Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Well of course it's not a lie.

More lies.

And once again, attacking a ridiculous argument isn't attacking an individual.

Your need to use loaded language like "crackpot' and crank", etc is just like a religious persons use of the term "evil". "Only and 'evil' person lacks belief in God. Yada, yada, yada......"

Any idiot

More of the same childish BS. How freaking pathetic.

 

[GeeMack]

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 than, you're right, it has some "issues" related to fully explaining redshift data to your personal satisfaction. So what?

Birkeland predicted dark matter! No, the dishonest misrepresentation of Birkeland's research has been busted as a lie many, many times. The argument by repeated lie is noted and fails, as always.

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

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

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.

Argument by dishonestly creating a caricature of legitimate science is noted and failed, as always.

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

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!

Argument from ignorance is noted and, as always, fails.

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)?

Make a star in a lab, or a galaxy, or a planet, or an 8.5 earthquake, or an EF5 tornado!

​

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.

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.

Again, if this is supposed to be a criticism of LCDM theory, it is by definition an argument from ignorance. Otherwise it's just an unqualified rant.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

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

So given those concerns, where is the alternative that explains the data objectively, quantitatively, and scientifically? To suggest that a whole bunch of people are claiming to not understand LCDM theory and therefore deem it incorrect is just a whole bunch of people arguing from ignorance.

 

[GeeMack]

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?

The correlation between the observed acceleration of the Universe and the cause of that acceleration is, well, a correlation. It would be a pretty stupid argument to suggest there is no correlation between a phenomenon which is observed to occur and the cause of that phenomenon. HINT: It has a lot to do with the definition of correlation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The correlation between the observed acceleration of the Universe and the cause of that acceleration is, well, a correlation.

You're in pure denial of reality *AGAIN*. There is no empirical OBSERVATION of 'acceleration". There is simply an *INTERPRETATION* of redshift phenomenon that suggests that the universe might be accelerating over time.

Even *IF* we go with that *INTERPRETATION* of the redshift phenomenon, there is no empirical link between your mythical sky entity and "acceleration" other than in your head.

It would be a pretty stupid argument to suggest there is no correlation between a phenomenon which is observed to occur and the cause of that phenomenon. HINT: It has a lot to do with the definition of correlation.

It's pretty stupid calling acceleration "dark energy" too, but that doesn't stop you from doing it.

 

[DSo]

It's like deja vu all over again!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Birkeland predicted dark matter! No the dishonest misrepresentation of Birkeland's research has been busted as a lie many, many times. The argument by repeated lie is noted and fails, as always.

LOL! Your whole argument was based upon a lie. I did not say a word about "dark matter" in relationship to Birkeland's work. You just misrepresent everything I say. Talk about blatantly dishonest behaviors! You take the cake.

To suggest that a whole bunch of people are claiming to not understand LCDM theory and therefore deem it incorrect is just a whole bunch of people arguing from ignorance.

What? Do you just make this up as you go or what? A whole bunch of people disagree with your pathetic use of sky entity gap filler. I'm not the only one. when did you intend to acknowledge that point? Let me guess: Never?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630073417.htm

Of course it's not even clear that we even know how to properly measure the amount of "normal" matter in given galaxy or cluster of galaxies......

 

[ben m]

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,

This is the cosmology thread. If you want to talk about Birkeland's "predictions" of solar flare physics, go to the solar flare thread.

The relevant data for cosmology is the Cosmic Microwave Background (temperature, spectrum, two polarization modes, angular temperature power spectrum, and temperature-polarization cross spectra, Gaussianity), large scale structure (angular power spectrum vs. redshift, SZ cluster count vs. redshift), BAO (angular scale), distance-redshift relation (entire curve shape), BBN (He/3He/D/6Li/7Li), and the Lyman-Alpha forest (size power spectrum, Alcock-Paczynski test), and galaxy/cluster mass budgets (lensing, rotation curves, cluster x-rays, cluster virial velocities)

EU/PC can't describe even one of those quantities correctly. Alfven used EU/PC to make predictions which observations proved false. Lerner used EU/PC to make predictions which observations proved false. (You, MM, have done nothing at all.) Therefore EU/PC has been falsified.

Do you have a new EU/PC that makes different predictions than Alfven or Lerner for CMB/BBN/LSS/BAO/LyA/SNe observables? (That's funny; if Alfven's predictions were "Mozpirical" you shouldn't have any knobs to fiddle with to match the data, should you?)

