Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[derekmcd]

I would like a *specific* criticism where he introduced an error. This handwave stuff is getting old. You all use a different handwave argument and there is never a specific criticism. At least Tim seems to have some idea on how papers are supposed to be critiqued and how to be "specific" in his criticisms.

The abstract alone is riddled with errors and misconceptions. I'll address them tomorrow night if I have time. Remind me if I forget.

 

[derekmcd]

What can I pick up at the store for you to demonstrate inflation for me? I'll give you $50 dollar budget. Keep in mind I can demonstrate the real effects of gravity and EM fields on real objects for under $30.

So, if we throw your plasma toy out the widow, does that equal a "theory of everything"?

 

[derekmcd]

Nothing cannot expand. If you believe "space" expands, I want to see you demonstrate it. It's your claim, not mine.

I'm confused... I though you weren't objectifying 'space'.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I think you missed my point. He not only came up with a way to explain the aurora, but solar activity as well.

Huh?!?

As I read Birkeland (again, many thanks to IT for his excellent compilation), Birkeland's "explanation" is, by today's standards, quite modest ... and his "explanation" of "solar activity" amazingly limited (again, by today's standards ... goodness, he didn't even mention solar neutrinos, much less the gamma ray spectrum of solar flares!).

The mainstream took more than 60 years to accept *some* of his ideas related to aurora because they like Chapman's math better.

That may, or may not, be so.

However, it also took mere decades for "the mainstream" (is that a river?) to conclude that *some* of his ideas related to aurora were, empirically, wrong.

At the rate they are going, it could them them another 60 years for them to realize that Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity.

Or it could take "them" (you sound like a conspiracy theorist) forever, or 10 days, or ...

Why not put "the mainstream" out of its misery, by writing a paper which shows, once and for all, in great clarity and quantitative detail, how "Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity"? You don't even have to submit it to any relevant peer-reviewed journal, simply add it to your website, and then post a link to it here!

I'll be dead by then! Just because an idea is correct or accurate does not mean that the mainstream is immediately going to recognize it. They don't work that way. Look how long they clung to Chapman's math? It's probably still in use today.

So, to bring this back to the thing I'm interested in ...

... how, exactly, in the MM view of "empiricism" does one show that "an idea is correct or accurate"? In the field of cosmology of course, however you choose to define it.

Recognition is more than about 'awards', it's about giving him the credit he was due, and accepting his "explanations" for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*.

So, how about this for a plan:

You write up a paper (or papers) showing - in considerable, quantitative detail - just how good/accurate/right/etc Birkeland's "explanations" "for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*" are. You then put it up on your website and let us all know about it. One (or more) of us will then take that material, make some trivial edits to it, change the name of the author, and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal. When the phone call from Stockholm comes, we promise to give you (and Birkeland) full credit for the ideas, in our acceptance speeches.

Sound like a plan to you?

That "evolution" you describe is but a series of never ending "fudging with the numbers" because you never intend to empirically demonstrate any of it. The moment the theory fails, you just modify it here, snip a little from there, tuck a bit over there, and viola, it's "evolved" not into a "prediction machine" capable of predicting anything, anywhere, anytime.

And you can, being a true empiricist, show this - objectively, etc - by first describing this prediction machine, then making it demonstrate that the Moon is made of green cheese, that colourless green dreams sleep furiously, and that the morm raths outgrabe (but only on the sixth Sundays in February).

Holy cow, with a theory that's 96 percent fudge factor, what can't it explain? Oh ya, those "dark flows". I guess inflation will "evolve" again pretty soon eh?

(bold added)

I must have missed this one - can you explain please?

I'm simply noting that your inflation deity isn't mathematical "no show" deity in town. I'm frankly more interested in your reaction to that last paper I cited and it's "explanation" of redshift *without* expanding space. You and I both seem to be willing to entertain an objects in motion sort of expansion, and no other type of expansion seems to be required in the first place.

This is not addressed to me, but ...

... I'm interested in why you haven't - yet - poured scorn on that last paper, for failing the oft-mentioned MM tests of empirical science.

 

[derekmcd]

Huh? The fact something is published and written about does not demonstrate it has scientific merit.

Oh, the hipocracy...

You are a hoot, Michael.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Huh? The fact something is published and written about does not demonstrate it has scientific merit.

Indeed.

People write about numerology all the time and just like you, they can't demonstrate their math has any useful predictive value whatsoever when it comes to predicting the outcome of controlled experimentation.

Thanks for this.

It gives me an idea of how to quantify the MM approach to describing the key criteria for assessing acceptability in cosmology, as a science.

Of course, in terms of its correspondence with empiricism in (most/much of) modern science, I guess one could say that coincidences do happen ...

