Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

To get the ball rolling, I'd like to start with some stuff that's not, strictly speaking, modern cosmology*, the Sun.

Ok. Let's start by noting that solar theory and cosmology theories are independent to some degree and neither is necessarily dependent upon the other. The solar theory has to fit with the cosmology theory and ideally the cosmology theory should make some "prediction" about solar theory. The PC/solar relationship works that way in the sense that PC theories tend to predict that the sun electrically interacts with the rest of the universe via the heliosphere and the surface and heliosphere are charge separated.

In Lambda-CMD theory however, there is no such prediction "per se", so we can't really connect much between Lambda-CMD theory and any particular solar model.

In terms of "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", "physically demonstrate [something other than] squat", "actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way", "some evidence to support [one's] claim", "any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate [something] conclusively", "demonstrate [something] isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically", "show [everyone something] exists in a controlled experiment", and "physically demonstrate[] many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation", what would be acceptable, to you, re a statement such as this: "the Sun has a solid iron surface, and is powered by a [insert number here] mass neutron star at its core"?

Well, let's start with "predictions" that Birkeland made which were useful. Indeed we experience aurora. We do indeed find "jets" and coronal loop activity in the solar atmosphere as predicted by his model. We do indeed find high speed solar wind emanating from the entire surface of the sun as he predicted. These are useful predictions of his solar model and his belief that the universe was filled with electrons and flying ions, the core tenet of PC theory. Already his basic philosophy toward cosmology has given us useful predictions.

The neutron core theory is not my "preferred" solar model. I'm willing to entertain the idea to a degree, but it certainly isn't the solar model that I personally prefer. The reason for that is simple. I can't physically demonstrate neutron materials condense under pressure, and therefore I personally tend to prefer as "standard" Birkeland model as you will find on my website, including the energy source that Birkeland suggested, specifically fissionable materials like uranium.

The sun has a "solid" surface and it has lots of iron, but it's not "solid iron". Iron certainly exists in nature and I can show you iron on Earth. I have plenty of satellite evidence to support Birkeland's solar model, along with empirical tests of how such a "structure" might interact electromagnetically with the rest of the universe. I've got heliosiesmology data to support the idea as well. I would not say I'm out on any limb on this issue at all, not at least in terms of "undemonstrated" forces.

Then, could you please quickly summarise the parts of how what's in the paper with your name as an author meets with your criteria for science?

I would suggest that if you intend to critique *my papers* and *my* beliefs, that you start with the CNO fusion paper. I have no problem defending that paper because the ideas espoused are concepts that I agree with completely. The neutron core concept is obviously more difficult to defend and justify, and it isn't the solar model that I personally prefer. My website is a "better" explanation of my personal beliefs as separate from a "team effort".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Question about expanding space.
What is space expanding into, other than more space?

OK, here goes ...

... this will be a WIP, and I'll come back and revise it, possibly several times, so caveat lector!

Homo sapiens' success, as an animal with a large brain gives us both intuitions and the consciousness to reflect upon them. That evolutionary success aligned our physical intuitions with a default view of the world as having absolute time and space, Galilean physics so to speak*.

One of the great insights in physics - the result of several centuries of hard yakka culminating in Einstein's synthesis - was that the world (now called the universe) runs by rules that are far better described by relativity than by Newtonian absolute time and space.

One corollary of this insight is that 'time' is only what clocks can measure, in any 'real' sense, and 'space' is only what rulers can measure (ditto).

In a universe that runs according to GR, 'distance' becomes something rather different than what evolution equipped us to intuit. Where we have the ability to measure the distance between two objects, with a variety of rulers (rigid rods, say, and 'time-of-return' light signals, 'radar' if you will), we can wrestle our way through the non-intuitive consequences of GR, and some of us can come to grok what's going on, in a semi-intuitive fashion ... and the rest of us are just thankful for the marvel that is the GPS system.

However, there are at least two environments where the gap between our (Galilean) physical intuition and the consequences of GR become too great to handle in a 'muddle through, GPS style' manner; namely strong (gravitational) fields (e.g. 'close' to black holes), and cosmological distances.

For the latter, there are several ways we can interpret the way the universe behaves (one that runs according to GR), and one of those ways is 'space is expanding'. And this is a quite convenient way to interpret what we observe, because it aligns so well with our (Galilean) intuitions - if distances are increasing, but the objects themselves are 'standing still', then the space between them must be 'growing'!

But what is this 'space' that is 'expanding', really? Can you, for example, make a set of extremely light but rigid rods that define a (large) volume, wait a few million years, and see that the volume defined by your rods has got bigger? And what if you replace the rigid rods with something like a giant LIGO?

(to be continued)

Feedback on this WIP most welcome.

* though our naive conscious view is more Aristotelian; our instinctive (unconscious) intuition is Galilean.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

To get the ball rolling, I'd like to start with some stuff that's not, strictly speaking, modern cosmology*, the Sun.