Anyway, pony 'em up. In particular, I'd like to see the EU/PC prediction for the positions of the acoustic peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum. (ETA: I don't mean "I sat in a dark room with Maxwell's Equations and a terrella and made a prediction". I mean: "I claim the Universe has thus-and-such plasmas, and thus-and-such currents, and thus-and-such gray dust, and I call this the EU/PC hypothesis. Given that hypothesis, the laws of physics predict the CMB spectrum to be THIS")

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You are lying.
Birleland empirically modelled the Earth's aurora correctly.
Birleland predicted the existence of the solar wind.
Birleland predicted a solr wind travelling at close to the spped of light. He was wrong.
Birleland had anaolgies to the solar activity with no numbers, i.e. not empiracle predictions.

We folks can explain most of everything that Brikeland was wrong about.

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.

He *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would be in the interstellar medium (since he did not know that the universe was bigger than the Milky Way).
He was wrong - most of the mass of the universe is measured to be dark matter.

Given Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work, anything you say about his work is dubious. For example

Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
7th July 2009
​

P.S. I have not seen a reply to
Can you give the citations for the interstellar medum moving stars around?
25th May 2011

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630073417.htm

Of course it's not even clear that we even know how to properly measure the amount of "normal" matter in given galaxy or cluster of galaxies......

Read the article - it is about clusters of galaxies (not galaxies) and that the various techniques give different results for their masses:

Measurements used to weigh these systems carried out in three different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum: X-ray, optical and millimeter wavelengths, give rise to significantly different results.

and this has implications for the amount of dark mater.
N.B. This uncertainty does not make the amount of dark matter zero !

The fact that the estimated masses depend on wavelength suggests the probable resolution - "a new population of clusters which is optically bright but also X-ray faint".

There are independent estimates of the amount of dark matter and normal matter in the clusters.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? (redux)

Still rambling around the western states on glorious vacation, but I peek in now & then, and want to stick my two cents worth in while I have a moment to do so.

There is no empirical OBSERVATION of 'acceleration". There is simply an *INTERPRETATION* of redshift phenomenon that suggests that the universe might be accelerating over time.

Although the emphasis on "interpretation" is exaggerated, the technical point is correct and we should keep that in mind. The expansion of the universe, and the probable acceleration thereof, are definitely not observed but are definitely an interpretation of the relationship between observed redshifts and observed distances. The redshift-distance relationship is, in my mind, the real key. I am unaware of any alternative cosmology even trying to reproduce this key fact of the universe, and many respond to their demise by denying it altogether. Any alternative cosmology, EU/PC included, must be able to reproduce the observed (not "interpreted") strong correlation between redshift & distance.

A second key fact is that, with only a few nearby exceptions, we always see redshifts & we never see blueshifts. All of the alternative redshift mechanisms I have seen are equally, or nearly equally likely to generate blueshifts as they are redshifts, and explaining away the absence of the required blueshifts is a heavy burden.

These two points seem to me to be foundational keys, and their absence from any discussion of alternative cosmologies renders the discussion relatively pointless.

Even *IF* we go with that *INTERPRETATION* of the redshift phenomenon, there is no empirical link between your mythical sky entity and "acceleration" other than in your head.

But this is as dead wrong as it is possible to be, and is a resurrection of the dreaded mozpiricism. It must be remembered by all that this comment derives from Mozina's strong desire to re-define the entire concept of science into some new concept of his own. It's really a political trick, more than anything else, achieving "victory" by the simple tactic of changing the definitions of words used on-the-fly.

Mozina has denied the validity of the scientific method and must be held accountable for it whenever he tries to claim that there is no "empirical" connection from observation to accelerated expansion (i.e., dark energy). See, e.g., Empirical Evidence for Dark Energy (17 August 2010) or What is "Empirical" Science? III (I1 February 2010). In particular, from the latter post:

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?

 

[ben m]

Picking up from Tim's post:

You're in pure denial of reality *AGAIN*. There is no empirical OBSERVATION of 'acceleration". There is simply an *INTERPRETATION* of redshift phenomenon that suggests that the universe might be accelerating over time.

Yep. The LCDM hypothesis tells you what sorts of matter there filled the Universe 13.7 Gy ago. Given that, GR tells you how how fast that matter is moving (and accelerating) and thus it includes a redshift. Thus the LCDM hypothesis is a good match to the redshift/distance data, just like it is to basically all other cosmology data.

What IS the EU/PC hypothesis? Where can I find a detailed comparison between the EU/PC hypothesis and the redshift-distance data?

Even *IF* we go with that *INTERPRETATION* of the redshift phenomenon, there is no empirical link between your mythical sky entity and "acceleration" other than in your head.

