Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Ziggurat]

No. Acceleration is *ASSUMED*!

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

Ari's "interpretation" of redshift requires no movement at all.

Ari's interpretation is obviously wrong. Such redshift necessarily produces angular divergence of the light as well (ie, blurring). Such angular divergence is not observed. Therefore, the explanation does not account for the observed redshift. His theory is already falsified.

This is the same problem that all "tired light" theories encounter. And it's also used to justify a completely nonsensical claim:

"The universe is quasi-static, infinite, everlasting and can renew itself forever."

Evidently Ari believes in violating the laws of thermodynamics. But then, you've long-since proven that you find such a belief preferable to taking General Relativity seriously.

 

[ben m]

Evidently Ari believes in violating the laws of thermodynamics. But then, you've long-since proven that you find such a belief preferable to taking General Relativity seriously.

Of course, Ari's theory also states that GR is wrong. He discards "gravitational redshift" after a two-paragraph thought experiment. He lists several measurements of gravitational redshift and labels each of them wrong or inconclusive. (Never mind that GR-without-gravitational-redshift (a) is not actually relativistic and (b) violates conservation of energy.)

 

[Reality Check]

And lets add the other problems with Ari's work: No sign that his idea has been published in a journal in the last 7 years according to these preprints.
That means that he has either not had the conviction to try to pulish the papers or has not been able to convince a couple of experts in the field that his ideas have merit.

Anyone else notice that all of his preprints (other than conference presentations) were uploaded to arXiv in 2004, and then only 1 update of 1 preprint in 2006? Nothing since 2006. So it looks like Ari Brynjolfsson has given up on his idea.

 

[Tubbythin]

The problem is that you don't KNOW that, you ASSUME that. Whatever the actual "cause" of acceleration, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it has anything to do with "dark energy".

Dark energy is just a name. Unless you can define what the name dark energy means then you can't possibly know whether that statement means. So Michael, define dark energy.

No, I believe you've failed to make any physical connection between those equations and "dark energy".

Remember, we're talking about LCDM. In this case dark energy == the lambda term in Einstein's field equations. The LCDM solution is thus we have an observation, we can explain it without changing any known laws of physics. All we need to assume is that one free parameter we had is different to what we thought it was. Now cosmologists are trying to determine whether that is the case. This is what scientists do - propose a hypothesis to explain one or more anomalous results then test that proposal to see if it holds water. I really cannot understand which part you are objecting to.

IMO the ad hoc "dark" gap filler is the "load of nonsense". No other word for it.

Please explain to me what is ad hoc or nonsense about proposing an adjustment to a not very well determined free parameter in order to explain data that is otherwise anomalous?

 

[edd]

Michael is quite right that plasmas in space aren't dark (and I don't think anyone ever suggested they were).

http://www.physorg.com/news148659036.html
There's some very hot plasmas emitting lots of X-rays and... thereby providing evidence for dark energy.

 

[edd]

You're essentially claiming "dark energy god did it " without being willing to explore EU oriented options IMO. That's what makes it a "religion" IMO. You've elevated "math only" approaches to the level of godhood and that's now the only thing that matters.

I'm entirely willing to explore other options. You're right I'm not going to spend any more time on EU ones though.

I disagree over the whole falsifiability aspect. While we can falsify the idea of "acceleration" there's no way to falsify the notion that "dark energy did it" as it relates to 'cause'. To claim that 73% of the universe is "dark energy" is absurd since there is now way to know that 'dark energy' even exists. In fact none of you can even tell me where it comes from.

Well, there's certainly ways to falsify the simplest dark energy models, but like anything you could make ever more complicated models to patch over holes. We've not needed to go to great lengths to do so however. And beyond the simple notion of falsifiability you could discount dark energy as the answer if a substantially better answer came along, and I'd be more than happy to do so - as I said above. There just isn't one yet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm entirely willing to explore other options. You're right I'm not going to spend any more time on EU ones though.

IMO, these two sentences represent an oxymoron, and together they demonstrate everything that is wrong with "fairytale making" in general.

I know you to be an intelligent, honest, really great guy edd. I therefore cannot reconcile these two sentences. In terms of pure empirical physics, PC/EU oriented theories (plural) are really the only games in town.

As long as you're "happy" playing around with "ad hoc" mythical thingamabobs that somehow satisfy your emotional need for "elegant" mathematical solutions to every problem under the sun, you're likely to miss the real "physics" IMO. Chapman's theories were more mathematically "appealing", but they were "incorrect" in terms of pure empirical physics.

