms of empirical physics, they are "unrelated" synonyms.

Then one must conclude you do not know the definition of "synonym" either.

 

[nvidiot]

Micheal what does "definition" mean? You seem to have trouble with the term...

 

[Tubbythin]

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

No more so than my definition of "internet" or "hand" or "tea strainer" would mean God did it.

 

[tusenfem]

Um, which "specifics" were you looking for again? Why *exactly* are you looking for them? Why must *I* personally provide them to you?

Whenever we ask where Birkeland claims something according to you, you always fail to give any reasonable answer apart from "read his book".

If you would go to my thread then you find how you can discuss Birkeland's work correctly, with paper names and links and page numbers etc. etc.

The specifics that we want to know should be obvious to you after more than 4000 posts in this thread and the uncountable other posts in the multitude of different threads where you make Birkie claims.

 

[nvidiot]

Oh and btw, just to rub in your misunderstanding of terms a bit more, I have no empirical (as you use the term, not how everyone else does) evidence for the existence of Jupiter. I have not seen a Jupiter in the lab, I cannot touch one, I cannot even reasonably recreate a model of Jupiter which explains it's behavior on any kind of reasonable scale on earth. Does Jupiter exist?

 

[tusenfem]

The solar wind is neutral overall.

No, it's not. It carries "current".

Oh for crying out loud MM, and you claim to be knowledgeable about plasma physics?

The solar wind is neutral, as in, in a cubic whatever measure you want to take, there is exactly as much positive as negative charge. Check the data from ACE, Wind, STEREO, Geotail, Cluster, THEMIS .......

The fact that in the solar wind there is also a current, e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has NOTHING to do with the fact wheter the solar wind is neutral or not. In a (quasi)neutral plasma currents, thank goodness, can flow.

charge density: ρ_e = Σ_k n_k q_k

current density: j = Σ_k n_k v_k q_k

where k runs over all species.

(although you talk about "current" so whether or not that is a current as used in normal plasma physics depends to be seen)

Please show how j ≠ 0, implicitely implies that ρ_e ≠ 0.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh for crying out loud MM, and you claim to be knowledgeable about plasma physics?

The solar wind is neutral, as in, in a cubic whatever measure you want to take, there is exactly as much positive as negative charge. Check the data from ACE, Wind, STEREO, Geotail, Cluster, THEMIS .......

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Last time I checked your supposedly "neutral" plasma dumped five hundred thousand billion joules of energy into the Earth:

Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake .

Holy cow! You can't even tell a "current carrying" plasma from a "neutral" plasma, you're worshiping at the feet of something Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience", and you have the nerve to question *MY* grasp of plasma physics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Micheal what does "definition" mean? You seem to have trouble with the term...

Only when your definition is meaningless. My reaction to your "dark matter" is the same exact reaction you would have to me claiming that "missing mass" is somehow related to "God matter" and I started pointing at the sky to locate all the "God matter" I could find. There's no link between 'missing mass' and "dark matter" except in your head. Ditto on the connection between acceleration and dark energy thingies.

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Last time I checked your supposedly "neutral" plasma dumped five hundred thousand billion joules of energy into the Earth:



Holy cow! You can't even tell a "current carrying" plasma from a "neutral" plasma, you're worshiping at the feet of something Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience", and you have the nerve to question *MY* grasp of plasma physics?

Right Michael, keep on dreaming, you just proved that you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. Well, we already knew that of course, but one can always hope for the best and get the worst.

Where exactly does it say that the plasma is not neutral????????????
Maybe you think that a neutral plasma consists of neutral atoms?????????

 

[Michael Mozina]

You really do struggle with definitions, don't you? If the universe is filled with matter that cannot be directly detected,......

You mean with our limited technologies?

then it is by definition both exotic and dark.

Er, no. Then by definition we are "ignorant" and there's no point in pretending that we *KNOW* that exotic matter exists "somewhere out there".

Also, is it getting about time for me to repost your past advocacy in favour of dark matter and energy?

I have only ever advocated "missing mass", and acceleration, not "dark matter' or "dark energy". Don't confuse "observation" with "cause".

There might be some new lurkers here who are labouring under the misapprehension that you are honest.

I think it is *COMPLETELY* dishonest of you to claim that I have ever advocated "dark" anything. I'm the universes biggest critic of "dark" stuff.