If dark energy really has nothing whatsoever to do with the distances and velocities of galaxies, then it's just an amazing coincidence that the redshift-distance curve turns up at the end. Under the influence of the still-unwritten-down EU/PC plasma forces, it could have done anything in the world---up, down, flat, oscillating, stepped, blueshifted, cut-off---but it did the one and only thing that (within error bars) is compatible with the LCDM (0.73/0.23/0.5) hypothesis. Just luck, I suppose. Pay no attention to that fact, you say, and don't attempt to interpret it.

Then the CDM did the same thing, right? Those acoustic peaks (according to you) were sculpted by plasma forces (which you STILL haven't specified) which bore no resemblance to GR forces, and those forces could have made the CMB isotropic, filamentary, anisotropic, correlated with galaxies, non-Gaussian, B-mode-polarized, etc. But no, you think the CMB just so happens---by pure coincidence---to do the one and only thing that (within error bars) is compatible with the LCDM (0.73/0.23/0.5) hypothesis. Just luck, I suppose. Pay no attention to that fact, you say, and don't attempt to interpret it.

Then galaxy mass measurements did the same thing, again? According to you galaxy rotation curves have nothing to do with their gravitational mass (it's all yet-to-be-written-down plasma tugboat forces). And gravitational lensing has nothing to do with mass (it's a yet-to-be-solved plasma refraction). And none of the above has anything to do with large scale structure or clusters (that's all some yet-to-be-written plasma filament force). So it's just a coincidence that lensing, clusters, and LSS just so happens---by pure coincidence---to do the one and only thing that (within error bars) is compatible with the LCDM (0.73/0.23/0.5) hypothesis. Just luck, I suppose. Pay no attention to that fact, you say, and don't attempt to interpret it.

Because if you attempted to interpret the fact that the cosmology data behaves exactly like LCDM(0.73/0.23/0.5) says it should behave ... well, that might tempt you into using it to learn new physics. And that's obviously forbidden, since it is written in the Book of Genesis that new physical laws can only be discovered in terrellas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The relevant data for cosmology is the Cosmic Microwave Background (temperature, spectrum, two polarization modes, angular temperature power spectrum, and temperature-polarization cross spectra, Gaussianity), large scale structure (angular power spectrum vs. redshift, SZ cluster count vs. redshift), BAO (angular scale), distance-redshift relation (entire curve shape), BBN (He/3He/D/6Li/7Li), and the Lyman-Alpha forest (size power spectrum, Alcock-Paczynski test), and galaxy/cluster mass budgets (lensing, rotation curves, cluster x-rays, cluster virial velocities)

EU/PC can't describe even one of those quantities correctly.

You can't describe them correctly either without 96 percent gap filler ben! OMG. The only way you are able to "describe" these things as you call it is to quite literally "make up" whatever you need to "do the trick", be it magical new forms of energy and/or invisible forms of matter. Not a single one of those things was accurately "predicted" anyway. You fudged the numbers liberally with new ad hoc entities galore to "make it fit", most recently with liberal quantities of magical space expanding "dark energy".

 

[GeeMack]

You can't describe them correctly either without 96 percent gap filler ben! OMG. The only way you are able to "describe" these things as you call it is to quite literally "make up" whatever you need to "do the trick", be it magical new forms of energy and/or invisible forms of matter. Not a single one of those things was accurately "predicted" anyway. You fudged the numbers liberally with new ad hoc entities galore to "make it fit", most recently with liberal quantities of magical space expanding "dark energy".

If this is supposed to be criticism of LCDM, it is a simple nonsensical rant, a complaint, lacking in any objectivity whatsoever. It is a failed argument. If this is supposed to be support for an alternative explanation, it is an argument from ignorance. It fails there, too.

 

[ben m]

You can't describe them correctly either without 96 percent gap filler ben!

I meant what I said:

The hypothesis that the Universe was born with ~73% vacuum energy, plus ~23% dark matter, plus ~5% baryons, and thereafter obeyed GR, correctly describes all of the cosmology data that I listed: CMB/LSS/SNe/BAO/BBN/LyA/cluster masses.

This is true whether or not you know what the vacuum energy is, why it's there, etc. All I have said about it is that I hypothesize how GR treats it, which is very easy, since Einstein had it in there from day one.

This is true whether or not you know what the dark matter is, or why it's there, etc. All I have said about it is that I hypothesize how GR treats it. This is again very easy; it's exactly how it already treats (e.g.) neutrinos and other noninteracting masses.

That's what I said, and that's what I meant to say. Read it again. The hypothesis is clearly stated. This hypothesis makes the very clear predictions that I listed, and those predictions very strongly agree with the observations. That is a fact.

One interpretation of that fact is that the hypothesis is true.

Another interpretation of that fact is that the hypothesis is a close approximation to the truth.