Ok. Let's start by noting that solar theory and cosmology theories are independent to some degree and neither is necessarily dependent upon the other. The solar theory has to fit with the cosmology theory and ideally the cosmology theory should make some "prediction" about solar theory. The PC/solar relationship works that way in the sense that PC theories tend to predict that the sun electrically interacts with the rest of the universe via the heliosphere and the surface and heliosphere are charge separated.

[...]

I want to start by thanking you, MM, for taking the trouble to answer my post.

Sadly, however, I must confess what you have written has only confused me even more than I was confused, about your view of cosmology, before.

So much so that I can't even begin to digest the rest of your post (that I am quoting).

You see, quite recently, in another thread, you said (I've added some bold):

In your view, then, does Plasma Cosmology (PC) include - by definition - study of the Earth's magnetosphere? the Moon? Saturn's rings?

It would include all thing related to astronomy in the sense that MHD theory and gravity applies to all objects in space, sure. There are more than just solar system issues and observations to consider, but to be sure, solar system "observations" and "in-situ measurements" are important and help us to verify the veracity of the model. For instance, if we did not see aurora or rings, or coronal loops or jets or high speed solar wind, the core tenets of EU theory would be falsified. These are "predictions" of Birkeland's model and they should apply inside our solar system as well as outside of it.

Again, in your view, is there any distinction between PC and astronomy? PC and astrophysics? PC and space science? PC and the planetary sciences?

There are "specialties" within EU/PC theory, but they all fall under the umbrella of EU/PC theory and space related physics.

I think you can see the source of my confusion ...

... these two sets of statements, by you, seem mutually inconsistent!

I mean, how can "solar theory and cosmology theories" be, on the one hand, "independent to some degree and neither is necessarily dependent upon the other", yet on the other solar theory be a specialty "within EU/PC theory"?

I can certainly see that there could be a distinction - and so no mutual inconsistency - for "cosmology theories" in general ... but then the part of your post I am quoting makes it crystal clear (to me anyway) that you include "PC" as one of those cosmological theories that "are independent to some degree"!

Can you clarify please? I certainly don't want to go any further until this extremely fundamental aspect is clear.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

In terms of "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", "physically demonstrate [something other than] squat", "actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way", "some evidence to support [one's] claim", "any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate [something] conclusively", "demonstrate [something] isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically", "show [everyone something] exists in a controlled experiment", and "physically demonstrate[] many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation", what would be acceptable, to you, re a statement such as this: "the Sun has a solid iron surface, and is powered by a [insert number here] mass neutron star at its core"?

Well, let's start with "predictions" that Birkeland made which were useful. Indeed we experience aurora. We do indeed find "jets" and coronal loop activity in the solar atmosphere as predicted by his model. We do indeed find high speed solar wind emanating from the entire surface of the sun as he predicted. These are useful predictions of his solar model and his belief that the universe was filled with electrons and flying ions, the core tenet of PC theory. Already his basic philosophy toward cosmology has given us useful predictions.

The neutron core theory is not my "preferred" solar model. I'm willing to entertain the idea to a degree, but it certainly isn't the solar model that I personally prefer. The reason for that is simple. I can't physically demonstrate neutron materials condense under pressure, and therefore I personally tend to prefer as "standard" Birkeland model as you will find on my website, including the energy source that Birkeland suggested, specifically fissionable materials like uranium.

The sun has a "solid" surface and it has lots of iron, but it's not "solid iron". Iron certainly exists in nature and I can show you iron on Earth. I have plenty of satellite evidence to support Birkeland's solar model, along with empirical tests of how such a "structure" might interact electromagnetically with the rest of the universe. I've got heliosiesmology data to support the idea as well. I would not say I'm out on any limb on this issue at all, not at least in terms of "undemonstrated" forces.

[...]

(bold added)

This part of your post, that I am quoting here, contains something that I am greatly puzzled by (I've bolded the key bits).

You see Michael, in quite a few posts, in this thread and at least two others in this part of the JREF Forum, you have expressed the opinion that the only thing which counts - in physics and cosmology - is something like controlled experimentation*. And you have used extremely strong language to denounce and deride all those who do not employ those criteria of yours.

Yet you are the co-author of a published paper whose key result (or claim) is based upon work that you yourself have said (in this post) does not meet your own criteria!

Now that, in and of itself, isn't such a big deal (I think, I'm still gnawing on it), but what comes across to me is an apparent hypocrisy, or lack of intellectual integrity, or something similar.

I mean, if you yourself are willing to be the co-author of a paper which fails to meet your own criteria (for sound physics and/or cosmology), where does the vehement, apparently absolute, condemnation of everyone who publishes papers which also do not meet your criteria come from? In your view, would it be legitimate to denounce and deride you in the same terms as you have employed, for the very same (apparent) failing?

Can you clarify please?

* working out just what your actual criteria are is one of my biggest open questions

 

[temporalillusion]

(to be continued)

Feedback on this WIP most welcome.

GAH! Always the to be continued when it gets interesting!

My first feedback would be to have it in a separate thread instead of a post buried in a thread, easier to deal with and reference.

