Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[D'rok]

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.

I gave links to the context. It is easy to check. Doing so shows that you are lying again. If you didn't mean what you said in that thread, that means you were lying then.

Why do you lie so much?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

Why are you debasing us both like this? I use "terms" to get ideas across. I believe something is the "cause" of all that missing mass. I hold no belief that "dark matter" is that cause. I use the term however in conversations to get ideas across. You're taking one conversation out of context and ignoring the *YEARS* that I have spent railing against "dark" stuff.

Honestly dude, you're way off base. Go over to Bad Astronomy and read my comments as "ManInTheMirror". I have never advocated what you are accusing me of, and your personal attacks are cheesy.

 

[D'rok]

Why are you debasing us both like this? I use "terms" to get ideas across. I believe something is the "cause" of all that missing mass. I hold no belief that "dark matter" is that cause. I use the term however in conversations to get ideas across. You're taking one conversation out of context and ignoring the *YEARS* that I have spent railing against "dark" stuff.

Honestly dude, you're way off base. Go over to Bad Astronomy and read my comments as "ManInTheMirror". I have never advocated what you are accusing me of, and your personal attacks are cheesy.

I understand that showing you your own words is uncomfortable for you given the position you know hold about "dark stuff".

You didn't always hold that position. Why is that?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Nope. Evidently you don't understand the difference between charge and current.

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

Why wouldn't it be? The extension cord I use to power my leaf blower is neutral, even when it's carrying current.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

People have been trying to get you to support your criticism of the dark energy theories with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. You have completely failed to do that. It seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

People have also been asking you to support your crackpot alternative conjecture to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. On that point it also seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

If you feel you have a valid criticism and/or a valid, rational alternative explanation, you might want to knock off the whining tantrums and the lying, and get down to offering your position scientifically and in an organized, cogent fashion.

When someone asks you to direct them to the reference source, page, and paragraph that you claim supports something you say, why not simply point them to it instead of whining and moaning? When someone points out that you have been lying, why not just stop the lying instead of whining some more about being busted? When someone asks you to make yourself clear on some point that you've babbled about, why not use the terminology of the science that you claim to want to discuss so that people can actually understand what the hell you're trying to say?

One thing is certain here, Michael. You have typed tens of thousands of words here, and in all that effort you have been unable to convince a single soul that what you have to say has any scientific merit whatsoever. Really. Start there. You haven't swayed anyone at all to accept anything you claim. Obviously you're having a great deal of difficulty with your current strategy of whining, moaning, throwing tantrums, and lying. Obviously if you expect to ever be taken seriously rather than ridiculed, you can't go on with your current mode of approaching this. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is certain.

So how about working out a new approach, a new strategy of communicating your thoughts? You see, so far everyone here thinks you're a nut, a complete idiot without a clue when it comes to science. Even the professional physicists in these discussions do, or actually especially them. How about stopping the lying, which I asked you to do a long time ago, and stopping the tantrums, and starting to answer some of the legitimate, direct, reasonable questions these fine people are asking you? Really, do you simply not want anyone to ever take you seriously? Because you can be certain that nobody does now.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

Untrue. For example, Alfvén did not make that claim anywhere within the passage you quoted just a few minutes ago.

The reason you think otherwise is that you don't understand the distinction between charge and current.

No one expects you to understand anything about science, but you should stop accusing Alfvén of sharing your ignorance. It's disrespectful.

 

[GeeMack]

Honestly dude, you're way off base. Go over to Bad Astronomy and read my comments as "ManInTheMirror". I have never advocated what you are accusing me of, and your personal attacks are cheesy.

Over at the BAUT Forum where you got banned because you refused to answer direct, reasonable questions about your crackpot claims? Over at the BAUT Forum where you rejoined as a sockpuppet and were proven to be a liar because initially you claimed to not be Michael Mozina? Over at the BAUT Forum where even the sockpuppet got banned for also being incapable of participating in an honest, intelligent discussion? Is that the BAUT you're talking about, Michael?

​

 

[Reality Check]

It's totally dumb to ignore *his whole life's work* not to mention the NY Times article. That was but *ONE* of many speeches he gave and one of many of his writings on this topic. Nobody but you is trying to "dumb it down'.

It is dumb to ignore *his whole life's work* not to mention the NY Times article as you are doing.

Yes it is!

No it is not!

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

Yes it is. The solar wind does not carry current.

OMG. He *PREDICTED* and even *SIMULATED* the positive ion emission process RC! He not only *expected* the sun to carry positively charged ions, he *KNEW* it from direct experimentation.

OMG Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work

Any way you look at it, planetary material comes from the stars.

That is sort of true: planetary material comes from the previous generation of stars.

 

[tusenfem]

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

Then please, frakking QUOTE him verbatim!
why on Earth would a circuit be a non-neutral plasma?

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

As apparently I have no idea what you mean by a "neutral" plasma, you can't hardly expect to answer this question.

