Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[ben m]

That's what I just said ben. Over enough distance, the universe is "optically thick" to that wavelength because that is the average temperature of the universe.

True. Over enough distance however, the universe is 'optically thick" to this wavelength due to it's background temperature.

Nope, that's not how blackbody radiation works. Not even close. Go back to your textbooks, if you own any.

Of what size? How physically large is your "opaque, equilibriated, hydrogen plasma at this point in time? How long ago was this? What is the size of the universe now? When did you decide to "make up" new laws of physics to overcome your "faster than light speed expansion" problems?

This is all standard cosmology. It obeys GR and all other relevant laws in every known detail. It's been explained a million times to all of the EU/PC authors from whom you've failed to cite intelligent objections or alternatives. I don't care to hear to re-explain it to you, all you will do is ad-lib objections.

If you can find a published EU/PC paper that presents a sensible objection, let's see it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, that's not how blackbody radiation works.

Yes it is ben. Over billions and billions of light years, all we really observe is the background temperature of spacetime. Big deal. Any universe filled with energy will have a "background temperature". Ours happens to radiate at an average temperature of about 2.7K.

This is all standard cosmology.

Notice how you just skirted every single one of my direct questions related to size and density ben? You just avoided all the "difficult" questions entirely by "making up" a bunch of impotent on Earth "sky entities".

It obeys GR and all other relevant laws in every known detail.

Except GR *PROPER* does not allow for matter to expand faster than light, and "space" never expands in the lab ben. Only in your creation mythos does that space expansion stuff actually occur.

It's been explained a million times to all of the EU/PC authors from whom you've failed to cite intelligent objections or alternatives.

That's a ridiculous statement from my perspective ben. I handed you all of Ari's work, all of which you handwaved at for pretty much no compelling reason. I even explained the parts where I thought he missed the boat (GR redshift). You however simply reject it all out of hand without so much a serious consideration.

If you can find a published EU/PC paper that presents a sensible objection, let's see it.

I presume that by that statement you expect empirical physics to mathematically compete on equal footing with a "sky religion" composed of mostly "invisible entities" that do anything you say they do? Do you REALLY expect any pure empirical theory to be mathematically competitive, particularly to events/observations made over say the last decade or two?

 

[ben m]

Yes it is ben. Over billions and billions of light years, all we really observe is the background temperature of spacetime. Big deal. Any universe filled with energy will have a "background temperature". Ours happens to radiate at an average temperature of about 2.7K.

Nope, sorry. Still wrong. Radiation is emitted by charged particles. The frequencies emitted, and the emission rate, is determined by details of the charged-particle energies, interactions, bound states, etc. Blackbody radiation is a special case that arises from thermal equilibria, none of which you appear to understand at all.

Or is this a new cosmology hypothesis---you're proposing to modify the laws of blackbody radiation so they work this way? When did you come up with this hypothesis, and have you compared it to observations?

Notice how you just skirted every single one of my direct questions related to size and density ben? You just avoided all the "difficult" questions entirely by "making up" a bunch of impotent on Earth "sky entities".

No, I'm just tired of re-explaining things that you've heard already. Are you honestly going to say that you've never heard a mainstream cosmology explanation of the size, location, redshift, and faster-than-lightness of the CMB? How hard did you look?

It's like: Hey Michael, what's the Alfven's first name? Can I ask you again in five minutes? If you don't answer 20 times in a row I will attack you.

Except GR *PROPER* does not allow for matter to expand faster than light,

Let me google that for you.

That's a ridiculous statement from my perspective ben. I handed you all of Ari's work, all of which you handwaved at for pretty much no compelling reason.

Handwaved at? It made a giant mistake. It calculated the photon-scattering opacity by plugging in a number 10^40 or so bigger than the truth.

It didn't match the data the way he did it. It didn't match the data after I fixed the mistake. Therefore it is cannot the correct theory of cosmology. Done, that's how science works.

Do you REALLY expect any pure empirical theory to be mathematically competitive, particularly to events/observations made over say the last decade or two?

If EU/PC is actually what's going on in the sky, then the photons we're collecting in our telescopes are coming from EU/PC processes of some sort. Yes: if EU/PC is true I expect it to be able to make true statements about those photons.

Notice I didn't ask for a complete explanation of everything. I asked for any explanation of anything. You failed.

I repeat, Michael: LCDM is a hypothesis which agrees with all available data to great precision. Therefore, scientists continue to test it to look for confirmation OR falsification. I don't know which way the data will push it. EU/PC is a former hypothesis which has been explicitly tested, over and over again, and proven false. Therefore, scientists have rightly thrown it away.

