Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Reality Check]

Liar. Alfven was a PC/EU proponent as is Peratt and Lerner and they can all run circles around you "mathematically".

You are showing your ignorance once again: Modern pc/EU has nothing to do with Alfven's Plasma Cosmology which was invailidated due to the absense of the required radiation and the failure to match the CMB measurements..

Peratt's work is fundementally flawed since it does not even predict the actual shapes of galaxies: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.

plasma cosmology (note the lower case) does not exist as a coherent theory. The best description that anyone has produced is that pc is a collection of often mutually exclusive theories with the common thread that they assume that the LCMB is wrong.


But maybe you can post the official defintion of pc in the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread. Start by listing the specific theory that explains each of the the actual observations, e.g.:

• Hubbles law
• CMB
• Dark matter
• Dark energy
• Alpha-lyman forest
• Large scale structure of the universe
• The flatness of the universe (flat to within 1% according to teh WMAP data)
• Nuclear synthesis

Any cosmological theory that cannot reproduce the CMB is doomed to failure (thus the failure of Lerner's work).

When did you intend to wake up and smell the coffee and recognize that those that reject Lambda-religion, do so on EMPIRICAL grounds?

When did you intend to wake up and smell the coffee and recognize that those that reject Lambda-CDM, do so on PERSONAL PREJUDICE grounds?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Peratt's work is fundementally flawed since it does not even predict the actual shapes of galaxies: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.

Not true. It may be flawed in places but to say that all of his work is flawed due to shortcomings in his galaxy formation model is ludicrous.

plasma cosmology (note the lower case) does not exist as a coherent theory.

Not true. Many disparate theories claim to be the one and only *PC* but in reality there are only a few that can even be considered as an actually scientifically competent theory. I count the best attempts to fit to data were Alfvens, Lerner and Peratts attempts. They all use similar ideas but in different ways. I think we can safely rule out most of Alfvens original PC, and most of Peratts, but only some of Lerners.

The best description that anyone has produced is that pc is a collection of often mutually exclusive theories with the common thread that they assume that the LCMB is wrong.

Show an assumption in any of the theories that (without supporting evidence) says LCMB is wrong then.

But maybe you can post the official defintion of pc in the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread. Start by listing the specific theory that explains each of the the actual observations, e.g.:

• Hubbles law
• CMB
• Dark matter
• Dark energy
• Alpha-lyman forest
• Large scale structure of the universe
• The flatness of the universe (flat to within 1% according to teh WMAP data)
• Nuclear synthesis

Have I not come up with an alternate explanation to each of these numerous times in the past in different threads?

Any cosmological theory that cannot reproduce the CMB is doomed to failure (thus the failure of Lerner's work).

Why does Lerners CMB explanation fail? (I've not read it in a long long long time now )

 

[edd]

Why does Lerners CMB explanation fail? (I've not read it in a long long long time now )

It's not hard to find discussions of problems with it, but there's a particular problem if you've not read it in a long long long time. I just went looking for something recent, and there's nothing I could find, but CMB experiments have been churning out ever better results for ages and standard cosmology keeps on fitting them. I kind of doubt Lerner's does, because being such a radically different model it'd be really odd if it made exactly the same kind of predictions wouldn't it?

Also, there's something worrying about you copying RC's typo back there without apparently noticing it...

 

[ben m]

Not true. It may be flawed in places but to say that all of his work is flawed due to shortcomings in his galaxy formation model is ludicrous.

"Flawed in places"? It invents a huge magnetic field that we know isn't there; it assigns absurdly huge electric charges to stars so that they feel this force. The result is that the mega-charge-particles bunch up into a locked corotating disk (quite unlike a spiral galaxy, utterly unlike an elliptical) with empty gaps between "spiral arms" (utterly unlike real spiral arms), and in explicit disagreement with multiple independent, concordant measurements (lensing, cluster velocities, cluster temperatures) of the masses of galaxies.

What part of this nonsense makes it a "good attempt" that you want to keep?

