Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

I meant what I said:

The hypothesis that the Universe was born with ~73% vacuum energy,

What "vacuum energy" Ben? All energy inside of a vacuum on Earth and interplanetary space that we have visited has/contains positive kinetic energy. Is that the energy you mean, or were talking magical "negative pressure vacuum energy"?

plus ~23% dark matter,

You mean "missing mass", mass you can't "figure out" yet?

plus ~5% baryons,

By this, I assume you mean "all the matter on the periodic table", including subatomic particles like electrons and neutrinos and such?

and thereafter obeyed GR,

Obeyed GR? Gravity causes material objects to ATTRACT, not "repel" Ben. Let's see you try "jumping" yourself off the planet with this "vacuum" energy for us.

correctly describes all of the cosmology data that I listed: CMB/LSS/SNe/BAO/BBN/LyA/cluster masses.

You literally "kludged" it to fit by ascribing your magical entities a bunch of magical properties, like that "negative pressure" claim for instance.

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.

The "constant" was there from day one Ben. "Dark energy" however was not. That constant might be "caused" by anything "real" that has a "real" and tangible effect on real objects. It can't be magical dark leprechaun energy however.

This is true whether or not you know what the dark matter is, or why it's there, etc.

You've yet to collectively convince me that you've accurately accounted for all the "normal" matter in the universe. You seem to have an "exotic matter of the gaps" argument, nothing more.

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.

I don't have a problem with you stuffing anything 'REAL' into that constant ben. It's only when you try to stuff that constant with magical make-believe negative pressure gods that I cry foul.

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.

So what? It's also a "fact" that you "postdicted" a fit, including that liberal "stuffing" of "dark magical energy" you folks did a couple of decades back. So what? As long as you can literally "make up" these so call 'properties" in a purely ad hoc manner, who cares? Of course it fits. It can't *NOT* fit.

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

The other interpretation is that you totally misunderstand the real "cause" of the redshift phenomenon and that you're trying to cover it up by MAKING UP whatever you want and need to "make it fit" into GR.

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

Or it's pure postdicted nonsense based on a strong desire to "keep the religion alive". I.e. "GR can explain it all".

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?

No, "postdiction goal post shifting galore" is more like it. Whatever did not fit you simply "made fit" by stuffing in another ad hoc entity, the most recent one being the ever magical "dark energy". It's magical because it never shows up on Earth, just somewhere out there where we can never see it, and not one of you can tell us where it even comes from!

How exciting would it have been if the Boomerang telescope had, in 2005, shown zero EE polarization?

Why would it?

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?

What do these things physically have to do with you mythical buddies other than the unfalsifiable superpower "properties" you personally gave them? In other words, show me that "dark energy" or "inflation" cause polarization in a lab, and I'll be happy to entertain the idea. If however you just claim "god energy that", I simply refuse to buy into your religion that begins with faith in the unseen in the lab.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

BS ben. Ari's redshift "interpretation" is as valid as yours, perhaps more so. At least his concept has some hope of empirical testing whereas your beliefs are a pure act of faith!

CMB data quickly proved Lerner's predictions wrong (even though he hypothesized vast clouds of utterly invisible plasma).

No, you *ASSUME* that the CMB isn't just generated by stars, galaxies and "scattering". Everything else you believe is predicated upon that one ASSUMPTION.

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).

So what? Again, you idea are 'equally wrong", which is why you propose "dark matter" gap filler galore!

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.

Funny how you folks now accept the idea that objects, and potentially collections of objects can be "spit out" of galaxies now, but when Arp proposed the idea you folks claimed he was crazy.

In as much as I'm not emotionally attached to specific cosmology theories, just "EMPIRICAL PHYSICS", I'm certainly willing to "tweak' the concepts and change them as required to work with new information. What I think however is quite sad is that folks like you won't even try to think outside of the box. Instead you're simply "looking for excuses" to write off empirical physics altogether in some feeble attempt to prop up your otherwise pathetic little dark religion.

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

Oh bull. You mean BESIDES 'dark energy'?

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

Nope, just the beginning ben, just the beginning. Empirical physics will not now, nor will it ever go out of style. End of story.

Do you have a non-LCDM model that actually describes the data?

To your personal satisfaction, based on the same exact assumptions about the CAUSE of redshift, not likely.

As in, you've plotted a non-LCDM prediction side-by-side with the WMAP3 data and shown that they agree?

You can't show me they agree with your beliefs either ben, certainly not in a lab. Your whole belief system is a "math only" belief, much like Chapman's theories.