 

[GeeMack]

Um, no, it's called "direct experience". I've been yacking at this group for over 7 years and I guarantee you that not one of these critics has read Birkeland's work cover to cover. I can tell by the question you folks ask and the statements that you make that you haven't bothered. There 'might" be one or two of them that have read 'Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven, but I guarantee you that I've read more of his papers and books than any critic PC/EU theory in this thread.

However, your qualifications to communicate in a sane and intelligent manner on any issue related to science, or for that matter to actually understand anything at all that you claim to have read, have been challenged, and you still refused completely to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. So since there is zero evidence that you actually understand anything you read, your claim to have read any relevant material is wholly unsupported.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Holy cow! You can't even tell a "current carrying" plasma from a "neutral" plasma, you're worshiping at the feet of something Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience", and you have the nerve to question *MY* grasp of plasma physics?

Right Michael, keep on dreaming, you just proved that you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. Well, we already knew that of course, but one can always hope for the best and get the worst.

Where exactly does it say that the plasma is not neutral????????????
Maybe you think that a neutral plasma consists of neutral atoms?????????

From a previous post:

Oh for crying out loud MM, and you claim to be knowledgeable about plasma physics?

The solar wind is neutral, as in, in a cubic whatever measure you want to take, there is exactly as much positive as negative charge. Check the data from ACE, Wind, STEREO, Geotail, Cluster, THEMIS .......

The fact that in the solar wind there is also a current, e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has NOTHING to do with the fact wheter the solar wind is neutral or not. In a (quasi)neutral plasma currents, thank goodness, can flow.

charge density: ρ_e = Σ_k n_k q_k

current density: j = Σ_k n_k v_k q_k

where k runs over all species.

We had already established that
Michael Mozina doesn't know the difference between E and J, so why should we act surprised when he doesn't know the difference between ρ and j?

The distinction between charge and current is high school physics, so I wouldn't expect Michael Mozina to understand it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Right Michael, keep on dreaming, you just proved that you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. Well, we already knew that of course, but one can always hope for the best and get the worst.

Where exactly does it say that the plasma is not neutral????????????

NASA's Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission observed the dynamics of a rapidly developing substorm, confirmed the existence of giant magnetic ropes and witnessed small explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.

Here is Alfven's definition of a "magnetic rope' from Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

Notice that reference to "currents"? Hoy.

Maybe you think that a neutral plasma consists of neutral atoms?????????

No, I think a "current carrying " plasma is a current carrying plasma, and a Bennett Pinch is caused by "current flow" and magnetic field constriction caused by that "current flow". I have no idea why you believe a "magnetic rope" is a "neutral plasma".

 

[D'rok]

Er, no. Then by definition we are "ignorant" and there's no point in pretending that we *KNOW* that exotic matter exists "somewhere out there".

Except, of course, for all the independent lines of observational evidence that shows that there is matter "out there" affecting matter that we can see. We don't know where it is exactly, therefore it is missing. We can't see it directly, therefore it is dark. We have never been able to study it directly, therefore it remains exotic.

Or are you denying that there is missing matter at all?

Now, on to your pathetic lying...

I have only ever advocated "missing mass", and acceleration, not "dark matter' or "dark energy". Don't confuse "observation" with "cause".

I think it is *COMPLETELY* dishonest of you to claim that I have ever advocated "dark" anything. I'm the universes biggest critic of "dark" stuff.

Wow Michael. It was in this very thread that I already posted this. But, if you insist, here it is again.

All this ranting about dark matter/energy is hilariously ironic. Michael was quite the dark energy advocate back when he thought it could account for the measurement discrepancy between the actual density of the sun and how dense he needed it to be for it to have a solid iron surface.

I don't think you are grasping the tenuousness of the density measurements, or the lack of accounting for any of the known forces of our universe in these calculations. For instance, where is there any evidence of "dark energy" being factored into density calculations?

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...chpage=2#78835

"Known forces" eh, Michael? I guess you no longer know what you used to know.

Now we've determined that the dark energy could affect things in either direction, and we've also demonstrated that these ideas have NOT been factored into density calculations. We therefore cannot use a density calculations that is known to be missing some key components as some sort of "dispoof" of what we see in satellite images, and hear in heliosiesmology, and see in nuclear chemical data.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...chpage=3#78837

"Key components" eh, Michael?