I count the best attempts to fit to data were Alfvens, Lerner and Peratts attempts. They all use similar ideas but in different ways.

How did Alfven make a good attempt to "fit the data"? Very little data even existed until after his death. At the time Alfven wrote "Cosmic Plasma", astronomers were still attaching silver-iodide film plates to the 200-inch Hale telescope; the Hubble constant was still 45 km/s/Mpc; the CMB was still thought to be uniform; there was no data whatsoever on large scale structure; etc.

Lerner's 1991 popular book on the topic, also, could not have attempted to "fit" COBE's 1992 CMB anisotropy, nor SDSS's 2000-ish structure data, nor Perlmutter's or Reiss's 2000-ish supernova data, nor SDSS's 2005 baryon acoustic peak, nor WMAP's CMB multiple acoustic peaks, polarization map, etc.

I'm not aware of Perratt making a single research contribution to the field other than his galaxy simulations, which do more to disprove PC than to support it.

 

[Reality Check]

Not true. It may be flawed in places but to say that all of his work is flawed due to shortcomings in his galaxy formation model is ludicrous.

Not true: I did not say that. Peratt's work in plasma physics is first rate.
Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation is fatally flawed.

Not true. Many disparate theories claim to be the one and only *PC* but in reality there are only a few that can even be considered as an actually scientifically competent theory.

You have just confirmed what I have said.
How many months has it since I asked you to post an official pc cosmological model in that thread?

Show an assumption in any of the theories that (without supporting evidence) says LCMB is wrong then.

Read the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread.
It is not in the theories that the assumption is made. It is the selection of the theories. If fitting the evidence was the criteria then PC would be LCDM .

Have I not come up with an alternate explanation to each of these numerous times in the past in different threads?

You have come up with multiple, often mutally exclusive theories for most of these numerous times in the past in different threads.

But if I am wrong then you can correct me in the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread by stating the actual definition of PC with the official cause for each of the observations that LCDB can explain (the remaining discrepancy is the predicted abundance of Li but this depends on models of Li formation in stars).

Why does Lerners CMB explanation fail? (I've not read it in a long long long time now )

It is unable to match the anisotropy which is very well matched by LCDM.
And there is the disturbing hint that Lerner himself has given up on it since he has not tried to modify his theory to do this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Look up the Reissner-Nordström metric perhaps (or more generally Kerr-Newman)?

Thanks edd, I'll check it out. As always you are a wealth of useful information.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think we've gone over this general point before, but just calling it 'acceleration' is tantamount to giving up on science and walking away - it means you're not even trying to come up with a theory.

IMO you have that 100% backwards. Stuffing the gaps of our ignorance with ad hoc metaphysical solutions is tantamount to giving up on empirical physics IMO. Worse yet, using such a solution has precluded the mainstream from entertaining "less mathematically elegant" solutions. Much like the Chapman/Birkeland debate, "mathematical elegance" isn't always the "be-all-end-all" of physics.

You need to come up with some ideas for what's causing it and test them.

Test them how? I can "test" the fact that EM fields accelerate plasma. How do I "test" to see that "dark energy" isn't a figment of your collective imagination?

It's not religious to come up with some idea and say 'hey, actually this is working out pretty well - it's probably right even though it's not what we initially expected'.

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

It's simply a good falsifiable theory (as distinct from bad unfalsifiable, bad falsifiable, or in the case of a certain other idea that keeps coming up here bad falsified).

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

But in the LCDM, which is after all the topic of this thread, dark energy and lambda are one and the same.

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

The only way it could be not well enough is if Einstein's equations are wrong? Do you believe Einstein's equations are wrong Michael?

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

What a load of nonsense. No other word for it.

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

 

[GeeMack]

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

The acceleration exists. It is measured, empirically. The cause is not visible, it doesn't create or reflect light, therefore it's dark. The result of that real science is nicknamed "dark energy".