This IMO is the great "tragedy" of living in the "dark ages" of astronomy. You're so emotionally attached to an elegant mathematical solution, that you really can't see the forest for the trees.

No wonder you folks still cannot explain full sphere solar wind acceleration, even 100 years after Birkeland first predicted and simulated it in a lab. You're too busy building elegant mathematical models to role up your sleeves, and get a little dirty.

Well, there's certainly ways to falsify the simplest dark energy models, but like anything you could make ever more complicated models to patch over holes.

But edd, the whole DE concept was designed to 'patch up a hole' in your otherwise falsified creation mythology. Virtually everyone expected the universe to be 'slowing down' over time. When the redshift patterns didn't match that concept, "dark energy" was added in a purely ad hoc manner to "fill in the gaps" of what was otherwise a "dead" theory.

We've not needed to go to great lengths to do so however. And beyond the simple notion of falsifiability you could discount dark energy as the answer if a substantially better answer came along, and I'd be more than happy to do so - as I said above. There just isn't one yet.

We all seem to agree that the universe is mostly made of plasma, even yours truly. The one known force of nature that "might" actually accelerate a plasma universe is the EM field. If you aren't willing to look there edd, you're really abandoning empirical physics altogether IMO. The dark things won't "solve" anything in the final analysis because not a single one of you can even tell me where this stuff comes from, let alone how to "create" it or 'control' it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In terms of pure empirical physics, PC/EU oriented theories (plural) are really the only games in town.

There must be a pony around here somewhere.

The dark things won't "solve" anything in the final analysis because not a single one of you can even tell me where this stuff comes from, let alone how to "create" it or 'control' it.

I don't know how to "create" it or 'control' it, but I do know this dark stuff could only have come from Michael Mozina.

 

[GeeMack]

IMO, these two sentences represent an oxymoron, and together they demonstrate everything that is wrong with "fairytale making" in general.

I know you to be an intelligent, honest, really great guy edd. I therefore cannot reconcile these two sentences. In terms of pure empirical physics, PC/EU oriented theories (plural) are really the only games in town.

As long as you're "happy" playing around with "ad hoc" mythical thingamabobs that somehow satisfy your emotional need for "elegant" mathematical solutions to every problem under the sun, you're likely to miss the real "physics" IMO. Chapman's theories were more mathematically "appealing", but they were "incorrect" in terms of pure empirical physics.

This IMO is the great "tragedy" of living in the "dark ages" of astronomy. You're so emotionally attached to an elegant mathematical solution, that you really can't see the forest for the trees.

No wonder you folks still cannot explain full sphere solar wind acceleration, even 100 years after Birkeland first predicted and simulated it in a lab. You're too busy building elegant mathematical models to role up your sleeves, and get a little dirty.

But edd, the whole DE concept was designed to 'patch up a hole' in your otherwise falsified creation mythology. Virtually everyone expected the universe to be 'slowing down' over time. When the redshift patterns didn't match that concept, "dark energy" was added in a purely ad hoc manner to "fill in the gaps" of what was otherwise a "dead" theory.

We all seem to agree that the universe is mostly made of plasma, even yours truly. The one known force of nature that "might" actually accelerate a plasma universe is the EM field. If you aren't willing to look there edd, you're really abandoning empirical physics altogether IMO. The dark things won't "solve" anything in the final analysis because not a single one of you can even tell me where this stuff comes from, let alone how to "create" it or 'control' it.

This argument consists almost entirely of whining and complaining about legitimate science while demonstrating a complete lack of qualification to understand it. That plus a bunch of quoted but undefined terms, nonsensical gibberish. The subject of this thread is the question of whether LCDM is valid science or not. Apparently the best arguments the critics of LCDM have is unqualified complaints and gibberish without so much as a shred of quantitative objective criticism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This argument consists almost entirely of whining and complaining about legitimate science

What "legitimate science"? Your sky entities are as impotent in the lab as any religious sky entity on the books, in fact more so.

while demonstrating a complete lack of qualification to understand it.

I understand that you're emotionally upset about the fact that your dark ad hoc gap filler is a complete and utter no show in the lab. That's not my fault, it's yours.

That plus a bunch of quoted but undefined terms, nonsensical gibberish. The subject of this thread is the question of whether LCDM is valid science or not. Apparently the best arguments the critics of LCDM have is unqualified complaints and gibberish without so much as a shred of quantitative objective criticism.

You still keep harping on some need for a quantitative objection while completely ignoring the fact that the primary objection is a QUALITATIVE one. Talk about pure denial......

 

[Michael Mozina]

There must be a pony around here somewhere.

More like: There must be an actual empirical solution to the problem.

