Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Ziggurat]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.900-universes-highest-electric-current-found.html

Ya, right Ben.

Bwahahahahaha!

My dear boy, do you actually think that proves EUPC is right? Of course it doesn't. This is the biggest current ever seen, which means that there aren't many currents this size out there in the universe. And furthermore, it's still not very big. Go read the linked paper. They derive a magnetic field at the jet "knot" of 0.5 milligauss. That's enough to have a very significant effect on the jet. But what will that do to stellar motion? Why, pretty much nothing.

What this paper illustrates rather nicely is that astrophysicists do NOT, in fact, ignore electromagnetism. They measure it, they study it, they model it. And what do they find? It can have large effects on certain systems, but even at its strongest, it doesn't matter for cosmology or even galactic structures. So your premise that these effects are ignored by the mainstream, and your contention that they're even close to as important as gravity, are rather refuted by the very paper you used to try to support your position.

But this will surprise nobody. When you can't be bothered to learn even the most basic physics as a prelude to "studying" cosmology, such monumental errors are a virtual certainty.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20597-largest-cosmic-structures-too-big-for-theories.html
Oh please! Only in Lambda-religion theory would they have the emotional need to keep "dark energy", call it a "repulsive" force, and then claim it "pools" in some areas. This has the be the most ad hoc metaphysical Frankenstein of all time.

Oh please!
Yet another pseudo-religious rant demonstrating your ignorance yet again.

If you are determined to remain ignorant of science then you should just stop posting abut it rather than embarrassing yourself yet again.


The science is (yet again for the unable to learn )

1. Dark energy is a label for the cause of the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
   

   Independently from its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (i.e. effects, acting repulsively) in order to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe.

2. A probable cause is a non-zero cosmological constant. This is because a non-zero cosmological constant in General Relativity results in negative pressure.

The paper describes an observation that can be explained by a non-uniform distribution of dark energy. But you ignored the more pragmatic explanation:

A more mundane answer might yet emerge. Using colour to find distance is very sensitive to observational error, says David Spergel of Princeton University. Dust and stars in our own galaxy could confuse the dataset, for example. Although the UCL team have run some checks for these sources of error, Thomas admits that the result might turn out to be the effect of foreground stars either masking or mimicking distant galaxies.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh please!
Yet another pseudo-religious rant demonstrating your ignorance yet again.

If you are determined to remain ignorant of science then you should just stop posting abut it rather than embarrassing yourself yet again.

[...]

The paper describes an observation that can be explained by a non-uniform distribution of dark energy. But you ignored the more pragmatic explanation:

Yep, when real scientists engaged in the process of real science discover an anomaly in their previous understanding of something, they set about the task of objectively and quantitatively reviewing their findings. Maybe try another method? Consider another possibility that explains the data?...

"It will be essential to confirm this with another technique," says Spergel. The best solution would be to get detailed spectra of a large number of galaxies. Researchers would be able to work out their distances from Earth much more precisely, since they would know how much their light has been stretched, or red-shifted, by the expansion of space.

That is the approach taken by real scientists. The strategy of the cranks is quite the opposite, mostly whining and moaning that something's wrong with the currently accepted view, and declaring that some crackpot explanation is therefore supported.

 

[edd]

The problem is that your "religion" has never properly "predicted" anything. It's been 100 percent "postdicted" to fit observation using the most ridiculous ad hoc metaphysics of all time! I guess since you never have to produce any of this stuff in a lab, it's perfectly acceptable to bend and shape it's properties like "Gumby". You folks really should rename this metaphysical kludge the "Lambda-Gumby" religion.

Actually Jim Peebles suggested a cosmological constant of pretty much the current form 14 years before the discovery of cosmic acceleration. He recognised the coincidence problem and theoretical issues with its value however ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1984ApJ...284..439P ). I still think it's fair to call that a prediction. I'm sure it's not the only one, but it's definitely notable and not recognised as often as it should be.

 

[ben m]

Actually Jim Peebles suggested a cosmological constant of pretty much the current form 14 years before the discovery of cosmic acceleration. He recognised the coincidence problem and theoretical issues with its value however ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1984ApJ...284..439P ). I still think it's fair to call that a prediction. I'm sure it's not the only one, but it's definitely notable and not recognised as often as it should be.

Not to mention Einstein, who put a CC term into his original cosmological equations.

