Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

We have been down this road before,

If you have ~10% of the matter accounted for and 90% unaccounted for, a variance of 2x-3x within that 10% is not going to make it anywhere near enough, even if the whole thing is wrong and it is 4x and teh whole caboodle, that leaves 60% un accounted for.

I'm not expecting, nor wanting you folks to 'figure it all out" in one fell swoop. Just one or two percent would be fine. I"d just like to see *SOME* movement in the right direction, and *SOME* understanding of Peratt's work in PC theory. So far I see no evidence that you WANT to give up your faith in the unseen (in the lab). It's like you're emotionally attached to NOT making ANY effort to minimize your need for invisible friends.

 

[edd]

I'm not expecting, nor wanting you folks to 'figure it all out" in one fell swoop. Just one or two percent would be fine. I"d just like to see *SOME* movement in the right direction

I'm sure you'd like to see us move in your direction, but we aren't exactly convinced that's the right direction. Also, a small move between two theories is harder to justify - you end up with a more complicated idea that is disfavoured by Occam's Razor.

So far I see no evidence that you WANT to give up your faith in the unseen (in the lab). It's like you're emotionally attached to NOT making ANY effort to minimize your need for invisible friends.

People are still happily discussing alternatives to 'the unseen', and I think it's a little odd to suggest there's an emotional attachment. This is just from today:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...22/arxiv-find-breakdown-of-classical-gravity/

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm sure you'd like to see us move in your direction, but we aren't exactly convinced that's the right direction. Also, a small move between two theories is harder to justify - you end up with a more complicated idea that is disfavoured by Occam's Razor.

People are still happily discussing alternatives to 'the unseen', and I think it's a little odd to suggest there's an emotional attachment. This is just from today:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...22/arxiv-find-breakdown-of-classical-gravity/

Just out of curiosity have you seen a paper on MOND theory that satisfied the lensing data? I've not personally seen such a thing, but I've not kept up with that debate the last couple of years.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not expecting, nor wanting you folks to 'figure it all out" in one fell swoop. Just one or two percent would be fine. I"d just like to see *SOME* movement in the right direction, and *SOME* understanding of Peratt's work in PC theory. So far I see no evidence that you WANT to give up your faith in the unseen (in the lab). It's like you're emotionally attached to NOT making ANY effort to minimize your need for invisible friends.

So you still hate neutrinos, after all this time?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you still hate neutrinos, after all this time?

Huh? No. They show up in the lab.

 

[ben m]

I'm not expecting, nor wanting you folks to 'figure it all out" in one fell swoop. Just one or two percent would be fine. I"d just like to see *SOME* movement in the right direction,

The Earth is flat, but I don't expect you round-earthers to figure it out in one go. Maybe you'll find that it's a few percent flatter today, and a few percent flatter tomorrow. I just learned about 'valleys' which are areas that are beyond flat, they're concave! You failed to mention that when you said "the earth is round" dogmatically over and over.

and *SOME* understanding of Peratt's work in PC theory.

I understand it reasonably well, Michael. It's not a good model of galaxy formation. It uses nonsensical physics to start with; its results look very little like actual galaxies.

Your wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

So far I see no evidence that you WANT to give up your faith in the unseen (in the lab). It's like you're emotionally attached to NOT making ANY effort to minimize your need for invisible friends.

"seeing no evidence" seems to be a specialty of yours.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The Earth is flat, but I don't expect you round-earthers to figure it out in one go. Maybe you'll find that it's a few percent flatter today, and a few percent flatter tomorrow. I just learned about 'valleys' which are areas that are beyond flat, they're concave! You failed to mention that when you said "the earth is round" dogmatically over and over.

I'm afraid you have empirical physics standing on it's head and you're in the role of the flat Earther. The universe is in fact "electrical" in nature, and no amount of pure denial is going to change that fact. Sooner or later the mainstream will "get there", but at the pace they are going, I'll be long dead.

I understand it reasonably well, Michael. It's not a good model of galaxy formation.

Your two sentences contradict one another. You evidently don't understand it.

It uses nonsensical physics to start with;

Um, such as? What could POSSIBLY more more nonsensical than guthflation?

its results look very little like actual galaxies.

Boloney! They fall into very similar "shapes" including the arms, the concentration around a central region, the planar layout of matter, etc. It's quite clear that you don't understand it well Ben. When I hear how you folks characterize his computer models that are based upon plasma physics principles I simply want to hurl. You clearly do NOT understand it, let alone understand it "well'.