Second, I hope you do spend some good time with the implications of GR, something I think I don't fully get. During one thread I saw the term co-moving coordinates and it took me a bit to really get what that means, but I think that actually hurts me rather than helps me.

It was a thread about galaxies moving away faster than the speed of light, and the co-moving coordinates is only one way to view it.. the other way was that galaxies further away have time moving more slowly so are younger (as we would appear younger to them), but that's something I don't think I fully appreciate the implications of.

Anyway, look forward to the continuation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

This part of your post, that I am quoting here, contains something that I am greatly puzzled by (I've bolded the key bits).

You see Michael, in quite a few posts, in this thread and at least two others in this part of the JREF Forum, you have expressed the opinion that the only thing which counts - in physics and cosmology - is something like controlled experimentation*. And you have used extremely strong language to denounce and deride all those who do not employ those criteria of yours.

Yet you are the co-author of a published paper whose key result (or claim) is based upon work that you yourself have said (in this post) does not meet your own criteria!

Well, that is certainly not true. Unlike your useless inflation theory, I can actually produce a neutron for you in a lab. I can show you that they actually exist in nature and have some affect on nature. They are absolutely not a figment of my imagination and I can demonstrate in numerous experiments not done by Michael Mozina, et all. It's clear that the three of us did not "create them" in our head.

Now you might argue that I can't stuff them together and make them form into a neutron star in a lab, but I'm not even personally complaining about what you are calling a "black hole" (something with an event horizon) because all of these theories require normal forms of matter mixed with a little GR. About the only thing I question in the black hole idea is the notion of *infinite* density.

I'm willing to let you scale empirically demonstrated things to size. I'm actually a *LOT* more liberal than most EU proponents that I know. Most of them toss out black hole theory and neutron star theory. I however am willing to let you scale things to size as long as you stick with known forms of matter and energy. I didn't complain about your neutron star or objects with an event horizon. I only complained what you literally *made up* inflation and "dark energy" and stuffed them into math formulas.

Now that, in and of itself, isn't such a big deal (I think, I'm still gnawing on it), but what comes across to me is an apparent hypocrisy, or lack of intellectual integrity, or something similar.

I'd say that your "interpretation" is a bit off. If I had ripped on your reliance of neutron star theory, and then wrote about them myself, *that* would by hypocrisy. I can demonstrate that neutrons actually exist in nature so I didn't bitch about your use of neutron material in any form. Since you can't physically demonstrate that inflation has any affect on anything, there's no hypocrisy involved.

I mean, if you yourself are willing to be the co-author of a paper which fails to meet your own criteria (for sound physics and/or cosmology),

Woah. I didn't say it failed to meet my own criteria. Neutrons certainly exist in nature. I simply said it wasn't my "favorite" solar model. I'm not even calling your solar model "woo" only because I disagree with it. At least I know that hydrogen exists in nature, and hydrogen fusion can occur on Earth in controlled conditions.

There's a big difference between something being "woo" and something that is difficult to demonstrate on Earth. Neutrons show up in controlled experiments on Earth. Woo does not. Inflation is woo. Neutron star theory is just "exotic" at worst case.

where does the vehement, apparently absolute, condemnation of everyone who publishes papers which also do not meet your criteria come from?

It comes from the fact that you teach it as "science" and it has nothing to do with empirical science. If you want to teach faith based belief systems in church as "religion", that's fine by me. If you intend to call inflation and dark energy "science", I want to see some empirical support of this claim, or I want you to stop teaching it to my children and calling it "science".

In your view, would it be legitimate to denounce and deride you in the same terms as you have employed, for the very same (apparent) failing?

No. Neutrons are clearly not a figment of anyone's imagination. We can't "scale" them to astronomical sizes here on Earth, so some things will have to be "untested". As long as you aren't just "making up" the thing that you are attempting to scale to a greater size, I won't complain. If you can't even produce a single experiment where inflation shows up on Earth, why should I believe it exists at all?

Are we clear now?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mean, how can "solar theory and cosmology theories" be, on the one hand, "independent to some degree and neither is necessarily dependent upon the other", yet on the other solar theory be a specialty "within EU/PC theory"?

Well, for one thing, Birkeland's solar model fits into "EU theory". Alfven and Bruce however used a standard solar model and simply added charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere. EU/PC theory is therefore "solar model independent". Birkeland demonstrated his case empirically and it jives with satellite observations, heliosiesmology studies and observed solar atmospheric discharges, jets, solar wind activity, etc. I have no idea if a plasma sun would actually do the things that Birkeland simulated in his lab with his model, but I'm willing to let you use that model if you prefer and still consider to be a "part of" EU theory, albeit one I don't personally subscribe to.

Whereas gas model theory is not dependent upon EU Theory, Birkelands solar model doesn't work without charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere. His solar model *is* dependent upon EU theory at least in a limited extent. On the other hand, Birkeland's solar model could be accurate, and some of Alfven's cosmology ideas may not be accurate.