For avoidance of doubt: the "useful predictive value" of almost all of modern LCDM models is demonstrated in a substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, possibly a large majority.

Care to discuss this further?

Since then, it's been 10+ more pages of tap dancing, and not one demonstration that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination. It is purely made up just like any other mythos.

Not.

Relatively early on I posted a link to the arXiv preprint of a major WMAP5 paper.

I note that you have, not once, referenced either my posts on that or the paper itself.

Why?

But I'm not the only one in the world who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory!
http://cosmologystatement.org/

Indeed.

However, you are the only one "who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory" who is posting in this thread (at least, as far as we know ... it is entirely possible that DRD is also such a person ).

 

[Perpetual Student]

But I'm not the only one in the world who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory!
http://cosmologystatement.org/

That is a strong statement and an impressive list of people. Many of the signatories are physicists, cosmologists and people with other strong scientific credentials. I find that quite an attention getting development and very compelling. Do any of MM's adversaries have anything to say about that statement and its signatories?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If you touch both terminals of the battery to the top of your tongue, you'll feel the tingle of the electrical current as it runs through your tongue. That is "electricity" and it has an effect on the plasma in the plasma ball.

Yeah, I certainly feel a 'tingle'.

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

Next?

Plug in the plasma ball and turn it on. When you turn it on you can watch the electrical currents (like the one that ran through your tongue) created filamentary shapes in the plasma and light up those filaments.

OK, turned it on, and I can see some nice colours (though I know a relative of mine would call them horrible) which have some interesting shapes; the coloured shapes move about.

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand.

OK, did that.

As you let go of the ball, gravity will cause the ball to fall into your other hand,

Surely you jest, Michael!

It's not "gravity" which causes this to happen! It's the inflation deity!!

and yet the currents will still be moving and flowing inside the ball. Turn off the switch on the side of the ball and notice how the filaments disappear inside the plasma ball. Turn it back on again and watch what happens.

OK, did that; the pretty coloured shapes came back, but they were different than last time.

In this case the control mechanism to demonstrate gravity exists in nature is you hand that releases the ball. The effect of gravity causes the ball to fall. You can repeat this process as many times as you like if you doubt gravity will cause the ball to fall. Likewise you can turn the switch on and off (with the ball plugged in of course) and control the flow of electricity inside the plasma.

I believe the technical term for this is tautology.

Or perhaps it's just an example of a definition ("gravity" is the name MM gives as the answer to my question "why does the plasma ball fall from one hand to the other when I let it go?").

In any case, there is no mention of "EM fields", so does my turning on (and off) of the switch, watching pretty coloured shapes, and dropping the plasma ball from one hand to the other constitute a controlled experiment demonstrating that EM fields do NOT exist in nature?

Care to demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination now? Keep in mind my experiment cost $30 and demonstrates gravity and EM fields are not a figment of my personal imagination.

Easy.

Repeat the steps you described in your post, with your own plasma ball.

In particular: Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand. As you let go of the ball, inflation will cause the ball to fall into your other hand.

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

 

[Michael Mozina]

The abstract alone is riddled with errors and misconceptions. I'll address them tomorrow night if I have time. Remind me if I forget.

Of all the people I've met on the internet, I trust your personal grasp of GR more than anyone else I've ever met, probably myself included on some aspects. I would very much appreciate your insights.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That is a strong statement and an impressive list of people. Many of the signatories are physicists, cosmologists and people with other strong scientific credentials. I find that quite an attention getting development and very compelling. Do any of MM's adversaries have anything to say about that statement and its signatories?

I'm not sure if I fall into the category of "MM adversary", but here's an idea:

Why don't we do a "Project Steve" on this topic?

(Are you familiar with the original Project Steve, PS?)

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm not sure if I fall into the category of "MM adversary", but here's an idea:

Why don't we do a "Project Steve" on this topic?

(Are you familiar with the original Project Steve, PS?)

I'm not sure what your response means. Yes, there are lists of creationists with resumes of one kind or another. I made the point that the list MM showed includes a good number of physicists, astronomers and cosmologists. Only the occasional oddball-crackpot biologist embraces creationism.
Furthermore, evolution is a foundational theory. I would hope you would admit that modern cosmology is in its infancy and may undergo many modifications before anything "foundational" is established.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, I certainly feel a 'tingle'.

So what do you figure caused that tingle?

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"

Next?

Er, you missed an important point there. Moving electrons made your tongue tingle. They exist in nature. You measured the voltage of the battery with your meter. Consumer products run on "electricity" and they measure EM fields. You mentioned that your meter for instance read 9 volts. If it read 8 volts instead of nine, you would know that the battery was defective and you would have had a right to complain to the manufacturer who claimed it was 9 volts.