Your wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

Ditto on your industry's aversion to the concept of electricity in space. Your fears won't make it go away, nor will your ridicule.

"seeing no evidence" seems to be a specialty of yours.

Sorry, that's your gig, not mine. I see gamma rays and neutron capture signatures and million degree temperatures from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere and in the solar atmosphere. You're the one insisting on "seeing no evidence" of discharges in the solar atmosphere, not me.

That whole MR debate says volumes IMO. You folks are *SO* intent on ignoring the electric field that you'll quite literally rewrite physics. Instead of just calling it "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection", you have to hide the E field. You therefore dumb down all the math to the B orientation and call it "magnetic reconnection". You're so afraid of the E orientation to plasma physics you folks refuse to even acknowledge it as an EQUAL.

I've learned a lot here from you folks, first and foremost that you fear the electric field like a cult fears satan. It's your evil nemesis, and it must be denied at all costs, lest your whole dogmatic religion fall apart.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm afraid you have empirical physics standing on it's head and you're in the role of the flat Earther. The universe is in fact "electrical" in nature, and no amount of pure denial is going to change that fact. Sooner or later the mainstream will "get there", but at the pace they are going of the electric Universe proponents assembling an objective, quantitative argument, I'll be long dead.

Fixed.

 

[Dancing David]

Huh? No. They show up in the lab.

And yet they are WIMPs and therefore similar to that dark matter you say is a fairy tale.

So what have you got against the hypothsis of WIMPs, you do know Fermi proposed the neutrino long before it was confirmed?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fixed.

For you personally, I'm absolutely sure that's true, but it's due to your OWN laziness. You haven't even read Alfven's book, yet you've been a critic if his work for *YEARS*. I'm sure you'll never get to Peratt's book.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And yet they are WIMPs

Really? Got a link?

and therefore similar to that dark matter you say is a fairy tale.

Assuming what you REALLY mean is that they are both examples of "non baryonic' forms of matter, keep in mind that they are STILL different. Neutrino theory came about as a result of CONTROLLED PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTATION where physical measurements were taken. WIMP theory comes from a MATH ONLY oriented view of "physics". None have ever been seen in the lab and you can't even tell me where they come from.

So what have you got against the hypothsis of WIMPs, you do know Fermi proposed the neutrino long before it was confirmed?

See above. WIMPS are a "math exclusively" oriented view of physics whereas neutrino theory comes from pure empirical physical EXPERIMENTATION. I like physics. I don't trust "math only" approaches to physics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? Got a link?

Really, one would think it's obvious by now. Neutrinos have mass. They interact with baryonic matter very weakly. They are, therefore, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. What part of that needs further explanation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I will add that DM theories are the LEAST of your worries IMO. In the sense that it's possible that the LHC detectors may in fact find some evidence of SUSY theory, even I don't have as big of a BEEF with WIMP theory as I have with something like 'inflation".

I'll concede that it's at least POSSIBLE to empirically verify or falsify SUSY theory, not that any SUSY particle will necessarily have the properties you NEED (like longevity) to satisfy your cosmology problems.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really, one would think it's obvious by now. Neutrinos have mass. They interact with baryonic matter very weakly. They are, therefore, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. What part of that needs further explanation?

Massive? Really? Why did you need SUSY theory again?

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm not expecting, nor wanting you folks to 'figure it all out" in one fell swoop. Just one or two percent would be fine. I"d just like to see *SOME* movement in the right direction, and *SOME* understanding of Peratt's work in PC theory.

But the "right direction" is your own personal preference for how you think the physical universe should be, not how the physical universe is.

So far I see no evidence that you WANT to give up your faith in the unseen (in the lab).

Faith is belief without evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of dark matter. Therefore belief in the existence of dark matter does not constitute in any way. shape or form "faith".

It's like you're emotionally attached to NOT making ANY effort to minimize your need for invisible friends.

Ignoring the nonsense about invisible friends, science is (partially) about minimizing the uncertainties on the measurements we make such that one can compare competing theories. Occam's razor is a last resort when two or more theories cannot be separated by quantitative means, not an escape route whenever the going gets a little bit tough.

 

[Tubbythin]

Massive? Really? Why did you need SUSY theory again?