In short, there are many variables to consider, but they all are applications of GR and MHD theory and would therefore fit my definition of EU/PC theory. Even "magnetic reconnection" (a word I personally loathe with a passion) is in fact nothing more than MHD theory and GR theory and therefore is in fact a part of EU/PC theory by my definition. It actually has wonderful mathematical models, just a terrible title and some confused concepts about what things actually do the physical transfer of energy.

Does that help clarify my position?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But what is this 'space' that is 'expanding', really?

It's another figment of your imagination and another thing you can't empirically demonstrate. It also sort of undermines the whole concept of "physics" since "space" is "physically undefined". It's a form of "metaphysics", the kind that never shows up in a controlled experiment on Earth.

Come on. Your DNA is obviously programmed with a lot of imagination too. How do you actually know if space expands or know that Guth didn't just make up inflation in his head?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm not. I have no beef with real physics.



I think you got the wrong impression from my last post. I'm not complaining about particle physicists. They (collectively) seem to understand that there are *many* possible 'interpretations' of these issues, not simply a single one. It's only the rigid dogma of astronomy that I have a problem with because it's not based on actual physics. It's based on a mathematical formula that is devoid of a physical explanation. Inflation for instance never shows up in a controlled experiment. The same is true of "dark energy". These are not physically explained, nor physically demonstrated.

Almost every particle physicist I know personally is very "open minded", particularly as it relates to the Higgs particle and how to "describe" a Higgs field. There's no *one* way to do it. The thing about the search for the Higgs is that it is an active search that is underway as we speak. I therefore have no beef at all with particle physics theory or physicists in general.

I let myself get "suckered in" here by allowing this group to focus on yet *another* thing that cannot yet be physically demonstrated and that therefore has no single, agreed upon physical solution. It's a red herring that I should never have let them start in the first place.

The difference between most physicists I know is that they are honestly looking for physical evidence in the physical world, right here, right now in real controlled experiments. Compare than to inflation and DE proponents who are content to simply point at the sky and tinker with their math based on what they observe in the sky. These are two *entirely* different approaches to science and while I respect for real science, I have no respect for point at the sky nonsense that has no predictive value whatsoever.

Physicists build actual hardware and physically *test* their ideas in controlled experiments. Astronomers seem content with understanding math, and ignoring physics altogether. A simple example is the astronomical concept of "magnetic reconnection". A magnetic lines has no physical substance, and it forms as a full and completely continuum, without beginning and without end. It is physically incapable of "reconnecting" at the level of actual physics. That does not stop them from labeling a particle reconnection process "magnetic reconnection". I get tired of their the utter *lack* of regard for the actual physical processes at work and the actual physics of what is going on.

OK, I understand your points. Sometimes it's difficult to tell who the villains are in your comments; but in fairness, you are doing battle with multiple adversaries and it's easy to get sidetracked.
So, is it not true that inflation and dark energy both explain astronomical observations and are consistent with GR, which you accept. So, for the time being, those appear to be the best explanations we have -- even though "real" (laboratory) evidence is not currently available.
Steady state models (as much as I prefer them -- when I was quite young -- in the 1950s -- I was actually a big fan of Fred Hoyle -- don't laugh.) suffer from contradictions (Olbers' paradox) and unexplained phenomena (time dilation of supernovae decay) and seem to violate laws of Physics (thermodynamics). You have refuted some of these statements but not in a manner that I have yet found convincing -- but I could be missing something (or a lot). I will "stay tuned"!

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, I understand your points. Sometimes it's difficult to tell who the villains are in your comments; but in fairness, you are doing battle with multiple adversaries and it's easy to get sidetracked.

I'm also doing most of the posting between tech calls at work. Sometimes I can be extremely sloppy and proofreading is minimal.

So, is it not true that inflation and dark energy both explain astronomical observations and are consistent with GR, which you accept.

I accept GR as taught by Einstein. I didn't include 'Dark energy" or "inflation", both of which were "made up" after his death. I'll be happy to let them associate these things with GR the moment they can demonstrate they exist and have some affect on objects. If they can't do that much, I have no confidence they exist or belong in any GR formulas. Gravity is essentially an "attractive" curvature. They've got it attracting at measurable distances and they have it doing repulsive tricks at distances I can never reach. That's quite a claim. How does gravity attract and repulse at the same time at different distances?

So, for the time being, those appear to be the best explanations we have --

Who determines what is the "best" explanation? Did they actually "explain" what "dark energy" is, where it comes from, etc? Did they demonstrate these things even exist in nature before *claiming* that they affect distant objects?

even though "real" (laboratory) evidence is not currently available.

Well, some lab evidence is available. In other words I will be happy to accept some form of "spacetime" expansion, where objects in motion stay in motion. That would in fact create redshift, but it would not explain *all* of the redshift. Even light from the sun gets redshifted by various mechanisms. I'll be happy to allow them to use *any* type of physical process that can be demonstrated and can be linked to a redshifting process. The "space" expansion concept however is out of the question unless they can demonstrate this actually occurs in nature.