I don't know how to "create" it or 'control' it, but I do know this dark stuff could only have come from Michael Mozina.

Nothing like ignoring the fact that your sky entities are as impossible to explain in terms of their origin as any religious sky entity.

You have a nice "religion" going, but nothing even remotely resembling empirical physics. As long as you folks remain prostrated to your invisible sky entities in pure submission of logic and common sense, and you continue to abandon empirical physics entirely, there's no hope for your dark religion.

 

[GeeMack]

What "legitimate science"? Your sky entities are as impotent in the lab as any religious sky entity on the books, in fact more so.

I understand that you're emotionally upset about the fact that your dark ad hoc gap filler is a complete and utter no show in the lab. That's not my fault, it's yours.

You still keep harping on some need for a quantitative objection while completely ignoring the fact that the primary objection is a QUALITATIVE one. Talk about pure denial......

Actually I keep pointing out the lack of valid scientific criticism of the LCDM theory and the utter failure on the part of those who are trying to discredit it. So far the arguments against it amount to childish rants very much like the post quoted above, wholly devoid of any rational commentary and riddled with logical fallacies, bizarre caricatures, lies, and failed arguments that demonstrate a disdain for real science and contempt for the math that necessarily describes it. Any argument that science doesn't depend on objective quantitative analysis is completely disconnected from reality. It's reasonable to say no sane, intelligent criticism of LCDM theory has been offered yet in this thread.

 

[GeeMack]

Nothing like ignoring the fact that your sky entities are as impossible to explain in terms of their origin as any religious sky entity.

Impossible to explain to crackpots who are entirely unqualified to understand the science that supports them is quite different from being impossible to explain in general. Legitimate physicists are qualified to understand and don't consider LCDM impossible to explain.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually I keep pointing out the lack of valid scientific criticism of the LCDM theory and the utter failure on the part of those who are trying to discredit it. So far the arguments against it amount to childish rants very much like the post quoted above, wholly devoid of any rational commentary and riddled with logical fallacies, bizarre caricatures, lies, and failed arguments that demonstrate a disdain for real science and contempt for the math that necessarily describes it. Any argument that science doesn't depend on objective quantitative analysis is completely disconnected from reality. It's reasonable to say no sane, intelligent criticism of LCDM theory has been offered yet in this thread.

Everything you just said is a giant lie, and nothing but a personal attack in the final analysis. How sad and how predictable of you.

Your problem is directly based upon the fact that you are in pure denial of the *SCIENTIFIC FACT* that you have a QUALIFICATION problem not a QUANTIFICATION problem. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge that your invisible sky entities have never been empirically linked to anything that you claim that they can do. Never once have you linked "dark energy" to "acceleration". You ASSUME your invisible sky entity did it. Never mind the fact that not a single one of you can even tell us where "dark energy" comes from!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Impossible to explain to crackpots who are entirely unqualified to understand the science that supports them is quite different from being impossible to explain in general. Legitimate physicists are qualified to understand and don't consider LCDM impossible to explain.

So tell us in simple English where dark energy comes from GM.

 

[GeeMack]

Everything you just said is a giant lie, and nothing but a personal attack in the final analysis. How sad and how predictable of you.

Well of course it's not a lie. And once again, attacking a ridiculous argument isn't attacking an individual. Any idiot could make an argument like the one I quoted and it would merit the same kind of ridicule that one earned.

Your problem is directly based upon the fact that you are in pure denial of the *SCIENTIFIC FACT* that you have a QUALIFICATION problem not a QUANTIFICATION problem. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge that your invisible sky entities have never been empirically linked to anything that you claim that they can do. Never once have you linked "dark energy" to "acceleration". You ASSUME your invisible sky entity did it. Never mind the fact that not a single one of you can even tell us where "dark energy" comes from!

Not a speck of criticism of the LCDM theory in that. It's just another argument by ranting against legitimate science. Oh, and the last sentence is definitively an argument from ignorance.

 

[ben m]

More like: There must be an actual empirical solution to the problem.

Two ingredients here. (a) "empirical" and (b) "solution to the problem". Start with "solution":

EU/PC is NOT a solution to the problem. It takes a bunch of familiar 19th-century phenomena, tries to use them to explain (much less predict) astro observations, and fails completely.

LCDM is[/I] a solution to the problem. By hypothesizing two heretofore unobserved forms of energy, and letting GR act on them as usual, LCDM successfully explains and predicts dozens of major, high-precision cosmology observables, and has passed many potentially-falsifying tests.

Second: "empirical".