How do I go about "measuring" inflation in a controlled experiment? What consumer product can I purchase the runs on "inflation"?

OK, turned it on, and I can see some nice colours (though I know a relative of mine would call them horrible) which have some interesting shapes; the coloured shapes move about.

Those nice colors are caused by the flow of electricity inside the plasma. That electron flow that made your tongue tingle, and made your volt meter register a voltage also causes the plasma to move and flow into tornado like filaments inside the plasma. The pretty colors are caused by charged particles emitting photons. It's basically the same process that occurs in lighting strikes on Earth, and electrical energy and current flow is quite common in nature.

In your post I read no mention of either "gravity" or "EM fields"; ergo, you have not "empirically demonstrate[d] that gravity and EM fields exist in nature"


OK, did that.


Surely you jest, Michael!

It's not "gravity" which causes this to happen! It's the inflation deity!!

Er no, that would have to fly UP and hit the ceiling for Nereid the inflation deity to be involved, at least according to your math.

OK, did that; the pretty coloured shapes came back, but they were different than last time.

What's the "power source" that you're plugged into by the way, and what happens when you unplug it from the wall instead of turning off the switch?

In any case, there is no mention of "EM fields", so does my turning on (and off) of the switch, watching pretty coloured shapes, and dropping the plasma ball from one hand to the other constitute a controlled experiment demonstrating that EM fields do NOT exist in nature?

No, it demonstrates the electron flow and gravity show up here on Earth, unlike your Nereid who didn't make the ball fly up and hit the ceiling.

Easy.

Repeat the steps you described in your post, with your own plasma ball.

In particular: Pick up the ball, and put one hand a few inches below the ball and let go of the ball with your other hand. As you let go of the ball, inflation will cause the ball to fall into your other hand.

Sorry, but if that were so, you're "smaller than a breadbox" thingamabob would never have gone "bang". Your inflation deity is dead.

Here's the question again: "Can you, MM, empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature, in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions I, DRD, might have on these subjects?"

I can demonstrate that there are real consumer products that claim to run on electricity, generate and detect EM fields and and detect gravity. Can you show me one consumer product that claims or reports to run on inflation?

IMO this only demonstrates how irrational your argument has become. While I have no problem providing you with ample consumer product based on EM fields and the manipulation of EM fields, you've got squat. You've got a numerology gig that never "predicted" the "dark flows" you keep ignoring. Hoy.

Next week you'll probably assign Nereid the inflation deity new and improved "dark flow" features and you'll then tell me to bow down to your new and improved Nereid, the ever imaginary and ever changing inflation/dark energy/dark flow deity of outer space! You folks really are a goofy cult.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For avoidance of doubt: the "useful predictive value" of almost all of modern LCDM models is demonstrated in a substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, possibly a large majority.

So by your definition we must accept the existence of any deity due to "popularity" and the fact that people write about said deity and it gets published. Sorry, that won't fly with anyone here.

However, you are the only one "who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory" who is posting in this thread (at least, as far as we know ... it is entirely possible that DRD is also such a person ).

That is irrelevant. The onus of responsibility is on the one making the claim. If you wish to claim inflation exists in nature, I want to see it demonstrated *before* you start whipping up math formulas. A really simple demonstration of concept is acceptable, but pure math is not. Whole virtual worlds can be can be created in software that have no physical connection to reality as we know it.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm not sure what your response means. Yes, there are lists of creationists with resumes of one kind or another. I made the point that the list MM showed includes a good number of physicists, astronomers and cosmologists. Only the occasional oddball-crackpot biologist embraces creationism.
Furthermore, evolution is a foundational theory. I would hope you would admit that modern cosmology is in its infancy and may undergo many modifications before anything "foundational" is established.

When a discussion about the scientific merit - or otherwise - of a particular model (or, in this case, a class of models) descends into drawing up lists of who's 'for' and who's 'agin', it's time to call it a day.

If you - or any other JREF Forum member reading this - thinks that the answer to the question that this thread poses is "Yes, contemporary LCDM models are scientific woo", then please say so.

If you do so say, please explain your answer, in as much detail as you feel comfortable with.

If you have doubts - that the answer may be "yes", for example - then please say so, and express those doubts as clearly and cogently as you can.

On a personal note, if you think you understand what MM's key criteria are - for assessing acceptability wrt cosmology, as a science - please say so, and please, please summarise what you think those criteria are. I think the record of my posts in this thread is quite clear - I have tried quite hard to understand that those criteria are, but have had essentially no success with my first approach. Asking you, PS, is a third approach (of course, I extend my invitation to all JREF Forum members reading this post to also post your understanding of what those criteria are).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Relatively early on I posted a link to the arXiv preprint of a major WMAP5 paper.