No you haven't, because the models you like all disagree with the data.

No ben, they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the REDSHIFT phenomenon. I've handed you folks papers by Michal that show this is likely to be a kinematic effect caused by TIME DILATION not "space expansion". You folks blithely ignore it. I've handed you papers by Ari that show that "tired light" theories remain a "viable alternative" to your "faster than light speed expansion" nonsense. You ignore that too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I've been pretty busy at work and I will remain that way for the next few months. My participation on this board is likely to be scaled back during that time and I apologize in advance for my delayed responses.

 

[GeeMack]

What "vacuum energy" Ben? All energy inside of a vacuum on Earth and interplanetary space that we have visited has/contains positive kinetic energy. Is that the energy you mean, or were talking magical "negative pressure vacuum energy"?

You mean "missing mass", mass you can't "figure out" yet?

By this, I assume you mean "all the matter on the periodic table", including subatomic particles like electrons and neutrinos and such?

Obeyed GR? Gravity causes material objects to ATTRACT, not "repel" Ben. Let's see you try "jumping" yourself off the planet with this "vacuum" energy for us.

You literally "kludged" it to fit by ascribing your magical entities a bunch of magical properties, like that "negative pressure" claim for instance.

The "constant" was there from day one Ben. "Dark energy" however was not. That constant might be "caused" by anything "real" that has a "real" and tangible effect on real objects. It can't be magical dark leprechaun energy however.

You've yet to collectively convince me that you've accurately accounted for all the "normal" matter in the universe. You seem to have an "exotic matter of the gaps" argument, nothing more.

I don't have a problem with you stuffing anything 'REAL' into that constant ben. It's only when you try to stuff that constant with magical make-believe negative pressure gods that I cry foul.

So what? It's also a "fact" that you "postdicted" a fit, including that liberal "stuffing" of "dark magical energy" you folks did a couple of decades back. So what? As long as you can literally "make up" these so call 'properties" in a purely ad hoc manner, who cares? Of course it fits. It can't *NOT* fit.

The other interpretation is that you totally misunderstand the real "cause" of the redshift phenomenon and that you're trying to cover it up by MAKING UP whatever you want and need to "make it fit" into GR.

Or it's pure postdicted nonsense based on a strong desire to "keep the religion alive". I.e. "GR can explain it all".

No, "postdiction goal post shifting galore" is more like it. Whatever did not fit you simply "made fit" by stuffing in another ad hoc entity, the most recent one being the ever magical "dark energy". It's magical because it never shows up on Earth, just somewhere out there where we can never see it, and not one of you can tell us where it even comes from!

Why would it?

What do these things physically have to do with you mythical buddies other than the unfalsifiable superpower "properties" you personally gave them? In other words, show me that "dark energy" or "inflation" cause polarization in a lab, and I'll be happy to entertain the idea. If however you just claim "god energy that", I simply refuse to buy into your religion that begins with faith in the unseen in the lab.

Absolutely nothing in there is objective and/or quantitative criticism of LCDM theory. The entire argument appears to be a dishonest misrepresentation of legitimate science packaged in a complaint. Argument failed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Absolutely nothing in there is objective and/or quantitative criticism of LCDM theory.

When did you intend to stop burying your head in the sands of denial and accept that fact that nobody criticizes you're beloved religion on "QUANTITATIVE" grounds? All the criticisms are *QUALITATIVE* in nature because your invisible friends are shy around the lab and never do anything to a single atom or photon in the lab.

The entire argument appears to be a dishonest misrepresentation of legitimate science packaged in a complaint. Argument failed.

Your whole argument appears to based upon pure denial of the fact that your theory has QUALIFICATION, not QUANTIFICATION problems. Argument by denial failed.

 

[GeeMack]

BS ben. Ari's redshift "interpretation" is as valid as yours, perhaps more so. At least his concept has some hope of empirical testing whereas your beliefs are a pure act of faith!

No, you *ASSUME* that the CMB isn't just generated by stars, galaxies and "scattering". Everything else you believe is predicated upon that one ASSUMPTION.

So what? Again, you idea are 'equally wrong", which is why you propose "dark matter" gap filler galore!

Funny how you folks now accept the idea that objects, and potentially collections of objects can be "spit out" of galaxies now, but when Arp proposed the idea you folks claimed he was crazy.

In as much as I'm not emotionally attached to specific cosmology theories, just "EMPIRICAL PHYSICS", I'm certainly willing to "tweak' the concepts and change them as required to work with new information. What I think however is quite sad is that folks like you won't even try to think outside of the box. Instead you're simply "looking for excuses" to write off empirical physics altogether in some feeble attempt to prop up your otherwise pathetic little dark religion.