Of course, Einstein used the data to determine the value of lambda, since that's the right thing to do. When the data, pre-Hubble, seemed to point to a static Universe, that implied Omega_L = Omega_M. When Hubble's better data seemed to point to free expansion, that implied Omega_L = 0.

 

[Tubbythin]

The problem is that your "religion" has never properly "predicted" anything. It's been 100 percent "postdicted" to fit observation

Science has progressed over the last have a millenium through the following proceedure:
1) Make observations.
2) Use observations to make predictions.
3) Make more observations to confirm or refute theory.
This is precisely what has happened LCSM. I thus find your objections to this absolutely staggering.

sing the most ridiculous ad hoc metaphysics of all time!

Don't be silly. It has nothing on the laws of thermodynamics defying solid iron Sun. Or the Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations defying the Sun gets pushed around by electromagnetic fields that cannot possibly be strong enough.

I guess since you never have to produce any of this stuff in a lab, it's perfectly acceptable to bend and shape it's properties like "Gumby".

Wow. Your "scientific" argument actually boils down to "If I call something I don't understand and don't like a stupid name then it must be wrong". Personally, I prefer the scientific approach I outlined above. Although, without it I guess I wouldn't be wasting my time reading such nonsense being spouted by you.

You folks really should rename this metaphysical kludge the "Lambda-Gumby" religion.

Why? Because you can't make a scientific argument to refute it? PAthetic with a capital PA.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina lies about the Lambda-CDM model having no predictions (again!)

The problem is that your "religion" has never properly "predicted" anything.

The problem is that you are lying. The Lambda-CDM model has made many predictions that have been verified.
There is that weasel word "proper" in your statement. I suspect that in your mind, your prejudice against/ignorance of science means than any prediction made by any scientific theory is improper.

It's been 100 percent "postdicted" to fit observation using the most ridiculous ad hoc metaphysics of all time!

And you are lying again. We have pointed out to you many times that there are predictions and that they have been verified.
You are possibly still going on about your delusion that inflation has not made any predictions which is so easily debunked:

Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave background experiments,[48] and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[50]

Your delusion that the Lambda-CDM model is metaphysical is obvious - it is based on known physics.

I guess since you never have to produce any of this stuff in a lab, it's perfectly acceptable to bend and shape it's properties like "Gumby".

Your insistence on things being produced in the laboratory leads to the idiotic conclusion that stars do not exist (no star has ever been studied in the lab).
The existence of dark matter and dark energy is almost as empirically verified as the existence of stars.

The nature of dark matter and dark energy is constrained by the observations. There is no freedom to "bend and shape it's properties" except within those constraints.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Science has progressed over the last have a millenium through the following proceedure:
1) Make observations.
2) Use observations to make predictions.
3) Make more observations to confirm or refute theory.

The problem is that you never let your creation mythos die a natural scientific death based on a 'failed prediction'. Instead you folks tend to simply add another ad hoc invisible sky god to the mix and away you go.

Dark energy was the last dark god added to the mix, and now we find it's not only "repulsive", it supposedly "pools" in some areas and not in others. This sort of "make believe with math" can go on forever and ever as long as you never have to show your work in a lab.

This is precisely what has happened LCSM. I thus find your objections to this absolutely staggering.

My objection is based upon the fact that you have STARTED with a "creation mythos", and you fail to let your theories die a natural scientific death. Instead the industry simply "makes up" whatever gap fillers they need in a purely ad hoc manner. If anything "fails" to fit observation, add liberal doses of make believe sky gods and add math.

Don't be silly. It has nothing on the laws of thermodynamics defying solid iron Sun.

Nobody on Earth has ever suggested the sun is composed of solid iron. You folks intentionally "dumb down" whatever you like in an effort to ridicule alternative ideas. It's just absurd behavior.

Or the Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations defying the Sun gets pushed around by electromagnetic fields that cannot possibly be strong enough.

The plasmas between the stars only needs to be "pushed around". Since that plasma makes up most of the mass of the universe, it only needs to move, and the rest of the stars will follow. When did you intend to acknowledge that point?

Wow. Your "scientific" argument actually boils down to "If I call something I don't understand and don't like a stupid name then it must be wrong".

No. I object to you folks simply "making up" things in a purely ad hoc manner simply to support your creation mythos to the exclusion of every other possibility under the sun.

Personally, I prefer the scientific approach I outlined above. Although, without it I guess I wouldn't be wasting my time reading such nonsense being spouted by you.