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

One would have to understand equations in general, math, to make a qualified comment on whether any of Einstein's equations were relevant to anything. So far no LCDM critics in this thread have demonstrated any qualifications to understand math at any level at all.

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

In the meantime, since no alternative explanation has been provided by the EU/PC crackpots, should the whole thing simply be abandoned? Or should we just discard the observations and supporting math that shows how Lambda-CDM theory explains pretty much all the empirical data, go back to what?... 1910 maybe, and start over?

Since no objective quantitative criticism has been offered to suggest there are problems with LCDM theory, maybe we should all agree it's real science and not woo.

 

[ben m]

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

That's right. Dark energy is a HYPOTHESIS. HYPOTHESIS. Have you seen that word before?

We do know that the cause of the acceleration is not E&M. EM fields, sources, and accelerations are well-understood and easy to see, and they were very easy to rule out as a cause for the observed acceleration.

Similarly, we know that the cause of the acceleration is not rubber bands. It's not tow trucks. It's not neutrino winds. It's not LeSagian ultramundane corpuscules. It's not gravity wave pressure. Those alternative hypotheses are also ruled out and cannot be the cause or causes of the observed acceleration.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The acceleration exists. It is measured, empirically.

Even that is a 'gross oversimplification'. The acceleration is actually just one *INTERPRETATION* of a phenomenon called "redshift". Even still the "best" you could hope to do from observation is observe acceleration.

The cause is not visible, it doesn't create or reflect light, therefore it's dark. The result of that real science is nicknamed "dark energy".

The term "dark" seem to have more to do with our human ignorance than with any actual "property" of the energy. Something heats those space plasmas to millions of degrees and they are not "dark" once they've been heated.

One would have to understand equations in general, math, to make a qualified comment on whether any of Einstein's equations were relevant to anything. So far no LCDM critics in this thread have demonstrated any qualifications to understand math at any level at all.

Once again you are in pure unadulterated denial of the fact that you have established no physical connection between "dark energy" or "magic dark BS energy" and those equations.

In the meantime, since no alternative explanation has been provided

Yes, Lerner and others have provided you with alternative explanations but you fail to read them, let alone comment on them.

Or should we just discard the observations and supporting math that shows how Lambda-CDM theory explains pretty much all the empirical data, go back to what?... 1910 maybe, and start over?

Yep. IMO you'd make a lot of progress by rereading Birkeland's work, and letting go of the notion that those CMB wavelengths are in any way related to a surface of last scattering. Raw images of those wavelengths show that the galaxy itself (stars) are the single biggest emitter of that particular wavelength and "scattering happens". So what?

Since no objective quantitative criticism has been offered to suggest there are problems with LCDM theory, maybe we should all agree it's real science and not woo.

When you can demonstrate that dark energy isn't a figment of your collective imagination and has some TANGIBLE effect on real atoms, then and only then can you claim it isn't "woo". At the moment it's just "woo" with pretty red mathematical lipstick and fudge factors galore.

 

[GeeMack]

Even that is a 'gross oversimplification'. The acceleration is actually just one *INTERPRETATION* of a phenomenon called "redshift". Even still the "best" you could hope to do from observation is observe acceleration.

Acceleration is observed. Yes.

The term "dark" seem to have more to do with our human ignorance than with any actual "property" of the energy. Something heats those space plasmas to millions of degrees and they are not "dark" once they've been heated.

Then I'm sure we all agree that only an idiot would suggest heated space plasmas, which aren't dark, are the cause of the acceleration. If it was something not-dark, we would see it.

Once again you are in pure unadulterated denial of the fact that you have established no physical connection between "dark energy" or "magic dark BS energy" and those equations.

No real scientists have ever mentioned "magic dark BS energy". The term sounds like something that might be coined by some EU/PC crackpots to dishonestly discredit legitimate science.

Yes, Lerner and others have provided you with alternative explanations but you fail to read them, let alone comment on them.

