Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, the W and Z gave from electroweak unification theories.
Given you're complete ignorance of... pretty much everything to do with physics I wouldn't want you to test it.

What? Its the fact you can't and didn't *test* any of your beliefs that I find offensive. I can't "test" inflation. I can't "test" monopoles are suppressed by inflation. I can't "test" expansion of space. I can't test zero net energy expansion of objects. I can't *test* dark energy because you don't even know where it comes from. You don't seem to have any grasp of a what a experimental "test" actaully is, or that value of that "testing" as it relates to science.

The Casimir effect shows you are wrong.

Which casmir experiment was ever even done in a "zero" pressure environment?

 

[Michael Mozina]

See here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Notice the big and little arrows and notice that the big arrows denote *positive pressure* that is greater than the "lower (smaller arrow) pressure" between the plates?

 

[Skwinty]

Gee Whiz, you guys have loads of stamina!
I have no wish to enter the fray, but would like to ask 2 questions and relate a true story which illustrates one of the questions.

1. Ziggurat: Please give an example of a violation of Ohms Laws you alluded to earlier.

2. Michael: Why do you insist on referring to belief. There is a thread "Is Science Faith based" in the repository. IMO, science is assumption based. If an assumption proves to be wrong then it is soon replaced by another assumption. (either postdicted or predicted).
Science is the explanation of observations and the "truth" of the explanation is irrelevant as long as it explains the observation and makes predictions.

Now here is a real example of this.
In the 70's I was a tech in the telcom company.I installed a 12MHz coaxial cable system between 2 towns 120km apart. There were repeaters (signal conditioners) every 2kms.
I was busy doing frequency response checks for each 2km stretch of cable.
To achieve this I would set up a transmitter at the start of the cable run and at each repeater in turn I would set up a receiver which would remotely control the frequency output of the transmitter. I could then sweep the entire 12MHz bandwidth and produce a frequency response graph.
So, here I am on the side of the road doing my job and a gentleman stops his car and ask's me what am I doing. So, being a clever dick I tell him this.
Well Sir, this cable is 120km's long and it is very expensive. However there are copper bugs which eat the copper thus destroying the cable, so I am doing pest control.
See this meter, it is calibrated in dBm. It is a dead bug meter. I am injecting a lethal dose of electromagnetic energy at the origin and it measures how many bugs I have killed. I then proceed to start the sweep and as expected the needle slowly starts rising settles at about midscale and then slowly starts dropping back down again.
After this I say, see there are no more bugs being killed, this section is clear and I will now seal up the cable and move to the next repeater. Really says the man, this is fascinating, but tell me where are the dead bugs. So I open the back of the receiver and show him the sealed battery and say in there Sir, when its full the instrument will no longer work and I will need to replace it with an empty one.
Completely satisfied the gentleman gets in his car and continues his journey feeling much wiser.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's richly ironic that you can't appreciate *why* it's a "law" and the fact you cannot demonstrate your claim.

I know exactly why it's a law, and I know exactly the context within which it applies: a world lacking magnetic monopoles. Gauss's law works because there are no monopoles. Monopoles aren't absent because of Gauss's law. Do you honestly not understand the distinction?

So exactly how many leaps of faith must I make to hold "belief" in Lambda-CMD theory now that cannot be experimentally verified?

Your misunderstandings of physics extend to such basic features that there's really no point in discussing that stuff until you get the basics sorted out. Plenty of evidence has already been presented to you, and you have consistently either ignored or misunderstood it. So let's stick to more basic stuff for now. For example, negative gravitational potential. Show me that you can do some math.

If I have a force F(r)=1/r², what is U(r)?
If I have a force F(r)=-1/r², what is U(r)?

Which one of those applies to gravity?

It's really not very hard. If you can do math. But your math abilities seem scarcer than magnetic monopoles.

 

[Ziggurat]

1. Ziggurat: Please give an example of a violation of Ohms Laws you alluded to earlier.

Diodes.

 

[derekmcd]

Why? If I said "invisible unicorns" do not exist, you would not complain. In most areas of science it is typical to "lack belief" in something unless it has been demonstrated, or might be demonstrated.