Steady state models (as much as I prefer them -- when I was quite young -- in the 1950s -- I was actually a big fan of Fred Hoyle -- don't laugh.) suffer from contradictions (Olbers' paradox)

I've heard that before, but it typically it was done as a handwave rather than a real argument. Perhaps you could explain the Oblers paradox issue in your own words?

and unexplained phenomena (time dilation of supernovae decay) and seem to violate laws of Physics (thermodynamics). You have refuted some of these statements but not in a manner that I have yet found convincing -- but I could be missing something (or a lot). I will "stay tuned"!

I haven't personally invested a whole lot of time on the supernova data, although Ari has definitely done some work on it. I'm not sure what you figure violates the laws of thermodynamics, but if you can explain what you mean, I'll do my best to respond to it.

I've found from debating creationists over the years that "convincing" anyone is beyond my personal abilities. One has to be willing to change their mind, or choose a direction on their own. I can't really do that for anyone. I'm not really "convinced" of inflation or DE either anymore, so the doubt thing seems to work both ways depending on which side you pick.

I guess the best way I can explain my position is to suggest that I am willing to put some limited "faith" in a variety of ideas and concept that *can* be empirically demonstrated, even if some or all of them turn out to be wrong or are falsified over time. At least I know for sure that it *might* physically work that way based on the known laws of physics.

Theories however that begin with blind faith in something that evidently can *never* be demonstrated on Earth, seems extremely unappealing to me. When it then gets combined with yet several more of these mythical things, and only 4% of it is based on real physics, I'm really not interested anymore. It's nothing personal, I just prefer *real* physics with *real* things that show up in *real* experiments. Is that really a serious limitation?

Birkeland had a "theory" about how aurora worked. He did not just whip up a wee bit of math and claim "I solved the mystery". What he did was "by the book" empirical science. He built real "experiments" with actual "control mechanisms". He also took in-situ measurements from some of the harshest environments on the planet to compare with his lab results. Nothing was left to chance. He changed the parameters of his experiments by reversing the polarity of the sphere, changing the texture of the sphere, playing with magnetic field strengths, etc.

In this way he was able to "explain" not only aurora, but coronal loops, solar jets, solar wind acceleration, planetary rings, and many other things. Empirical physics isn't limiting in the least if one is creative and diligent. The only thing it actually limits is "woo". Lambda-CDM theory is 96 percent woo, and only 4% actual physics. That's just not acceptable to me. It can never be "better" than any other theory in my book because it's more than 90 percent "fudge factor". It only serves to demonstrate to me that their theory is flawed to the point of absurdity.

Now admittedly, EU/PC theory isn't as "adept" at explaining some of these long distance observations, but then which of these observations is most critical, and what exactly constitutes an "explanation"? Is DE actually "explained" in Lambda-Gumby theory? Of course not. It's just a name stuffed into a math formula.

I wish I could be young and naive again and just believe what they told me like I did when I was younger. It was so much easier, but then they weren't peddling nearly as much faith based dogma back then either.

It was a bit like loosing my religion all over again to see the flaws in Lambda theory. The first time that happened to me was somewhat painful at first, but once I got used to it, it served me very well over the years. It's been an interesting last few years learning about Birkeland's work and Alfven's work and Bruce's work and Peratt's work and I've learned a lot. I can't go back to Lambda-Gumby theory ever again I suppose, but that seems to be the price that one pays for questioning their "faith" in the "unseen" and for looking for new ways of viewing the universe. I'm used to it by now and I'm comfortable doing it.

The only difference between religion and Lambda-CMD theory is that Lambda-CMD theory is dressed up with fictitious mathematical formulas. To call it "better" however seems highly subjective. 10 years ago I may have agreed with you. Today however, I could not disagree more strongly.

For better or worse, MHD theory works in a lab, as does GR. Combining them and looking for answers in the universe can and does explain many things that still perplex and confuse the mainstream today, starting with solar wind acceleration. I'm far more interested in explaining event *inside* of our solar system than long distance observations. Maybe that is why I tend to be less impressed with long distance observations that they *claim* they can *explain* with a theory that is 96% "made up".

Like I said, it was easy to be a "believer", but once one starts to "lack belief" in their dogma, it's not like one can just stop lacking belief without some viable evidence. Science isn't supposed to be like religion. In a science class I shouldn't have to just have "faith" in something I can never hope to demonstrate in the physical world. Perhaps there is a time and a place for "faith", but it should not be in the science classroom IMO. That should be the sole realm of real and demonstrated physics.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I mean, how can "solar theory and cosmology theories" be, on the one hand, "independent to some degree and neither is necessarily dependent upon the other", yet on the other solar theory be a specialty "within EU/PC theory"?

Well, for one thing, Birkeland's solar model fits into "EU theory". Alfven and Bruce however used a standard solar model and simply added charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere. EU/PC theory is therefore "solar model independent". Birkeland demonstrated his case empirically and it jives with satellite observations, heliosiesmology studies and observed solar atmospheric discharges, jets, solar wind activity, etc. I have no idea if a plasma sun would actually do the things that Birkeland simulated in his lab with his model, but I'm willing to let you use that model if you prefer and still consider to be a "part of" EU theory, albeit one I don't personally subscribe to.