However, I do know that lightning is a discharge e.g. between clouds and the Earth and this is usually done by electrons, moving charge from a place where there is too much (cloud) to a place where there is too little (ground) to say it simplistically. Naturally, that would NOT be anything neutral in the sense of the sum of all charges.

However, as it is pretty hard to create charge separation over large distances in plasmas, because both the positive ions and the negative electrons are all very mobile, you will not get any discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Read the post: Birkeland did *A LOT* worse. Scientific progress falsifies his idea.

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.

Yes they have. They've been shown to be *RIGHT* to some degree, WRONG a lot, but so what?
He never had a model. His model never created coronal loops - it created electrical discharges that looked like loops (and Saturn's rings, and galaxies)

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.

That is what I said.

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.

The same error applies to his solar analogy. He knew what the temperature of the Sun was. Thus (unless he was completely incompetent which he was not) he knew that the Sun was a ball of hot gas for the simple reason that no element could be solid or liquid at that temperature. Thus it was excusable to suggest that this was gas and could have electrical discharges. After all it happened in the gas in his apparatus!
He forgot about plasma ("radiant matter") and that plasma could not sustain electrical discharges (probably known at his time)

Then along came scientific progress.
The properties of plasma were explored.
Measurements of coronal loops. etc. ruled out them being electrical discharges, e.g. the expected narow-band X-rays have never been observed.

I suspect Birkeland never even dreamed that someone would be delusional enough to arbitrarily extend his analogy to the absurd inclusion of the brass balls.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work

P.S. Please cite Birkeland's "cathode solar model"

 

[Michael Mozina]

I understand that showing you your own words is uncomfortable for you given the position you know hold about "dark stuff".

You didn't always hold that position. Why is that?

Honestly I have never changed my position. You really are taking the conversation out of context. If you really want me to explain that conversation to you, ask me about it in the solar thread. I can't explain myself without getting into solar theory and it's totally unrelated to this conversation. Suffice to say I have use terms to get meaning across, but my position hasn't changed. Like I said, I use the term "photosphere" too, but that does not mean that I believe it is "opaque" (GM style). You'll have to accept that, and if not, go read my comments at BAUT. You really are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Over at the BAUT Forum where you got banned because you refused to answer direct, reasonable questions about your crackpot claims?

No, I mean the incredibly oppressive and religious-like BAUT that holds witch hunts against *ALL* EU theories.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As apparently I have no idea what you mean by a "neutral" plasma, you can't hardly expect to answer this question.

When you can answer it, let me know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why wouldn't it be? The extension cord I use to power my leaf blower is neutral, even when it's carrying current.

BS. Go strip the insulation off the wire, hold both wires and tell me they are "neutral". You're full of it and you'll "feel" it too.

 

[Ziggurat]

BS. Go strip the insulation off the wire, hold both wires and tell me they are "neutral". You're full of it and you'll "feel" it too.

I'll feel a current, not a charge. Don't you know the difference? You're obsessed with electric universe nonsense, and you can't even get one of the most basic aspects of electricity right? Wow. I'm not sure if that's tragically comic or comically tragic.

 

[D'rok]

Honestly I have never changed my position. You really are taking the conversation out of context. If you really want me to explain that conversation to you, ask me about it in the solar thread. I can't explain myself without getting into solar theory and it's totally unrelated to this conversation. Suffice to say I have use terms to get meaning across, but my position hasn't changed. Like I said, I use the term "photosphere" too, but that does not mean that I believe it is "opaque" (GM style). You'll have to accept that, and if not, go read my comments at BAUT. You really are barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks, but I can understand that thread quite well. As can anyone who chooses to read it.

Whatever. You should probably ignore me and try to learn something from the smart folks in this thread.

Serendipitously, and apropos of nothing, I happen to just have watched a crappy STTNG episode where dark matter wreaks havoc with the Enterprise. Unfortunately, it was mostly about Data's love life. Yech.

 

[Reality Check]

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?

The fact that Micheal Mozina's twisted logic results in the universe outside of the Earth not existing has been pointed out many times.
Have a look at Tim Thomson's "What is "Empirical" Science? XXX) posts, e.g. What is "Empirical" Science? VII.

Or my Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? posts.

 

[GeeMack]

No, I mean the incredibly oppressive and religious-like BAUT that holds witch hunts against *ALL* EU theories.

Damn those BAUT folks persecuting you like that! They're single-handedly holding us all back in the dark ages!

​

Wow, Michael, listen to yourself. You have written some seriously ridiculous things in your years, truly some of the stupidest things that have ever been posted on the Internet, but when your argument comes down to this, even the most moronic of fundies and Truthers have one up on you. This kind of stuff is just plain juvenile, paranoid silly.

Now go read this again, and learn. And if you don't learn the first time, read it again. Seriously...

People have been trying to get you to support your criticism of the dark energy theories with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. You have completely failed to do that. It seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

People have also been asking you to support your crackpot alternative conjecture to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. On that point it also seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

If you feel you have a valid criticism and/or a valid, rational alternative explanation, you might want to knock off the whining tantrums and the lying, and get down to offering your position scientifically and in an organized, cogent fashion.