The alternative explanations suggested so far have been considered, and the reasons they don't/can't work have been explained. To suggest they haven't would be a lie, or would indicate willful ignorance of much of ben's, Reality Check's, Tim's, edd's, and others' comments right here in this thread.

Yep. IMO you'd make a lot of progress by rereading Birkeland's work, and letting go of the notion that those CMB wavelengths are in any way related to a surface of last scattering. Raw images of those wavelengths show that the galaxy itself (stars) are the single biggest emitter of that particular wavelength and "scattering happens". So what?

So what? If any of the EU/PC crackpots would get to work on writing up those allegedly valid explanations, starting from scratch in 1910, in an objective and quantitative way (which might be difficult since there isn't any evidence to suggest any EU/PC proponents understand the related math at all), maybe they could make some headway. So far all they've done is complain on Internet forums about how they don't understand the real science well enough to accept it. Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not components of legitimate science no matter how often they're repeated.

When you can demonstrate that dark energy isn't a figment of your collective imagination and has some TANGIBLE effect on real atoms, then and only then can you claim it isn't "woo".

Tangible effect on real atoms? It is the name given to the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. That would be considered a pretty tangible effect to anyone who understands the conventional meanings of "tangible" and "effect".

​

At the moment it's just "woo" with pretty red mathematical lipstick and fudge factors galore.

That is transparently a dishonest effort to make a caricature of legitimate science. As I mentioned above, unsupported complaining, rejecting science, and declaring contempt for math is not an effective way to objectively and quantitatively criticize a legitimately scientific theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's right. Dark energy is a HYPOTHESIS. HYPOTHESIS. Have you seen that word before?

We do know that the cause of the acceleration is not E&M. EM fields, sources, and accelerations are well-understood and easy to see, and they were very easy to rule out as a cause for the observed acceleration.

Similarly, we know that the cause of the acceleration is not rubber bands. It's not tow trucks. It's not neutrino winds. It's not LeSagian ultramundane corpuscules. It's not gravity wave pressure. Those alternative hypotheses are also ruled out and cannot be the cause or causes of the observed acceleration.

Aside from the fact that your whole argument comes down to a 'dark energy god of the gaps" argument, the highlighted part of your text is still in dispute.

You folks fail to see how charge separation is involved in solar wind acceleration even 100 years after Birkeland predicted and simulated it in a lab! I have no confidence after our conversations about the movements of plasma that you have accurately accounted for the movement of matter in plasma (non solid) form, let alone *ANY* EM effects.

 

[ben m]

Yes, Lerner and others have provided you with alternative explanations but you fail to read them, let alone comment on them.

" ... as long as you ignore multiple hundred page threads containing thousands of posts and several million words of comment."

There has been lots of commentary on Lerner, here and elsewhere. Shall I sum it up for you? His "alternative explanations" are terrible. They didn't describe the data even the time he wrote them and they're even worse now.

 

[ben m]

Aside from the fact that your whole argument comes down to a 'dark energy god of the gaps" argument, the highlighted part of your text is still in dispute.

No, my argument is how science works. If the data aren't explained by known laws, you have to hypothesize about the previously-unknown laws of physics that may need to be added.

You folks fail to see how charge separation is involved in solar wind acceleration even 100 years after Birkeland predicted and simulated it in a lab!

Your statement includes the assumption that "charge separation is involved in solar wind acceleration". This assumption is one of your little hobby horses; experts disagree.

I have no confidence after our conversations about the movements of plasma that you have accurately accounted for the movement of matter in plasma (non solid) form, let alone *ANY* EM effects.

And suddenly you remember having conversations! Let's keep that in mind next time you accuse me of refusing to consider E&M.

What can I say? Of course you don't think we're accounting for it correctly. Every time we account for E&M in galaxy dynamics and cosmology, the physics tells us that your hobby horse, PC/EU, is utter nonsense. Of course you think we're doing it wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Acceleration is observed. Yes.

No. Acceleration is *ASSUMED*!