Whereas gas model theory is not dependent upon EU Theory, Birkelands solar model doesn't work without charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere. His solar model *is* dependent upon EU theory at least in a limited extent. On the other hand, Birkeland's solar model could be accurate, and some of Alfven's cosmology ideas may not be accurate.

In short, there are many variables to consider, but they all are applications of GR and MHD theory and would therefore fit my definition of EU/PC theory. Even "magnetic reconnection" (a word I personally loathe with a passion) is in fact nothing more than MHD theory and GR theory and therefore is in fact a part of EU/PC theory by my definition. It actually has wonderful mathematical models, just a terrible title and some confused concepts about what things actually do the physical transfer of energy.

Does that help clarify my position?

Again, thanks.

Sadly, no, it doesn't help at all.

In fact, this post makes things worse, in terms of my understanding of your view of cosmology. {where's the sad/crying smilie?}

You see, the earlier answer to my question (in another thread) - "Again, in your view, is there any distinction between PC and astronomy? PC and astrophysics? PC and space science? PC and the planetary sciences?" - was this (bold added):

There are "specialties" within EU/PC theory, but they all fall under the umbrella of EU/PC theory and space related physics.

You see, this clarification - of the definition of the MM version of PC* - makes 'plasma cosmology' synonymous with astronomy, and also synonymous with astrophysics (and so on). And if that's so, then - by the convention that applies to these sorts of things - none of what you included in your list can be independent (of PC**)!

Specifically, "Birkeland's solar model" cannot be independent of cosmology** ... and you state that it isn't (good).

But then what "Alfven and Bruce" developed must also, by definition, be cosmology, and cannot be independent of PC (bad).

And so on.

But perhaps the problem is with your own definition of PC?

Here it is again (from several posts in another thread, bold added):

In a broad sense [Plasma Cosmology, as defined by MM] is the application of MHD theory to objects in space, the combination of GR and MHD theory.

[Plasma Cosmology, as defined by MM] would include all thing related to astronomy in the sense that MHD theory and gravity applies to all objects in space, sure.

What role, if any, do other parts of physics play in PC? For example, atomic and nuclear physics.

Any *demonstrated* physics is fine to include if you like.

You see, as you've defined it, *every* "application[] of GR and MHD theory" "to objects in space" is PC (as long as it includes only "*demonstrated* physics", in addition to MHD and GR), by definition. So, as what "Alfven and Bruce" developed is an application of "MHD theory", it MUST be PC.

The inconsistency (or one of them anyway) is both fundamental and (seemingly) intractable: on the one hand, there can be only one "application[] of GR and MHD theory"; on the other, PC and astrophysics (and PC and astronomy) are synonymous.

Can you clarify please?

* BTW, how does "EU/PC theory" differ from the MM version of Plasma Cosmology?
** and, per your earlier post, your definition of PC encompasses all cosmology; there is no cosmology but PC (to put it crudely)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(bold added)

This part of your post, that I am quoting here, contains something that I am greatly puzzled by (I've bolded the key bits).

You see Michael, in quite a few posts, in this thread and at least two others in this part of the JREF Forum, you have expressed the opinion that the only thing which counts - in physics and cosmology - is something like controlled experimentation*. And you have used extremely strong language to denounce and deride all those who do not employ those criteria of yours.

Yet you are the co-author of a published paper whose key result (or claim) is based upon work that you yourself have said (in this post) does not meet your own criteria!

Well, that is certainly not true. Unlike your useless inflation theory, I can actually produce a neutron for you in a lab. I can show you that they actually exist in nature and have some affect on nature. They are absolutely not a figment of my imagination and I can demonstrate in numerous experiments not done by Michael Mozina, et all. It's clear that the three of us did not "create them" in our head.

Now you might argue that I can't stuff them together and make them form into a neutron star in a lab, but I'm not even personally complaining about what you are calling a "black hole" (something with an event horizon) because all of these theories require normal forms of matter mixed with a little GR. About the only thing I question in the black hole idea is the notion of *infinite* density.

I'm willing to let you scale empirically demonstrated things to size. I'm actually a *LOT* more liberal than most EU proponents that I know. Most of them toss out black hole theory and neutron star theory. I however am willing to let you scale things to size as long as you stick with known forms of matter and energy. I didn't complain about your neutron star or objects with an event horizon. I only complained what you literally *made up* inflation and "dark energy" and stuffed them into math formulas.

Now that, in and of itself, isn't such a big deal (I think, I'm still gnawing on it), but what comes across to me is an apparent hypocrisy, or lack of intellectual integrity, or something similar.

I'd say that your "interpretation" is a bit off. If I had ripped on your reliance of neutron star theory, and then wrote about them myself, *that* would by hypocrisy. I can demonstrate that neutrons actually exist in nature so I didn't bitch about your use of neutron material in any form. Since you can't physically demonstrate that inflation has any affect on anything, there's no hypocrisy involved.