There is no mathematical or physical reason to discuss the existence, or lack thereof, concerning invisible unicorns. It is an irrelevant analogy. However, the existence of monopoles can be justified from a theoretical standpoint. There has been much work done (and continues) to detect monopoles because the basis for their possible existence is logical. That they have yet to be detected (and may never be), does not allow anyone to state they do not exist.

No, and in science I am not required to have proof of this. The onus of responsibility is on you to demonstrate it exists. One cannot ever demonstrate a negative. That is why it is up to you to demonstrate they exist. They don't exist. They violate *laws* of physics.

Wrong. No one is claiming they do exist. No one has any experimental evidence of their existence. You, on the other hand, are claiming that they unequivically do NOT exist. Show us how you come to this conclusion.

Nature enjoys it's laws of physics too. Gauss' law of magnetism assures me that monopoles do not exist, and conservation of energy laws tell me that energy has always existed. I have faith in most laws of physics.

Then you don't understand either law.

Gauss' law for magnetism simply doesn't address the existence of monopoles. Guass' law simply assumes they don't exist. Gauss' law can easily be adapted in the presence of a monopole without changing the fundamental laws of nature. Magnetism would still work as intended.

The conservation laws make no statement on whether energy has always existed or not.

Please distinguish between them for me. What would you add or subtract from a pure vacuum to achieve "negative pressure"?

I think you are looking at a vacuum from the concept of Boyle's law. That is a classical description of pressure. Quantum mechanics describes the vacuum of empty space as the lowest possible energy state that nature can provide... anything lower is described as negative. In the case of the Casimir effect, the pressure you seem to think that is pushing the plates together is far stronger than the pressure within the laboratory vacuum. This can only be accounted for by a negative pressure between the plates that exceeds the lowest state.

 

[Skwinty]

Diodes.

Cool, I never thought about that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know exactly why it's a law, and I know exactly the context within which it applies: a world lacking magnetic monopoles. Gauss's law works because there are no monopoles. Monopoles aren't absent because of Gauss's law. Do you honestly not understand the distinction?

Sure. The problem is Guth is trying to take credit for their "non existence" as being "caused by" inflation. There was no cause/effect relationship ever established between these two *non-existent entities*, nor could one ever be established in any physical way. There is no way he can try to claim his theory explain *why* something does not exist in nature. Monopoles just don't exist in nature, and never had existed in nature. Period. He might as well have claimed that inflation "solved" the missing unicorn problem.

Your misunderstandings of physics extend to such basic features that there's really no point in discussing that stuff until you get the basics sorted out.

That wouldn't ring so damn hollow if you could tell me what you intend to add or subtract to a zero energy state vacuum to make it have "negative pressure".

Plenty of evidence has already been presented to you, and you have consistently either ignored or misunderstood it.

The 'evidence' related to the Casmir effect directly refutes your claim. See the direction of the big and little arrows in the image? Which way are they pointing?

So let's stick to more basic stuff for now. For example, negative gravitational potential.

Nah. First we need to dispel two myths you've already stated as fact. There is no "negative pressure" vacuum. You started with HEAT so it was a *positive energy density* from the start. When you folks have woken up and smelled the coffee on these points, then maybe we can go back to that topic. As it stands we can't make any headway until you notice which direction the arrows are pointing in the Casmir diagram.

Show me that you can do some math.

Why? The problem isn't related to math. The problem is related to *PHYSICS*. You can stuff a minus sign anywhere in a math formula and make things fit if you have enough free variables. The problem with you folks is never with the math. You have the math thing down pat. It's the *physics* you're all pretty clueless about, so there's no point in fixating on the math. I'm sure Guth's math related to "negative pressure vacuums" worked well from that point forward, but his introduction of this concept demonstrates that he does not understand vacuums and kinetic energy, and neither do you.

It's really not very hard. If you can do math. But your math abilities seem scarcer than magnetic monopoles.

Ditto on your physical understandings. What did you intend to add or subtract from the pure vacuum to achieve a "negative" pressure?

 

[Michael Mozina]

completely satisfied the gentleman gets in his car and continues his journey feeling much wiser.:d

lol!

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? The problem isn't related to math.

Call it what you will: your repeated assertion that gravity cannot be negative energy is indeed related to your inability to do math. As the following statement demonstrates:

You can stuff a minus sign anywhere in a math formula and make things fit if you have enough free variables.