What you've done is not a empirical approach to science. It's much like the Birkeland/Chapman debates that went on for decades. If all you care about is elegant maths, you'll miss the physical processes that actually drive the process. That's essentially what you are intent on doing. Instead of acknowledging the electrical nature of the universe, you deny it adamantly and vehemently and "make up" whatever gap fillers you need.

Why? Because you can't make a scientific argument to refute it? PAthetic with a capital PA.

Sure I can. I have. You simply refuse to accept the fact that your theory fails the physics sniff test. It's purely an ad hoc creation since you can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, and you're "making up" the properties in a purely ad hoc manner to make your creation mythos hold together at all costs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Look at the bottom of the screen, Michael. You probably see something like "Page 110 of 110". That means that we've had 110 pages of discussion of EU/PC ideas. The upshot of that discussion was:

(a) Magnetic fields, currents, and even electric fields are often present in space and well-known to mainstream astronomers.

How much current flows between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere Ben?

(b) they do not exert any large forces on stars or galaxies.

They do exert large forces on plasma and the universe is mostly plasma, not stars or arrangements of stars.

For example, was the absence of large EM forces on stars mentioned on the page you're looking at right now? Scroll up and you'll see it.

There is no absence of large EM forces on stars, just a failure to acknowledge their presence and their effect, starting with coronal loops and solar flares.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no absence of large EM forces on stars, just a failure to acknowledge their presence and their effect, starting with coronal loops and solar flares.

Remind me: how much of the sun's mass is in coronal loops and solar flares?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Remind me: how much of the sun's mass is in coronal loops and solar flares?

Remind me: How much (percentage wise) of the mass of the universe is found in stars?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not to mention Einstein, who put a CC term into his original cosmological equations.

That constant is no more related to "dark energy" as it is related to "magic sky god energy". Physical processes like EM fields and light might in fact have some effect on mass, but invisible sky entities do not.

 

[GeeMack]

The problem is that you never let your creation mythos die a natural scientific death based on a 'failed prediction'. Instead you folks tend to simply add another ad hoc invisible sky god to the mix and away you go.

This shows a near total misunderstanding of the subject under discussion. The sophomoric attempt to create a caricature of the legitimate science involved is noted, as is the complete lack of any quantitative objective criticism.

Dark energy was the last dark god added to the mix, and now we find it's not only "repulsive", it supposedly "pools" in some areas and not in others. This sort of "make believe with math" can go on forever and ever as long as you never have to show your work in a lab.

People who are unqualified to understand math at the most rudimentary level are clearly unqualified to criticize the mathematical aspect of physics. And again, the sophomoric attempt to create a caricature of the legitimate science involved is noted.

My objection is based upon the fact that you have STARTED with a "creation mythos", and you fail to let your theories die a natural scientific death. Instead the industry simply "makes up" whatever gap fillers they need in a purely ad hoc manner. If anything "fails" to fit observation, add liberal doses of make believe sky gods and add math.

The often demonstrated lack of qualification to understand the physics under discussion renders the objection noted above meaningless. And of course, the sophomoric attempt to create a caricature of the legitimate science involved is again noted.

Nobody on Earth has ever suggested the sun is composed of solid iron. You folks intentionally "dumb down" whatever you like in an effort to ridicule alternative ideas. It's just absurd behavior.

Somebody has suggested the Sun has a solid iron surface, which has been shown many times to be a ludicrous suggestion, impossible according to very well understood physics. The absurd behavior would be continuing to hold the opinion, unqualified as it is, that the Sun might possibly have a solid/rigid iron surface. It's as valid of an alternative idea as the possibility that the Sun has a surface made of marshmallow goo.

The plasmas between the stars only needs to be "pushed around". Since that plasma makes up most of the mass of the universe, it only needs to move, and the rest of the stars will follow. When did you intend to acknowledge that point?

The point is silly and clearly comes from a position of unqualified guessing, and therefore doesn't merit any acknowledgement.

No. I object to you folks simply "making up" things in a purely ad hoc manner simply to support your creation mythos to the exclusion of every other possibility under the sun.

Nobody here is making anything up in a purely ad hoc manner. No real scientist would abandon a theory that works when a new piece of data comes along. Science, the real process as opposed to what crackpots call science, makes adjustments as new data becomes available.