Oh bull. You mean BESIDES 'dark energy'?

Nope, just the beginning ben, just the beginning. Empirical physics will not now, nor will it ever go out of style. End of story.

To your personal satisfaction, based on the same exact assumptions about the CAUSE of redshift, not likely.

You can't show me they agree with your beliefs either ben, certainly not in a lab. Your whole belief system is a "math only" belief, much like Chapman's theories.

No ben, they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the REDSHIFT phenomenon. I've handed you folks papers by Michal that show this is likely to be a kinematic effect caused by TIME DILATION not "space expansion". You folks blithely ignore it. I've handed you papers by Ari that show that "tired light" theories remain a "viable alternative" to your "faster than light speed expansion" nonsense. You ignore that too.

And another argument by dishonest complaint, or maybe more specifically, unqualified dishonest complaint. Real science is done objectively and quantitatively. Lying and complaining do not constitute valid criticism of LCDM theory. Argument failed.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, I've been pretty busy at work and I will remain that way for the next few months. My participation on this board is likely to be scaled back during that time and I apologize in advance for my delayed responses.

There is likely to be exactly as much valid criticism of LCDM theory over the next few months with no participation at all as there has been over the last several months with hundreds of posts allegedly criticizing it, but failing miserably to do so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

So anyone, any group, or any idea that you personally disagree with is 'garbage', is that the basic argument Tubbythin?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is likely to be exactly as much valid criticism of LCDM theory over the next few months with no participation at all as there has been over the last several months with hundreds of posts allegedly criticizing it, but failing miserably to do so.

You just fail miserably to demonstrate that your dark gods can move a single atom. That's always going to be the case too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And another argument by dishonest complaint,

BS. If I asked you to demonstrate that "God did it", would that be a "dishonest complaint" in terms of "science"? BULL. You can't demonstrate that your magical make-believe sky entities even exist, let alone that the can move a single atom or change the direction or energy state of a single photon in a controlled experiment. Your sky entities are more impotent in the lab than your average religious icon.

Argument failed.

 

[ben m]

What "vacuum energy" Ben?

The hypothesized vacuum energy.

If you hypothesize that this energy exists, then GR alone accounts for all the cosmology data.

That's why we hypothesize that vacuum energy exists.

Get used to me repeating this answer, Michael, because it's still the answer. The fact that you have failed to understand it twelve times does not change it.

What objects, forces, and laws of nature does EU/PC have to hypothesize in order to account for cosmology data?

 

[ben m]

BS ben. Ari's redshift "interpretation" is as valid as yours, perhaps more so. At least his concept has some hope of empirical testing whereas your beliefs are a pure act of faith!

No it's not. My redshift interpretation is that the same redshift we see in every moving or gravitating system whatsoever is the same one we see in faraway moving, gravitating systems.

Ari's "interpretation" requires a "sparse hot plasma" filling the Universe. We have lots of evidence that this plasma is not there. (Pay attention: I did NOT say "he merely hypothesizes that it is there". I said we have positive evidence of the absence of Ari's plasma: if this plasma existed it would have obliterated the Lyman-Alpha forest. It did not. That is the first of many explicit disagreements between Ari's hypothesis and the cosmology data.

Ari's paper does one thing that I asked for. He uses his hypothesis to generate a curve, and overlays that curve on actual cosmology data. Yaaaaaay! Woo hoo! Finally! Why can't you do that, Michael?

This is why such plots are useful. Ari calculates an explicit equation for the form of the supernova curve. I can copy it into some software and plot it myself. Ari uses this curve to explain the supernovae discovered by Adam Riess et. al. up to 1998, i.e. between redshifts of 0.01 and 1.0. Since then, we've discovered supernovae with redshifts between 1.0 and 1.4. Ari's handy equation explicitly predicts that these supernovae will be dimmer than the lambda=0 curve. (His curve keeps bending "upwards" beyond z=1). You know what the 1998-2011 high-redshift supernova data does between 1.0 and 1.4? It's brighter than the lambda=0 curve. Which is exactly what Riess predicted it would do based on the z<1 data; it's how GR tells you that vacuum energy would behave.

Thus Ari's model---his only actual numerical comparison to modern data---has been proven wrong/I]. (Or at least he has to---gasp!---add new parameters to re-fit the data.) LCDM predicted the z>1 data points perfectly and did not need to add any new parameters.