I mean, if you yourself are willing to be the co-author of a paper which fails to meet your own criteria (for sound physics and/or cosmology),

Woah. I didn't say it failed to meet my own criteria. Neutrons certainly exist in nature. I simply said it wasn't my "favorite" solar model. I'm not even calling your solar model "woo" only because I disagree with it. At least I know that hydrogen exists in nature, and hydrogen fusion can occur on Earth in controlled conditions.

There's a big difference between something being "woo" and something that is difficult to demonstrate on Earth. Neutrons show up in controlled experiments on Earth. Woo does not. Inflation is woo. Neutron star theory is just "exotic" at worst case.

[...]

Are we clear now?

Thanks for this, it certainly goes some way to clarifying things, yes.

However, there's one central point that still needs tidying up ...

You see, in your earlier post you said (bold added): "The neutron core theory is not my "preferred" solar model. [...] The reason for that is simple. I can't physically demonstrate neutron materials condense under pressure", but in your later post (the one I'm quoting) you said "Woah. I didn't say it failed to meet my own criteria".

So, may readers infer that "physical demonstration" is not one of the criteria you apply, in assessing whether something is acceptable in you view of cosmology? At least, it is not an essential criterion that must always apply? I appreciate that a physical demonstration of what is certainly important (in your view of cosmology), but I want to be clear that physical demonstration itself is not an absolute, blanket criterion.

(I'll address your lengthy post more comprehensively later)

 

[Tubbythin]

I accept GR as taught by Einstein.

No you don't. If you did you wouldn't be arguing about whether spacetime could expand or not.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well, for one thing, Birkeland's solar model fits into "EU theory". [...] Birkeland demonstrated his case empirically and it jives with satellite observations, heliosiesmology studies and observed solar atmospheric discharges, jets, solar wind activity, etc. I have no idea if a plasma sun would actually do the things that Birkeland simulated in his lab with his model, but I'm willing to let you use that model if you prefer and still consider to be a "part of" EU theory, albeit one I don't personally subscribe to.

Whereas gas model theory is not dependent upon EU Theory, Birkelands solar model doesn't work without charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere. His solar model *is* dependent upon EU theory at least in a limited extent. [...]

In short, there are many variables to consider, but they all are applications of GR and MHD theory and would therefore fit my definition of EU/PC theory. [...]

Does that help clarify my position?

(bold added)

Taking another look at this, I find it even more confusing than my first read!

First, I really, really would like you to clarify what the distinctions are between "EU theory", "EU/PC theory", and your version of Plasma Cosmology. As far as I can tell, reading your recent posts, you use them interchangeably (and so they are synonyms, at least as far as their relevance to cosmology is concerned), but I am far from sure of this conclusion.

Second, I cannot fathom how "Birkeland's solar model" could fit your definition of PC, where that definition is "applications of GR and MHD theory".

For starters, MHD wasn't even invented until well after Birkeland died, and for seconds he cannot have incorporated GR into his models as GR was only published in 1916 (the year before Birkeland died).

Third, what is "gas model theory"?

Can you clarify please?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Birkeland had a "theory" about how aurora worked. He did not just whip up a wee bit of math and claim "I solved the mystery". What he did was "by the book" empirical science. He built real "experiments" with actual "control mechanisms". He also took in-situ measurements from some of the harshest environments on the planet to compare with his lab results. Nothing was left to chance. He changed the parameters of his experiments by reversing the polarity of the sphere, changing the texture of the sphere, playing with magnetic field strengths, etc.

In this way he was able to "explain" not only aurora, but coronal loops, solar jets, solar wind acceleration, planetary rings, and many other things.

[...]

(bold added)

I'm curious about one thing, per this part of your post that I'm quoting: how do you regard tusenfem?

I mean, he has a PhD in plasma physics, taught by "Saint Hannes" himself. He also is very familiar with ""by the book" empirical science" and with the "real "experiments" with actual "control mechanisms"" that are the modern day heirs of Birkeland's work (lab research as is done by the likes of the Princeton Plasma Physic Lab). But even more pertinent, he has got his hands dirty with a number of in situ experiments involving some of the very phenomena Birkeland could only observe remotely (e.g. aurora and solar wind acceleration).

A second thing I'm curious about is the part of your post I bolded: how was Birkeland able to "explain" planetary rings (I assume you mean the rings of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune)? I'm particularly curious about this because the only planetary rings known during Birkeland's lifetime were Saturn's.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well, that is certainly not true. Unlike your useless inflation theory, I can actually produce a neutron for you in a lab. I can show you that they actually exist in nature and have some affect on nature. They are absolutely not a figment of my imagination and I can demonstrate in numerous experiments not done by Michael Mozina, et all. It's clear that the three of us did not "create them" in our head.

Now you might argue that I can't stuff them together and make them form into a neutron star in a lab, but I'm not even personally complaining about what you are calling a "black hole" (something with an event horizon) because all of these theories require normal forms of matter mixed with a little GR. About the only thing I question in the black hole idea is the notion of *infinite* density.