I note that you have, not once, referenced either my posts on that or the paper itself.

Why?

I must have missed it, and frankly it sounds like another point at the sky and add math exercises. I'd first like to see you demonstrate that the inflation deity exists and has some effect on nature *before* you claim she does tricks in the sky.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When a discussion about the scientific merit - or otherwise - of a particular model (or, in this case, a class of models) descends into drawing up lists of who's 'for' and who's 'agin', it's time to call it a day.

But when you "predict" it's going to get published by a who's who list that's ok? Sheesh.

If you - or any other JREF Forum member reading this - thinks that the answer to the question that this thread poses is "Yes, contemporary LCDM models are scientific woo", then please say so.

YES!

If you do so say, please explain your answer, in as much detail as you feel comfortable with.

You can't demonstrate your deity does anything to anything.

On a personal note, if you think you understand what MM's key criteria are

*Empirical physics!*

 

[Michael Mozina]

Out of curiosity....

Did your WMAP paper you mentioned deal with the "dark flow" observation? If so, could you please post the link again? If it didn't deal with that observation of dark flow, why not?

 

[temporalillusion]

On a personal note, if you think you understand what MM's key criteria are - for assessing acceptability wrt cosmology, as a science - please say so, and please, please summarise what you think those criteria are.

Wal Mart Cosmology™ - Must be demonstrated with $50 or less of equipment or it doesn't exist

 

[DeiRenDopa]

For avoidance of doubt: the "useful predictive value" of almost all of modern LCDM models is demonstrated in a substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, possibly a large majority.

So by your definition we must accept the existence of any deity due to "popularity" and the fact that people write about said deity and it gets published. Sorry, that won't fly with anyone here.

No.

Obviously, my post was insufficiently clear if that is how you interpreted it; let me try again.

I'm going to start my clarification by quoting from an earlier post by ben m, in this thread (extracts):

Inflation is a hypothesis. [...]

With inflation, we do exactly what we're supposed to do with hypotheses: make predictions and try to verify or falsify them using all available means. [...]

There is no actual scientific-method objection to the fact that inflation is a hypothesis, nor to the observational model-testing apparatus that appears to confirm it. Nor would there be any objection to a non-inflation hypothesis which also passed such tests. (Not that you have suggested one.)

So, what is the "useful predictive value" of inflation?

Hypothesis formation.

Specifically, the extent to which the concept can be used to formulate clear, quantitative, testable hypotheses.

That - the formulation of clear, quantitative, testable hypotheses (and their subsequent testing) - is the essential core of empiricism.

A substantial proportion of papers on cosmology, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, are the empirical demonstration of the "useful predictive value" of inflation.

However, you are the only one "who lacks belief in inflation and DE and Lambda-CDM theory" who is posting in this thread (at least, as far as we know ... it is entirely possible that DRD is also such a person ).

That is irrelevant. The onus of responsibility is on the one making the claim. If you wish to claim inflation exists in nature, I want to see it demonstrated *before* you start whipping up math formulas. A really simple demonstration of concept is acceptable, but pure math is not. Whole virtual worlds can be can be created in software that have no physical connection to reality as we know it.

Thank you, Michael.

Let's remind ourselves of what the question posed in the OP is, shall we?

It is: "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?"

Let's, for now, leave aside the fact - yes, fact - that "inflation" is not, strictly speaking, part of "Lambda-CDM theory" (a fact pointed out quite early in this thread).

Let's, also for now, leave aside the fact - yet, fact - that there is no such thing as "Lambda-CDM theory" (also pointed out quite early in this thread).

Instead, let's focus on what the claim is, made in the OP, by the OP.

In essence, that claim is "contemporary LCDM cosmological models are scientific woo".

And who is making this claim, in this thread? Only Michael Mozina.

Now, had the OP - and its question - been something like "what is the empirical support for the concept of inflation, in modern cosmology?", perhaps your objection would be pertinent.

But it wasn't, and so it isn't.

"The onus of responsibility is on the one making the claim." Indeed.

The claim is being made by Michael Mozina, so it is he who has the onus of responsibility.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wal Mart Cosmology™ - Must be demonstrated with $50 or less of equipment or it doesn't exist

Real things that run on real physics tend to show up at Walmart. You only seem to need a "specialist" when it comes to taro card readings, numerology or inflation. EM fields show up in Walmart products. In fact pretty much all fields and forces and curvatures of nature show up in products at Walmart. I can't think of too many that don't in fact. Those that do not, tend to be related to issues of national security, or financial limitations.