There is one free variable in the relationship between force and potential energy. And guess what? That minus sign isn't it. Which you'd know if you could do any math. But of course, you can't. So you pretend that the minus sign is arbitrary when it is not. Which you'd know if you could actually do a single integral. But again, you can't. Your claim to be able to do math is not only without any supporting evidence, it flies in the face of evidence (such as above) to the contrary.

The problem with you folks is never with the math.

And the problem with cranks is almost always the math.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no mathematical or physical reason to discuss the existence, or lack thereof, concerning invisible unicorns.

Ditto on monopoles. They don't exist. I don't care *why* they don't exist.

It is an irrelevant analogy.

No, it's a totally relevant analogy. There's no need for an "explanation' of why something does not exist in nature, and there's no value in claiming your invisible inflation did it.

However, the existence of monopoles can be justified from a theoretical standpoint.

But it cannot be justified via "experimentation". Many non-existent things can be justified from a "theoretical standpoint".

There has been much work done (and continues) to detect monopoles because the basis for their possible existence is logical. That they have yet to be detected (and may never be), does not allow anyone to state they do not exist.

What is the difference between "science", and an "act of faith"? I can rationally "justify" the existence of a creator from a "theoretical" standpoint.

Wrong. No one is claiming they do exist. No one has any experimental evidence of their existence. You, on the other hand, are claiming that they unequivically do NOT exist. Show us how you come to this conclusion.

They don't show up in any empirical experiment and they would violate laws of physics if they did. The same would be true of an energy conservation violating "transaction". I have no belief that energy is not conserved or that monopoles exist, and you can give me no empirical evidence to the contrary.

Gauss' law for magnetism simply doesn't address the existence of monopoles. Guass' law simply assumes they don't exist.

So why should I *assume* they do exist and the "law" is invalid? When was a "theoretical" possibility on par with a law of physics to the point you would throw out that law?

Gauss' law can easily be adapted in the presence of a monopole without changing the fundamental laws of nature. Magnetism would still work as intended.

But it works as intended right now without any monopoles.

The conservation laws make no statement on whether energy has always existed or not.

False. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and there are no "negative pressure" vacuums. Guth's theory didn't even start with "zero energy". It has a "heat" component that then "supercooled". This is a net positive energy state from start to finish.

I think you are looking at a vacuum from the concept of Boyle's law.

No, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of physics and kinetic energy.

That is a classical description of pressure. Quantum mechanics describes the vacuum of empty space as the lowest possible energy state that nature can provide...

But that is *always a positive energy state*!

anything lower is described as negative.

"Describing it" that way is pointless because it's not "negative pressure".

In the case of the Cashmire effect, the pressure you seem to think that is pushing the plates together is far stronger than the pressure within the laboratory vacuum. This can only be accounted for by a negative pressure between the plates that exceeds the lowest state.

Hoy. The pressure pushing the plates together is "greater than" the pressure pushing them apart, and there is a positive pressure pushing them apart too! Look at the drawings and those pretty blue arrows. Where do you see "negative pressure" in those arrows?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Call it what you will: your repeated assertion that gravity cannot be negative energy is indeed related to your inability to do math. As the following statement demonstrates:

I have already agreed that we can *arbitrarily* assign a zero point and treat gravity that way for some experimental purposes. My perceived "lack of math skills" doesn't seem to prevent me from agreeing that we *can* and often do treat gravity that way. I've also explained the limits of that process which you refused to acknowledge or deal with. Any "space" between objects is simply a form of "potential" energy that can be turned into kinetic energy and mass contains "stored energy" that can also be converted to kinetic energy. There is no "zero net" anything about the energy state of this universe. It is a "net positive" energy state, and so was Guth's theory by the way. It began with a "heated something-or-other", which then "supercooled" to a lower energy state.

If we were sitting on a singular clump of mass your statements might have merit. Since there are tons of kinetic energy in the universe and tons of potential energy in the spaces between objects, your point is moot and the problem is not related to math, but related to *physics*, just like your 'negative pressure" concept.

The only reason you'd like me to bark math on command here is in hopes that I will make some error so that you can claim *aha!*, now we have proof it's all your fault we cannot demonstrate our claims empirically..... It's never going to happen. Get over it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which way are the arrows pointing in the Casmir effect diagram ladies and gentlemen? Where do you see a "negative pressure" in those diagrams?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the problem with cranks is almost always the math.