This goes on for page after page in that thread.

Pretty sad, IMO.

 

[GeeMack]

He answers all of your objections in that NY Times article RC! He even explained that the rotation *direction* of the planets was related to the fact that positively charged particles were emitted and he explained that he had *experimentally reproduced them too*. Did you even read that link? Everything is addressed. You simply ignored his statements entirely! The whole rotation direction is directly linked to the charge of the sun and the charge of the particle being emitted! Hoy!

He, Birkeland, doesn't answer anything in that article. A reporter wrote it. And apparently you don't even know which reporter. Maybe the reporter was a liar. It doesn't seem like a bunch of those scientists at the lecture rushed home and started working on planet spewing projects. Maybe they all thought Birkeland was out of his gourd, and they went to the pub after the lecture to drink and laugh and ridicule the little guy. We don't really know, do we?

Also, the reporter, if he/she wasn't lying, seems to believe that Birkeland had this crackpot notion that stars spew atoms into space which coalesce into planets. I'm sure you'd agree that no such thing is possible since, after all, nobody ever made a planet out of spewed atoms in a lab right here on Earth. Or do your ridiculous standards of scientific exploration only apply to your own crackpot notions, Michael?

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except, of course, for all the independent lines of observational evidence that shows that there is matter "out there" affecting matter that we can see. We don't know where it is exactly, therefore it is missing. We can't see it directly, therefore it is dark. We have never been able to study it directly, therefore it remains exotic.

Or are you denying that there is missing matter at all?

The only thing I'm "denying" is that there is any empirical link between "missing mass" and 'dark matter", or that any of it is necessarily "exotic" in any way.

Now, on to your pathetic lying...

You mean on to your pathetic personal attacks. Yawn....

Wow Michael. It was in this very thread that I already posted this. But, if you insist, here it is again.

All this ranting about dark matter/energy is hilariously ironic. Michael was quite the dark energy advocate back when he thought it could account for the measurement discrepancy between the actual density of the sun and how dense he needed it to be for it to have a solid iron surface.

That's preposterous since I've never claimed that A) the sun was "solid iron", or B) that that there is anything wrong with the calculated mass of the sun in *ANY* solar theory. I have no idea why you think the two ideas are even related. If you want to discuss that topic, so so in the other thread please, lest I be seen as trying to skirt around the moderators of the solar thread. For purposes of this thread I don't even know why you believe the two topics are related.

 

[tusenfem]

Notice that reference to "currents"? Hoy.

And where exactly is Alfvén claiming that the plasma is NOT neutral?

Hoy indeed

Please quote me from Cosmic Plasma or from Cosmic Electrodynamics where Alfvén claims that current carrying plasmas cannot be neutral. I dare you!

Maybe that only holds for a Mozplasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Known forces" eh, Michael? I guess you no longer know what you used to know.

"Key components" eh, Michael?

This goes on for page after page in that thread.

Pretty sad, IMO.

IMO you're taking a couple of lines *COMPLETELY* out of context. For purposes of conversations I will in fact use those terms but it doesn't mean I "believe in them". I use the term "photosphere" too, but that doesn't mean I actually believe it is "opaque" (GM definition) to every wavelength. I think you're reading more into that statement than was meant by it.

FYI, if you're trying to paint me as a "believer" that "dark" stuff is the "cause of" anything, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.

 

[D'rok]

That's preposterous since I've never claimed that A) the sun was "solid iron", or B) that that there is anything wrong with the calculated mass of the sun in *ANY* solar theory. I have no idea why you think the two ideas are even related. If you want to discuss that topic, so so in the other thread please, lest I be seen as trying to skirt around the moderators of the solar thread. For purposes of this thread I don't even know why you believe the two topics are related.

Fail again. The topic was your past advocacy for dark matter/energy. There it is. In your own words. For the whole world to see. Pages and pages of it. Despite your emphatic denial that you ever did so.

Why do you lie so much?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And where exactly is Alfvén claiming that the plasma is NOT neutral?

He makes that claim every single time he uses the term "circuit" in reference to them.

Hoy indeed

Please quote me from Cosmic Plasma or from Cosmic Electrodynamics where Alfvén claims that current carrying plasmas cannot be neutral. I dare you!

Maybe that only holds for a Mozplasma?

So by your definition a lightening bolt is a "neutral" plasma too?