Because neutrinos are hot not cold. Or at least that's why neutrino's cannot account for the bulk of dark matter. As an aside, it is worth pointing out (again) that there would be reason to believe SUSY particles may exist whether or not DM exists.

 

[Tubbythin]

Assuming what you REALLY mean is that they are both examples of "non baryonic' forms of matter, keep in mind that they are STILL different. Neutrino theory came about as a result of CONTROLLED PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTATION where physical measurements were taken.

And its exactly the same for non-baryonic dark matter.

WIMP theory comes from a MATH ONLY oriented view of "physics".

In a word: false.

None have ever been seen in the lab

Correction: they have yet to be confirmed (afaik) to five sigma significance which (IIRC) is the typical benchmark for a discovery in particle physics.

and you can't even tell me where they come from.

Meaningless statement. Where do all the other particles "come from"?

See above. WIMPS are a "math exclusively" oriented view of physics whereas neutrino theory comes from pure empirical physical EXPERIMENTATION.

This is just complete and utter nonsense. Repeating it makes it complete and utter nonsense you have repeated.

I like physics. I don't trust "math only" approaches to physics.

Please tell me in what sense extracting consistent, quantitative results from multiple, completely independent measurements using different experimental methods constitutes "maths only". To me that is pretty hardcore physics.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm afraid you have empirical physics standing on it's head and you're in the role of the flat Earther. The universe is in fact "electrical" in nature, and no amount of pure denial is going to change that fact.

Do you deny the existence of charge screening? If you do and know a little bit about gravity then you'd know that clearly destroys your entire argument. If you don't then it is clearly you that isn't clued up about EM.

 

[edd]

Just out of curiosity have you seen a paper on MOND theory that satisfied the lensing data? I've not personally seen such a thing, but I've not kept up with that debate the last couple of years.

MOND doesn't predict properly anyway lensing - it's not relativistic. I think it's not quite so trivial to calculate in TeVeS - the GR-ish extension.

The Bullet Cluster was sold as a system that required dark matter, but it's also fit by including warm dark matter - which I would expect you wouldn't have such issue with as neutrinos are detected (edit: on preview I see that's the case, although quite how WDM would fit in with observed neutrinos isn't very clear). I'm not sure how it's been holding up since.

My opinion is that one way or the other there's a lot to be explained, but I think dark matter sounds more plausible right now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But the "right direction" is your own personal preference for how you think the physical universe should be, not how the physical universe is.

In terms of Peratt's work, there's truth to that statement. I would expect that the mainstream would make some attempt to read and understand the work of Alfven and Peratt and others *before* passing judgement. Alas, that isn't how the universe seems to work.

In terms of how the physics "should be" from my perspective, that actually has very little to do with it. I changed my views about 5 years ago, rather radically in fact, simply because I do not have any views about how it "should" work. I could let my previous beliefs die a natural death and I could easily go where the evidence led me. In fact, the changes in my views were based upon the study of coronal loop activity by the way.

Faith is belief without evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of dark matter. Therefore belief in the existence of dark matter does not constitute in any way. shape or form "faith".

When you say "evidence", you must mean "mathematical models", because to my knowledge SUSY theory is still the minority viewpoint, and standard theory remains well, "standard". I'll grant you that there are 'mathematical' reasons to believe in DM, there are no "physical" reasons that I'm aware of to verify such models.

Ignoring the nonsense about invisible friends, science is (partially) about minimizing the uncertainties on the measurements we make such that one can compare competing theories.

I think you missed my point/complaint. I just pointed out that there is evidence that your original mass estimates were WRONG. We did not account for the amount of light that was being absorbed, so we grossly underestimate the number of LARGE stars in a galaxy, potentially by a factor of two. We grossly underestimated the number of smaller stars compared to the larger ones, potentially by a factor of 4 or more. We are only now able to see things as large as a very large JUPITER SIZED object, and we already see evidence that such objects could be more numerous than the number of stars in a galaxy. We have evidence we grossly underestimated the amount of mass in a black hole. All this information demonstrates that we did NOT correctly estimate the amount of mass in a distant galaxy and yet I've seen absolutely NOTHING done about it, and nothing done to minimize the need for exotic brands of matter. Your own theory can and should be falsifiable by itself, without *ANY* competing theory. It has in fact been falsified by observation but nothing has been done about it, not even one single percentage change in the mass estimation techniques in over three years.