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

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

Then I'm sure we all agree that only an idiot would suggest heated space plasmas, which aren't dark, are the cause of the acceleration. If it was something not-dark, we would see it.

We do see it. Those plasmas are often heated to millions of degrees.

No real scientists have ever mentioned "magic dark BS energy". The term sounds like something that might be coined by some EU/PC crackpots to dishonestly discredit legitimate science.

"Dark energy" isn't legitimate "science", it's a "religion". It's as impotent on Earth as any ordinary religious sky entity, in fact more so. Most religious sky entities communicate with humans. You just have a gap filler that hides from everything we might "measure".

 

[Michael Mozina]

" ... as long as you ignore multiple hundred page threads containing thousands of posts and several million words of comment."

There has been lots of commentary on Lerner, here and elsewhere. Shall I sum it up for you? His "alternative explanations" are terrible.

"Terrible" by who's standards? "Terrible" as compared to "magic energy"?

They didn't describe the data even the time he wrote them and they're even worse now.

So what? If they even get us into the ballpark it's better than "dark energy god did it" IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Tangible effect on real atoms?

Ya, that little thing scientists do in real *EXPERIMENTS* with actual "control mechanisms".

It is the name given to the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

That's like claiming "the dark energy god is the name given to the cause of the acceleration". You've formed a "religion" out of what is actually an "unknown".

That would be considered a pretty tangible effect to anyone who understands the conventional meanings of "tangible" and "effect".

Your dark energy sky entity is as impotent in the lab as your average sky deity. It's a "faith" you hold in the unseen, nothing more. There is no physical connection between acceleration and 'dark energy' except in your head.

That is transparently a dishonest effort to make a caricature of legitimate science.

Dark energy isn't "science", it's "religion", as in "faith in the unseen" in the lab. The only thing "dishonest" about it, is calling it a "science" in the first place.

 

[GeeMack]

No. Acceleration is *ASSUMED*!

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

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

We do see it. Those plasmas are often heated to millions of degrees.

"Dark energy" isn't legitimate "science", it's a "religion". It's as impotent on Earth as any ordinary religious sky entity, in fact more so. Most religious sky entities communicate with humans. You just have a gap filler that hides from everything we might "measure".

Ya, that little thing scientists do in real *EXPERIMENTS* with actual "control mechanisms".

That's like claiming "the dark energy god is the name given to the cause of the acceleration". You've formed a "religion" out of what is actually an "unknown".

Your dark energy sky entity is as impotent in the lab as your average sky deity. It's a "faith" you hold in the unseen, nothing more. There is no physical connection between acceleration and 'dark energy' except in your head.

Dark energy isn't "science", it's "religion", as in "faith in the unseen" in the lab. The only thing "dishonest" about it, is calling it a "science" in the first place.

Criticize LCDM theory by complaining about not understanding it. Interesting approach. Failed.

 

[ben m]

"Terrible" by who's standards? "Terrible" as compared to "magic energy"?

Well, wrong is wrong. Nature is out there doing something, and we want to find out what that actually is.

We are not looking for the "wrong thing that got pretty close". We are not looking for "the least wrong thing that relies only on early-20th-century physics". We're not looking for "the least wrong thing simple enough for MM to understand". We're looking for whatever laws Nature is actually using.

E&M is not it. Period.

Dark energy might be it. Dark energy is something Nature might be using, and as far as we can tell it's the simplest law that accurately describes/predicts the observed behavior.

If Nature is using a law that we can't easily test on Earth---well, as I've said before, go to Her complaints department and file a complaint. It's not fair! We may be 6-foot-tall, one-liter-brain humans, but we were supposed to have experimental access to all possible physical laws! It was in the contract!

So what? If they even get us into the ballpark it's better than "dark energy god did it" IMO.

E&M doesn't get us into the ballpark. You haven't yet put together a description---much less a physics calculation using numbers---in which stars feel any meaningful E&M-related force at all. Or is your EM-powered invisible gravity tugboat what you consider to be "in the ballpark"?