The other interpretation---your interpretation---is that it's a coincidence, i.e. bad luck, that all of the CMB/LSS/BAO/SNe/LyA/BBN/cluster data just so happened to do the one perfect thing that accidentally prevented us from experimentally falsifying LCDM. Rotten luck, isn't it? How exciting would it have been if the Boomerang telescope had, in 2005, shown zero EE polarization? Or huge EE polarization at large L? No, it produced yet another boring paper where brand-new data showed up just where LCDM had predicted. Why does that keep happening, Michael?

 

[ben m]

You can't describe them correctly either without 96 percent gap filler ben! OMG.

And, just to keep Michael's eye on the ball: LCDM (like it or not) does "describe them correctly". EU/PC does not.

CMB data quickly proved Lerner's predictions wrong (even though he hypothesized vast clouds of utterly invisible plasma). All available kinematics and lensing data proves Peratt's predictions wrong (even though he hypothesized utterly-invisible magnetic fields and ultra-strong field/star interactions). All available large-scale structure data looks nothing whatsoever like Alfven's cosmology predictions (insofar as he bothered making them) but the sort of model he proposes in "On Hierarchical Cosmology" is obvious nonsense. (LSS surveys clearly show that small galaxies formed first, and large clusters formed from their mergers; Alfven explicitly says the opposite). All of Arp's predictions disagree with modern data.

LCDM does have to hypothesize new physics in order to describe the data.

Plasma Cosmology doesn't even come close to describing the data. End of story.

Do you have a non-LCDM model that actually describes the data? As in, you've plotted a non-LCDM prediction side-by-side with the WMAP3 data and shown that they agree? No you haven't, because the models you like all disagree with the data.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

The cosmology statement... again!?!? Did the ridiculousness of this garbage not get through to you the first time Michael? Or the second third, fourth, fifth... times?

 

[ben m]

The cosmology statement... again!?!? Did the ridiculousness of this garbage not get through to you the first time Michael? Or the second third, fourth, fifth... times?

And I'd note that Michael himself doesn't appear to put much value in the 500-odd "intelligent and articulate" signers of the cosmology statement.

When he wants to point out "problems with LCDM", he never seems to cite these "intelligent and articulate" people. (He cites newscientist articles on mainstream scientists' observations.)

When he wants to point out alternatives to LCDM, he never mentions these "intelligent and articulate" people and their hundreds of alternative theories. (Other than the usual suspects: Arp, Peratt, Lerner.)

And when he wants to complain about lack of Mozpiricism, obviously he can't mention these "intelligent and articulate" people again, since (insofar as we know anything about them---most of them are just unknown names; many lost their homepages when Geocities and AOL Hometowns closed.) they're also using new physics (or, in several cases, Christian theology) rather than plasmas.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Although the emphasis on "interpretation" is exaggerated, the technical point is correct and we should keep that in mind. The expansion of the universe, and the probable acceleration thereof, are definitely not observed but are definitely an interpretation of the relationship between observed redshifts and observed distances.The redshift-distance relationship is, in my mind, the real key. I am unaware of any alternative cosmology even trying to reproduce this key fact of the universe, and many respond to their demise by denying it altogether. Any alternative cosmology, EU/PC included, must be able to reproduce the observed (not "interpreted") strong correlation between redshift & distance.

Despite me disagreeing with the many of the posts (for and against either side of the argument) in this thread, the bolded part above seems to be a very honest and impartial assessment of the situation at hand.

LCDM Cosmology is not as definitive a science as many of the people in this thread that vehemontly defend the current paradigm make it sound.

 

[ben m]

LCDM Cosmology is not as definitive a science as many of the people in this thread that vehemontly defend the current paradigm make it sound.

Yet it does explain the observed redshift-distance relationship, using the exact same hypothesis (a 73%DE/25%DM universe expanding under GR) that also happens to explain the CMB/CMBPol/LSS/BAO/BBN/LyA/cluster masses/etc.

That's not a good reason to "vehemently defend" LCDM against scientific alternatives. And we didn't. MACHOs, MOND, and TeVeS (to name some modern alternatives) got appropriate levels of mainstream attention, observing time, and careful analysis. Do you know a serious cosmologist---say, at the level of an astro grad student---who wants to talk about the epistemological basis of LCDM? I'd be interested in that conversation.

But you have not seen us "vehemently defending" LCDM against a scientific alternative, or a well-informed philosophical objection. You've seen us "vehemently defending" LCDM against Michael Mozina, the pioneer of objections like "LCDM is an invalid magic God energy", and "Birkeland's aurora work proved it wrong", and "LCDM is an invalid magic God energy".