 

[DSo]

Do you have a motivation for getting all of physics wrong, or are you just trolling?

Regardless of what he's doing, I really appreciate, and I'm in awe of the patience you folks are demonstrating. You're contributions are allowing me to extract some of the 'E' from JFEF!

 

[Reality Check]

Stars do not exist according to Michael Mozina

Except GR *PROPER* does not allow for matter to expand faster than light, and "space" never expands in the lab ben. Only in your creation mythos does that space expansion stuff actually occur.

At last you get something almost right: GR *PROPER* does not allow for matter to expand faster than light because

1. GR *PROPER* describes space-time (not matter). Space-time is curved by mass and energy. The distribution of matter is thus an input to GR.
2. Matter does not expand - space-time does.

Given the many links to the science that we have provided you and the fact that you has ignored the science suggests that you are not even capable of clicking on links. So I will provide the actual text explaining why the expansion of the universe does no violate the light sped limit:

Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?

Again, this is a question that depends on which of the many distance definitions one uses. However, if we assume that the distance of an object at time t is the distance from our position at time t to the object's position at time t measured by a set of observers moving with the expansion of the Universe, and all making their observations when they see the Universe as having age t, then the velocity (change in D per change in t) can definitely be larger than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of special relativity because this distance is not the same as the spatial distance used in SR, and the age of the Universe is not the same as the time used in SR. In the special case of the empty Universe, where one can show the model in both special relativistic and cosmological coordinates, the velocity defined by change in cosmological distance per unit cosmic time is given by v = c ln(1+z), where z is the redshift, which clearly goes to infinity as the redshift goes to infinity, and is larger than c for z > 1.718. For the critical density Universe, this velocity is given by v = 2c[1-(1+z)-0.5] which is larger than c for z > 3 .
For the concordance model based on CMB data and the acceleration of the expansion measured using supernovae, a flat Universe with OmegaM = 0.27, the velocity is greater than c for z > 1.407.

But then there is your 'must be detected in a lab' delusion.

Stars have never been seen in a lab. Thus stars do not exist according to Michael Mozina !

That's a ridiculous statement from my perspective ben. I handed you all of Ari's work, all of which you handwaved at for pretty much no compelling reason.

That is an ridiculous statement from any rational person's perspective Michael Mozina.
We have shown you why Ari's work is invalid - it just does not describe this universe. His math in one paper is also wrong.

There is no handwaving. There is only the ability to understand really simple things. For example a static, infinite universe is ruled out by Olbers' paradox. Ari's universe is static and infinite. Thus his universe is ruled out.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmic Plasma and the Background Temperature II

Over enough distance however, the universe is 'optically thick" to this wavelength due to it's background temperature.

Nope, that's not how blackbody radiation works. Not even close. Go back to your textbooks, if you own any.

Yes it is ben.

Well, actually, no that is not how blackbody radiation works, with one exception:

First and foremost, it requires all of the plasma everywhere in the universe to be at the same temperature, within about +/- 0.001 Kelvins. All of it. Everywhere. We already know that's not true, so we already know that what you choose to believe is contrary to the way things are observed to be.

You keep inventing pretend physics. You keep making things up out of pure & unadulterated prejudice and pretend its actually physics. Planck's law absolutely never allows the generation of a true blackbody SED from an average temperature. That is exactly why the SED from the sun is not an exact blackbody curve, only an approximation. If you want to see an exact blackbody SED like the one COBE/FIRAS saw, everything everywhere must necessarily be at exactly the same invariant temperature. The physical temperature of everything in the entire universe must be not only exactly the same everywhere but everywhen as well, fixed and invariant in both space and time. If you think it makes sense for the universe to be like that, go for it. Otherwise, you are simply hopelessly wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes it is ben. Over billions and billions of light years, all we really observe is the background temperature of spacetime. Big deal.

Just to emphasis what Tim Thompson said about this ignorance of what black body radiation is: It is not emitted from matter at an 'average temperature'. Light from sources at different temperatures does not have a black body spectrum, e.g. galactic spectra.
Ideal black body radiation results from light emitted from matter that is at a single temperature.
Real black body radiation results from light emitted from matter that is close to a single temperature.
The CMB is so close to being an ideal black body spectrum that it has to have been emitted from matter within +/- 0.001 Kelvins of a single temperature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/05/s...port-failure-in-search-for-supersymmetry.html

I guess nearly two decades of failure in the lab in terms of SUSY theory isn't likely to get Lambda-CDM proponents to give up their faith in exotic forms of matter anytime soon?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20864-antimatter-surplus-is-not-dark-matters-smoking-gun.html

Oh ya, and all that nonsense about SUSY particle annihilation causing gamma rays seems to have also gone up in spoke this week. How sad.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/05/s...port-failure-in-search-for-supersymmetry.html

I guess nearly two decades of failure in the lab in terms of SUSY theory isn't likely to get Lambda-CDM proponents to give up their faith in exotic forms of matter anytime soon?