I'm willing to let you scale empirically demonstrated things to size. I'm actually a *LOT* more liberal than most EU proponents that I know. Most of them toss out black hole theory and neutron star theory. I however am willing to let you scale things to size as long as you stick with known forms of matter and energy. I didn't complain about your neutron star or objects with an event horizon. I only complained what you literally *made up* inflation and "dark energy" and stuffed them into math formulas.



I'd say that your "interpretation" is a bit off. If I had ripped on your reliance of neutron star theory, and then wrote about them myself, *that* would by hypocrisy. I can demonstrate that neutrons actually exist in nature so I didn't bitch about your use of neutron material in any form. Since you can't physically demonstrate that inflation has any affect on anything, there's no hypocrisy involved.



Woah. I didn't say it failed to meet my own criteria. Neutrons certainly exist in nature. I simply said it wasn't my "favorite" solar model. I'm not even calling your solar model "woo" only because I disagree with it. At least I know that hydrogen exists in nature, and hydrogen fusion can occur on Earth in controlled conditions.

There's a big difference between something being "woo" and something that is difficult to demonstrate on Earth. Neutrons show up in controlled experiments on Earth. Woo does not. Inflation is woo. Neutron star theory is just "exotic" at worst case.



It comes from the fact that you teach it as "science" and it has nothing to do with empirical science. If you want to teach faith based belief systems in church as "religion", that's fine by me. If you intend to call inflation and dark energy "science", I want to see some empirical support of this claim, or I want you to stop teaching it to my children and calling it "science".



No. Neutrons are clearly not a figment of anyone's imagination. We can't "scale" them to astronomical sizes here on Earth, so some things will have to be "untested". As long as you aren't just "making up" the thing that you are attempting to scale to a greater size, I won't complain. If you can't even produce a single experiment where inflation shows up on Earth, why should I believe it exists at all?

Are we clear now?

Thanks again.

There's a lot in this post of yours Michael that seems to clarify this apparently core aspect of your view of cosmology: "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", "physically demonstrate [something other than] squat", "actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way", "some evidence to support [one's] claim", "any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate [something] conclusively", "demonstrate [something] isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically", "show [everyone something] exists in a controlled experiment", and "physically demonstrate[] many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation"

But first, a request if I may? Just as you asked (stated?) in another thread that you not be regarded as having the same views as another poster (Zeuzzz), could you please refrain from talking about the views of "EU proponents" other than yourself? I mean, in this thread you are the only one (I think), and in threads where there are others, surely they can speak for themselves?

I get the bit about scaling ("scale empirically demonstrated things to size")*, but I'm unsure about extrapolation in general; could you clarify a bit, by stating what other kinds of extrapolation are acceptable (other than by "size", which I take to mean linear/spatial dimension)? For example, is it acceptable to scale by mass? by electric charge? by temperature? by pressure? by ...?

However, the most interesting part of this post, wrt my understanding of the MM view of cosmology, concerns neutrons and neutron stars.

I get that there are neutrons, and that they meet the criteria that seem to be embedded in the phrases I quoted above (from another of your posts, the phrases in italics). I also get that because neutrons pass the MM test for (potential) acceptability in cosmology models, then they can be scaled ("to size").

What I don't get, yet, is how - in detail - neutron stars become acceptable (at least in principle), in your view of cosmology.

Could you clarify please?

* though I'd like to take a closer look at this later, wrt how the limits of any such scaling can be determined, empirically or otherwise

 

[sol invictus]

No you don't. If you did you wouldn't be arguing about whether spacetime could expand or not.

Or whether Lorentz scalar condensates dilute.

 

[Perpetual Student]

No you don't. If you did you wouldn't be arguing about whether spacetime could expand or not.

Einstein developed GR before Hubble's discoveries and, with the inclusion of lambda, GR was quite consistent with a steady state universe.

 

[Tubbythin]

Einstein developed GR before Hubble's discoveries and, with the inclusion of lambda, GR was quite consistent with a steady state universe.

I'm not sure what you're point is (that might sound quite rude, it isn't meant to be). IANAE but... one solution of Einstein's equations including Lambda could, in principle, have given a Universe that was not expanding or contracting. But it wouldn't be steady in any real sense because the resultant scenario is an unstable equilibrium. Hence the alleged "greatest blunder".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

GAH! Always the to be continued when it gets interesting!

My first feedback would be to have it in a separate thread instead of a post buried in a thread, easier to deal with and reference.

Second, I hope you do spend some good time with the implications of GR, something I think I don't fully get. During one thread I saw the term co-moving coordinates and it took me a bit to really get what that means, but I think that actually hurts me rather than helps me.

It was a thread about galaxies moving away faster than the speed of light, and the co-moving coordinates is only one way to view it.. the other way was that galaxies further away have time moving more slowly so are younger (as we would appear younger to them), but that's something I don't think I fully appreciate the implications of.

Anyway, look forward to the continuation.

Thanks for the feedback.

It may be a while before I get to post the next installment, if only because I'm putting my time into trying to understand the MM view of cosmology, as a science.