I repeat, again, my request: DO YOU HAVE A NON-LCDM MODEL THAT ISN'T ALREADY FALSIFIED? Show me.

No, you *ASSUME* that the CMB isn't just generated by stars, galaxies and "scattering".

I assume nothing. I have a hypothesis. Do you? Do you have a CMB-generated-by-stars hypothesis that isn't already disproven by the data? Show me. Show me plots of the CMB frequency spectrum, angular power spectrum, and polarization as calculated from your best hypothesis. I've asked three times.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ari's paper does one thing that I asked for. He uses his hypothesis to generate a curve, and overlays that curve on actual cosmology data. Yaaaaaay! Woo hoo! Finally! Why can't you do that, Michael?

Because MM does "not bark math on command"?

Because MM cannot do the sort of math necessary to produce such things?

I repeat, again, my request: DO YOU HAVE A NON-LCDM MODEL THAT ISN'T ALREADY FALSIFIED? Show me.

MM already did, many times ... it's called "Mozplasma is wot dun it". It's the true eighth wonder of the world, because it's Mozpirical, and Mozifiable to boot*.

I've asked three times.

Hmm, some dude called ben m, in the post before yours, wrote: "Get used to me repeating this answer, Michael, because it's still the answer. The fact that you have failed to understand it twelve times does not change it."

Perhaps you need to ask MM twelve times?

* for those who don't already know, the only person who can Mozify an idea is MM himself.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Not All Assumptions are Equal

No, you *ASSUME* that the CMB isn't just generated by stars, galaxies and "scattering". Everything else you believe is predicated upon that one ASSUMPTION.

Despite the literary shouting, this is an extremely weak criticism. Assumptions are the "meat & potatoes" of science, where nearly everything is based on some kind of assumption. But the reality is that not all assumptions are equal, and all assumptions are subject to testing and verification. The assumption that the CMB is not generated by stars, galaxies or scattering is easy to test. None of those three mechanisms can produce a radiation field that shows a Planck Law spectral energy distribution (SED), not individually and not in combination (this is a fact not an assumption). This fact leaves your criticism looking more like a whisper than a shout. There is, in fact, no known physical mechanism, such as you have described, whereby one might produce a Planck Law SED, except through the obvious mechanism of a thermal blackbody source.

In as much as I'm not emotionally attached to specific cosmology theories, just "EMPIRICAL PHYSICS", ...

But this cannot possibly be true. You are already on record as denying the validity of both science & empiricism. Therefore the idea that you could be attached to "empirical physics" is nonsensical. We all know for a fact that your arguments are in fact entirely emotional and have no basis in empirical science.

 

[Reality Check]

The universe refuses to obey Michael Mozina once again:
Dark energy spotted in the cosmic microwave background

Astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have uncovered new direct evidence for dark energy – the mysterious substance that appears to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. Their findings could also help map the structure of dark matter on the universe's largest length scales.

 

[GeeMack]

The universe refuses to obey Michael Mozina once again:
Dark energy spotted in the cosmic microwave background

Astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have uncovered new direct evidence for dark energy – the mysterious substance that appears to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. Their findings could also help map the structure of dark matter on the universe's largest length scales.

It must be awfully frustrating to be a science crank these days, what with real scientists making real progress faster than a press release can be wrought into some nonsense to try support an already failed crackpot conjecture.

 

[Sol88]

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.

Hi Ben M, what do you make of this in light of the above?

ancient-galaxies-fed-on-gas-not-collisions

Now, new research suggests that most galaxies in the early Universe increased their stellar populations in a considerably less violent way, simply by burning through their own gas over long periods of time.

Gas or plasma???

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Ben M, what do you make of this in light of the above?

ancient-galaxies-fed-on-gas-not-collisions

Gas or plasma???

Anyone who can read can answer this - gas (which in astronomy includes plasma). This is basic stuff. Astromoners tend to call anything that is not a solid or liquid a gas unless they are sure that it is a plasma.

 

[Sol88]

Anyone who can read can answer this - gas (which in astronomy includes plasma). This is basic stuff. Astromoners tend to call anything that is not a solid or liquid a gas unless they are sure that it is a plasma.

From the PR

The spectra of 70% of these galaxies showed an abundance of H alpha, an excited form of hydrogen gas that is prevalent in busy star-forming regions

Gas or Plasma?

 

[Reality Check]

From the PR

Gas or Plasma?

Gas
ETA: which includes plasma in astronomy.

Once more time: Gas is the general term. Plasma is the term used when talking about .... plasma!

Anything confusig about that Sol88?