I guess that many years of the delusion that science requires that things that are observed must also observed in the lab have not ended yet for you, Michael Mozina.
Stars do not exist according to Michael Mozina!
or from back in May 2010:
Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist?

You also remain ignorant of the facts after these many years: The observational evidence for dark matter means that it is mostly nonbaryonic matter with a tiny component of baryonic matter (e.g. MACHOs)
It is ignorant in the extereme to call this a 'faith in exotic forms of matter' when it is the physical evidence that shows that dark matter is nonbaryonic, not any unsupported belief.

ETA: There are other possiblilities for dark matter particles, e.g. sterile neutrinos

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20864-antimatter-surplus-is-not-dark-matters-smoking-gun.html

Oh ya, and all that nonsense about SUSY particle annihilation causing gamma rays seems to have also gone up in spoke this week. How sad.

Oh, ya, all that science about dark-matter interpretation for the PAMELA signal has been ruled out by more science from the FERMI results.
How scientific !

 

[Reality Check]

Since MM is obsessing again with detecting dark matter in the lab (and ignoring that actual observations of dark matter), lets list the experiments that have found indications of dark matter

• CRESST-II (Results from 730 kg days of the CRESST-II Dark Matter Search)
• DAMA/LIBRA
• CoGeNT

and exclusion results from:

• XENON
• CDMS
• EDELWEISS-II

Note that the first 3 experiments hint at lighter mass WIMPs than theorists suggest, are not that consistent with each other and contradict the XENON and CDMS results!

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1377324?ln=en
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1377032?ln=en

 

[Michael Mozina]

So in other words, in spite of all the failed predictions and the failures to find any signals of SUSY particles in billion dollar LHC experiments, your WIMP(Y) "religion" lives on, is that it? How does anyone ever falsify this metaphysical frankenstein of a theory anyway?

 

[ben m]

A partial list of things that are explicitly ruled out by experiment:

1) The LM0 and LM1 versions of the SUSY hypothesis
2) The "Iron Sun" hypothesis
3) The hypothesis that the dark matter is baryonic
4) The hypothesis that a Higgs boson exists between 135 and 200 GeV
5) The hypothesis that the top quark mass is 45 GeV
6) The Alfven-Klein cosmology hypothesis
7) The hypothesis that a 17 keV active-flavor neutrino exists

So it goes, eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A partial list of things that are explicitly ruled out by experiment:

1) The LM0 and LM1 versions of the SUSY hypothesis

Hijacking the thread won't change the fact that SUSY theory seems to have been falsified in the lab, along with your beloved dark sky religion. FYI, "dark matter" claims were the only one of your three sky entities that could actually be looked at in a lab. None of you even know where "dark energy" might come from so physically "testing" the claim that dark energy is related to acceleration is physically impossible. Guth's mythical inflation sky genie is dead now, presumably giving it very life for our universe, so experimenting with inflation in a lab is completely out of the question. Where does that leave us? 2 of your 3 invisible friends are impossible to experiment with, and the last one has actually been falsified in a lab! That's the thing about "religion". It's irrelevant if a "religion" can ever actually be falsified because the whole thing is an "act of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab) on the part of the "believer". That's all you have Ben, a nice "sky religion" at this point.

 

[edd]

No-one mention the goo.

 

[nvidiot]

This is just all regurgitated preprepared lines now.

Michael you've been corrected on these boards so often it's painful. There is nothing in your rhetoric that resembles a scientific approach. Why are you bashing your head against the wall that is experimental and observational physics fact?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is just all regurgitated preprepared lines now.

Michael you've been corrected on these boards so often it's painful. There is nothing in your rhetoric that resembles a scientific approach. Why are you bashing your head against the wall that is experimental and observational physics fact?

The observational and physical fact is that your mythical matter and energy claims are a complete and total dud in the lab. The only headbanging you hear is you own head bouncing off the metaphysical wall as SUSY theory bites the empirical dust.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No-one mention the goo.

Oh, now we have faster than light speed expanding "dark goo" theories with metaphysical "negative pressure" features no less. What's next? "Invisible elves"?