Sometimes it is related to "physics" too.

FYI, my math skills, or lack thereof, are in no way associated with physically supporting your claims. If you asked me to empirically support my belief in EM fields, I would not need math to demonstrate their existence to you. There is no correlation between these ideas other than it seems to be your only justification for physically being unable to verify the following claims are not figments of your collective imagination:

A) Inflation
B) monopole suppression by inflation
C) negative pressure vacuums (physically impossible by the way)
D) dark energy
E) SUSY theories.
F) expanding space
G) net zero energy universe

I gave you an example of an expanding physical universe based on a "net positive" energy state. Guth's theory is also predicated upon a net positive "heat" that converted to expansion during a "supercooling' cycle. There is no "net zero" energy process in this paper, so where exactly does that idea even come from?

 

[Dancing David]

Micael, while you rail about semantics do you think you can answer some simple questions about your iron/electric sun model.

I know you are busy but i asked some simple questions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4477731&postcount=1431

At this point I assume you are smart enough to know that you said that the solar wind is created by electrons attracted to the heliosphere and that they drag along the positive ions, but what keeps those positive ions from being repelled by the heliosphere? (IE and therefore continuing to move past the heliosphere and becoming the solar wind).

So Ia ssume that you admit you are wrong and just won't answer teh questions.

 

[Ziggurat]

FYI, my math skills, or lack thereof, are in no way associated with physically supporting your claims.

Your lack of math skills are rather directly related to your inability to understand why gravitational potential is negative.

I gave you an example of an expanding physical universe based on a "net positive" energy state. Guth's theory is also predicated upon a net positive "heat"

Yes. But why could that heat not be balanced by a negative gravitational potential? Gravity being negative won't stop heat from existing or being positive.

You know, it would be much easier for you to just do the integrals. It's really not hard. That is, if you can. But I'm now convinced you can't. Why don't you show everyone how wrong I am about you? Or am I not wrong? You've spent far more time trying to argue why you won't do them than it would have taken to actually do them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Micael, while you rail about semantics do you think you can answer some simple questions about your iron/electric sun model.

Not in this thread.

I know you are busy but i asked some simple questions.

And when I am less busy, I promise I will answer them in the other thread.

 

[Tubbythin]

Notice the big and little arrows and notice that the big arrows denote *positive pressure* that is greater than the "lower (smaller arrow) pressure" between the plates?

Have you actually read the article?

 

[Tubbythin]

A) Inflation

Evidenced in multiple observations.

B) monopole suppression by inflation

Not really relevant.

C) negative pressure vacuums (physically impossible by the way)

Evidenced here, on Earth by the Casimir effect.

D) dark energy

The name for whatever is causing the observed accelerated expanion of the Universe.

E) SUSY theories.

A possible solution to the observation of DM. You don't have to believe in them. if you've got a better idea...

F) expanding space

Part of standard GR since the 1920's.

G) net zero energy universe

Ditto.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your lack of math skills are rather directly related to your inability to understand why gravitational potential is negative.

That is absolutely false. In fact it doesn't even require math to demonstrate this idea. You can toss a stone in the air and that act requires *energy* and the stone eventually returns to Earth. I can see how you would see that as a "negative potential" energy state relative to me as an observer even without any math skills whatsoever. That point was never in dispute and I agreed with PS on this issue early on. Your fixation on math alone is simply a ruse to hide the fact you can't actually demonstrate your claims in empirical experiments. I never doubted you could justify your faith with mathematics. I doubt you can justify it with empirical physics.

You know, it would be much easier for you to just do the integrals.

Yes I know. The problem is that the moment I do this, it simply justifies in your mind somehow that somehow I'm wrong and it's all about math, not about physics. That whole concept is a pure red herring. It's actually much harder to sit here and listen to you bitch and whine about my math skills than it would be to just do the math and be done, but there is a principle at stake here beyond simply math. You lack *physical justification* or "qualification" for your beliefs. It's not a problem with the math. Look at Guth's idea of "negative pressure vacuum". Ya, we stuff a minus sign in there, oblivious to actual "physics", and maybe it works out just fine. In fact we all know it does work out just fine as far as the math is concerned. What isn't "fine" is the idea that a vacuum has "negative pressure" because that is *physically impossible*. It's possible of course to do anything with math, but physics requires more than just math.