What you've done is not a empirical approach to science. It's much like the Birkeland/Chapman debates that went on for decades. If all you care about is elegant maths, you'll miss the physical processes that actually drive the process. That's essentially what you are intent on doing. Instead of acknowledging the electrical nature of the universe, you deny it adamantly and vehemently and "make up" whatever gap fillers you need.

Applying empirical data to sound theories is, contrary to the objections of supporters of crackpot science, the empirical approach to science. And double checking that the math works is part of the process of verifying the validity of it. Oh, and as often as it's been mentioned, the suggestion that nobody is acknowledging the electrical nature of the Universe is simply a lie.

Sure I can. I have. You simply refuse to accept the fact that your theory fails the physics sniff test. It's purely an ad hoc creation since you can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, and you're "making up" the properties in a purely ad hoc manner to make your creation mythos hold together at all costs.

And again, the sophomoric attempt to create a caricature of the legitimate science involved is noted, as is the complete lack of any quantitative objective criticism.

 

[ben m]

The do exert large forces on plasma and the universe is mostly plasma, not stars or arrangement of stars.

If you've found a force that acts on plasma but not on stars, then that force does not correspond to the data.

We just went through it.

The data show stars (of all sizes) accelerating towards the Galactic Center at 10^-11 m/s^2. F = ma. What force is responsible for that acceleration, Michael?

Eye on the ball, Michael. "All whole stars at 10^-11m/s^2" is an important, and true, observation about the Milky Way. This has been pointed this out to you fifty times. Do you forget? Do I need a bigger font?

What's the force causing the observed accelerations of stars?

Hello?

 

[ben m]

There is no absence of large EM forces on stars

What the hell?

How many times do we have to repeat this calculation, Michael? Reread page 109 of this thread.

Summary: There is no possible EM-related force---not Coulomb, not Lorentz, not plasma-wind-ram-pressure, not particle-beam-momentum-transfer, nothing---that can push that hard on a star. This is not ignoring E&M. I'm using the laws of E&M and learning that they predict very very small forces on stars.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This shows a near total misunderstanding of the subject under discussion. The sophomoric attempt to create a caricature of the legitimate science involved is noted, as is the complete lack of any quantitative objective criticism.

You aren't even "in the discussion" GM. Your own "tests" quantitatively falsified your own theory - *AGAIN*!

People who are unqualified to understand math at the most rudimentary level are clearly unqualified to criticize the mathematical aspect of physics.

Then why do you continue to participate in these discussions anyway?

The often demonstrated lack of qualification to understand the physics under discussion renders the objection noted above meaningless.

And since you can't follow the discussion properly, and haven't acknowledge your theory failed ANOTHER "test", your objection is meaningless.

Somebody has suggested the Sun has a solid iron surface,

Who?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What the hell?

How many times do we have to repeat this calculation, Michael? Reread page 109 of this thread.

Summary: There is no possible EM-related force---not Coulomb, not Lorentz, not plasma-wind-ram-pressure, not particle-beam-momentum-transfer, nothing---that can push that hard on a star. This is not ignoring E&M. I'm using the laws of E&M and learning that they predict very very small forces on stars.

Ben, you keep ignoring the fact that it doesn't have to act directly upon the stars themselves, just the "plasmas" between them! When can I expect you to acknowledge that point?

I can show you how and where the EM field interacts with the solar atmosphere. Where and how does "dark energy" act on anything?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ben, you keep ignoring the fact that it doesn't have to act directly upon the stars themselves, just the "plasmas" between them! When can I expect you to acknowledge that point?

It's been acknowledged, but you ignored it, because it's damning to your case. The plasma between the stars moves WITH the stars. Which is exactly what you'd expect if they're both moving under the effects of gravity. So if electromagnetism can't move stars (and it can't), then the stars are moving under gravity. And that gravity will move plasmas the same way. So plasma which is moving with the stars in a galaxy are moving under gravity, not electromagnetism. And that's almost all the plasma in a galaxy.

 

[Tubbythin]

The problem is that you never let your creation mythos die a natural scientific death based on a 'failed prediction'.

We never let Newtonian mechanics die a natural death based on a number of failed predictions. Not the LCDM is
a) a creation mythos
or
b) has failed any predictions.

Instead you folks tend to simply add another ad hoc invisible sky god to the mix and away you go.

There are no gods in LCDM. That is a delusion entirely of your own making.