Is LCDM "empirical"? Other than you, Michael, no one cares. You don't know what the energy density of the vacuum is; you have unscientifically declared it to be zero (without evidence) and somehow you think that's empirical. You don't know what the complete list of weakly-interacting particles is; you've declared this list to be "nothing but neutrinos" (without evidence) and somehow you think that's empirical.

A serious philosopher-of-science can look at (a) the available evidence and (b) what cosmologists are doing with that evidence, and (c) the practice of science and knowledge-acquisition, and perhaps raise interesting questions about the validity of our approach. Many have: see Tegmark, Efstathiou, Hartle, Wilczek, Carr, etc. You are not one of them. You don't know the evidence, you don't know the cosmology, you don't know science. Your philosophical objection to cosmology as not "empirical" is indefensible.

 

[GeeMack]

So tell us in simple English where dark energy comes from GM.

If that's supposed to be a criticism of the LCDM theory, the argument from ignorance is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Two ingredients here. (a) "empirical" and (b) "solution to the problem". Start with "solution":

EU/PC is NOT a solution to the problem. It takes a bunch of familiar 19th-century phenomena, tries to use them to explain (much less predict) astro observations, and fails completely.

IMO you have already characterized EU/PC theory falsely starting with Birleland's work. He empirically "predicted" a whole host of things that have later been CONFIRMED, including the flow of electrical currents in the aurora, high speed solar wind, coronal loops, "jets", and a host of solar activity you folks *STILL* cannot explain. Furthermore he *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe was *NOT* contained in stars and planets and he *PREDICTED* these things via empirical experimentation. Other than that, you're right, it has some "issues" related to fully explaining redshift data to your personal satisfaction. So what?

LCDM is[/I] a solution to the problem.

No, it's a mathematical mythos using invisible sky gods with magical powers galore.

By hypothesizing two heretofore unobserved forms of energy,

....magic energy did it.....

and letting GR act on them as usual, LCDM successfully explains and predicts dozens of major, high-precision cosmology observables, and has passed many potentially-falsifying tests.

Oh boloney. The BB theory failed the "acceleration" test big time. You then LIBERALLY stuffed dark ad hoc energy in there to "fix it". Now that it's been "fixed" it "works ok" to *POSTDICT* what we already observe.

Second: "empirical".

Is LCDM "empirical"? Other than you, Michael, no one cares.

Are you a religious man ben? What separates science from religion exactly?

You don't know what the energy density of the vacuum is; you have unscientifically declared it to be zero (without evidence) and somehow you think that's empirical.

What a crock. I can cite a thousand and one "experiments" where the ambient vacuum pressure is HIGHER THAN ZERO for obvious reasons too. You folks have had to quite literally "grasp at straws" over the whole "negative pressure in a vacuum" concept and somehow its my fault you can't demonstrate it. Your only so called "example" of a "negative pressure" in a vacuum involves not just a "vacuum" but another OBJECT!

You don't know what the complete list of weakly-interacting particles is;

You've evidently "got faith" in some "new" brands that have never been seen in a lab Ben. What is that if not 'pure faith in the unseen' (in the lab)?

you've declared this list to be "nothing but neutrinos" (without evidence) and somehow you think that's empirical.

I simply lack evidence that other particles exist Ben. We've been slamming particles together for a very long time now and so far we can seem to account for all the interactions we observe with the STANDARD particle physics theory.

A serious philosopher-of-science can look at (a) the available evidence and (b) what cosmologists are doing with that evidence, and (c) the practice of science and knowledge-acquisition, and perhaps raise interesting questions about the validity of our approach. Many have: see Tegmark, Efstathiou, Hartle, Wilczek, Carr, etc. You are not one of them. You don't know the evidence, you don't know the cosmology, you don't know science. Your philosophical objection to cosmology as not "empirical" is indefensible.

When you can tell me where "dark energy" comes from and show me in a real experiment, with actual control mechanisms, that it's not a figment of your collective overactive imagination, you let me know. Until then your emotional and philosophical attachment to new forms of matter and energy simply represent the relative percentage of your collective ignorance vs. your collective actually understanding of events. Your theory is 4% "empirical solution" and 96 percent ad hoc gap filler.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Plenty of intelligent and articulate people have voiced these same concerns Ben, your industry just refuses to acknowledge them and it refuses to embrace empirical physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If that's supposed to be a criticism of the LCDM theory, the argument from ignorance is noted.

Your avoidance of the question is noted as well. You've failed to establish any empirical correlation between acceleration and your invisible sky entity. Care to do that before pointing at the sky and claiming your invisible sky buddy did it?