When someone asks you to direct them to the reference source, page, and paragraph that you claim supports something you say, why not simply point them to it instead of whining and moaning? When someone points out that you have been lying, why not just stop the lying instead of whining some more about being busted? When someone asks you to make yourself clear on some point that you've babbled about, why not use the terminology of the science that you claim to want to discuss so that people can actually understand what the hell you're trying to say?

One thing is certain here, Michael. You have typed tens of thousands of words here, and in all that effort you have been unable to convince a single soul that what you have to say has any scientific merit whatsoever. Really. Start there. You haven't swayed anyone at all to accept anything you claim. Obviously you're having a great deal of difficulty with your current strategy of whining, moaning, throwing tantrums, and lying. Obviously if you expect to ever be taken seriously rather than ridiculed, you can't go on with your current mode of approaching this. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is certain.

So how about working out a new approach, a new strategy of communicating your thoughts? You see, so far everyone here thinks you're a nut, a complete idiot without a clue when it comes to science. Even the professional physicists in these discussions do, or actually especially them. How about stopping the lying, which I asked you to do a long time ago, and stopping the tantrums, and starting to answer some of the legitimate, direct, reasonable questions these fine people are asking you? Really, do you simply not want anyone to ever take you seriously? Because you can be certain that nobody does now.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark Energy and Empirical Science VII

Dark energy doesn't "accelerate" anything in a lab.

One must be careful to place Mozina's comments in the proper perspective ...

To begin with, "dark energy" is the cause of cosmological acceleration by virtue of the simple fact that the name of that cause, the physical properties & nature of which remain unknown, is "dark energy", in exactly the same sense as Michael Mozina's name just happens to be "Michael Mozina". But Mozina rails on nonetheless, never really making it clear what his pathological objection to the name really is.

But more substantially, let us remember this ...

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.

Mozina rails on about how "dark energy" does not show up in a laboratory. But what if the accelerated expansion of the universe were in fact caused by good old classical electromagnetism? Would that effect show up in a laboratory? The answer is "no, it would not". It is not possible, under any conditions, to replicate cosmological expansion in any laboratory on Earth by any technology that we now have in practice, no matter what the cause my be, because the effect is literally too small to measure over laboratory distance scales. So Mozina's complaint is meaningless tripe.

But remember this too: Although Mozina uses the word "empirical", he does not actually mean "empirical" because he has carelessly chosen to redefine both the word & the concept behind it to suit his own personal prejudice. What he really means is mozperical, a peculiar form of intellectual inquiry where all observations outside of a controlled laboratory environment are dismissed as meaningless. I have addressed this point directly many times now, e.g., from February 1, 2010 ...

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?

Never once has Mozina ever even acknowledged the existence of this criticism, let alone dare try to answer it. So expect an endless repetition of the same thing over & over, ad infinitum. It safe to assume that everything Mozina says is wrong, and most of what he says is just plain impossible.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Mozina-Birkeland Dark Matter Falsified

Birkeland *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would NOT be found in suns or even slow moving plasma.

Well, I for one do not believe anything you say about Birkeland without documentary evidence to support it. However, if in fact Birkeland predicted what you say he did, then that prediction has already been falsified by observation, as I already pointed out before ...

Your "dark matter" in Birkeland's world is simply "fast moving orbiting material" in rings around the galaxy.

Curiously, "dark matter" picked up that peculiar monicker by virtue of being, well, dark. If all this material orbiting the galaxies is charged (i.e., a plasma), as you seem to imply, then it will be quit bright. Charged particles emit electromagnetic waves whenever they are accelerated, one of those annoying aspects of electromagnetism that we all have to get used to. They will emit radio waves, and the power of the emitted radio waves will tell you a lot about the matter emitting them, including how much matter there is. We do see radio emission from extragalactic environments, but we don't see all of this "dark matter" you are talking about. Therefore we know, by virtue of the scientifically time honored practice of observation that such matter is not there. If, on the other hand, it is not ionized, not a plasma, and just plain neutral matter, then it will emit thermal radio waves, which we also do not see. And finally, it can't be organized in a "ring" around the galaxy, because galaxy and galaxy cluster dynamics requires the dark matter to be distributed in a more or less spherically symmetric halo. So this one won't fly.

We already know by virtue of direct empirical observation that the matter you claim Birkeland predicted is not there in sufficient quantity to account for the effects ascribed to dark matter.

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

What amazes me (well, not really any more) is that I have to tell you yet again that dark matter is not distributed in "Mozina-Birkeland rings", but rather in roughly spherically symmetric halos, as required by dynamics.

So the Mozina-Birkeland hypothesis that "dark matter" is just ordinary matter distributed in rings has been falsified by the observational facts that (a) the matter which should be visible in multi-wavelength astronomy is not visible, and dark matter cannot be distributed in rings in any case.