Dark energy was the last dark god added to the mix, and now we find it's not only "repulsive", it supposedly "pools" in some areas and not in others.

The cosmological constant dates from the 1910's. That's nearly a century ago.

This sort of "make believe with math" can go on forever and ever as long as you never have to show your work in a lab.

Its not a matter of make believe with math. It's a matter of comparing prediction with observation. Just like any other branch of physics. This segregation is one entirely of your own making.

My objection is based upon the fact that you have STARTED with a "creation mythos",

That is, of course, flat-out false. Unless of course you believe Einstein's field equations and the entirety of general relativity are a "creation mythos". Do you? Or you just unaware that the LCDM is based on a set of solutions to the EFEs?

and you fail to let your theories die a natural scientific death.

Why would we? They have passed many tests and not failed any.

Instead the industry simply "makes up" whatever gap fillers they need in a purely ad hoc manner.

Nonsense. There are far fewer free parameters in LCDM than the standard model of particle physics. I don't hear you objecting much to that.

If anything "fails" to fit observation, add liberal doses of make believe sky gods and add math.

Fail. There is not a single God in LCDM. The math is basically the Einstein field equations. You got a problem with them?

Nobody on Earth has ever suggested the sun is composed of solid iron.

You suggested it had a solid iron shell!

You folks intentionally "dumb down" whatever you like in an effort to ridicule alternative ideas.

Trust me. There is absolutely no need to dumb down the assertion that the Sun has a solid iron shell to make it sound ridiculous.

It's just absurd behavior.

Says the person who debates science by pretending theories he doesn't like have Gods in them...

The plasmas between the stars only needs to be "pushed around". Since that plasma makes up most of the mass of the universe, it only needs to move, and the rest of the stars will follow. When did you intend to acknowledge that point?

You seriously need to learn some basic mechanics and electromagnetism.

No. I object to you folks simply "making up" things in a purely ad hoc manner simply to support your creation mythos to the exclusion of every other possibility under the sun.

The idea that is a creation mythos is one of your own making due entirely, it would seem, to your complete inability to make a scientific argument.

What you've done is not a empirical approach to science. It's much like the Birkeland/Chapman debates that went on for decades. If all you care about is elegant maths, you'll miss the physical processes that actually drive the process.

I don't. So this is all a load of nonsense.

That's essentially what you are intent on doing.

Nope. Wrong again.

Instead of acknowledging the electrical nature of the universe, you deny it adamantly and vehemently and "make up" whatever gap fillers you need.

I don't deny it. I've been trained to be able to use Maxwell's equations. And I know what charge screening is. It is you that repeatedly asserts the existence of gap fillers that
a) don't match observation
b) don't follow the laws of electromagnetism and gravity.
To call others ignorant of the nature of the universe is hilarious in its hypocrisy.

Sure I can. I have.

Really. All I remember seeing is "God this", "Gumby that", "Mythos the other". Please remind me where your dynamical simulations of the large-scale structure and evolution of the Universe were published?

You simply refuse to accept the fact that your theory fails the physics sniff test.

Its not my theory and I don't know what you're talking about.

It's purely an ad hoc creation since you can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from,

Please tell me where gravity comes from Michael. Or the electron.

and you're "making up" the properties in a purely ad hoc manner to make your creation mythos hold together at all costs.

Nope.
a) I haven't made up anything.
b) What we're talking about isn't a creation mythos - that's your inaccurate term you introduced because of your complete failure to make a scientific argument. If you could make a scientific argument there would be no need and, more importantly, no reason to resort to such adolescent name calling tactics.
c) LCDM still conforms to the Einstein field equations from which it origins derive.
That's an impressive density of wrong you got there in that half sentence.

 

[ben m]

Ben, you keep ignoring the fact that it doesn't have to act directly upon the stars themselves, just the "plasmas" between them! When can I expect you to acknowledge that point?

Scroll up, we just had a whole conversation about it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7230252&postcount=4355
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7230329&postcount=4358
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7230635&postcount=4363
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7230704&postcount=4365

At the end of this conversation, in which I made it as clear as possible that "force acting on interstellar plasma" does not magically drag stars with it, I actually bumped the entire thread to reemphasize this point and try to get a response from you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7281333&postcount=4372

But now I'm getting the "why won't you acknowledge X" treatment AGAIN as if it never happened. For crying out loud.

Removed breach of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL