Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not talking about negative air pressure in terms of a vacuum, I'm talking about negative air pressure when talking about how a wing flies. Positive and negative air pressure with respect to the ambient pressure. Negative meaning lower than ambient air pressure.

"Lower ambient air pressure" is not "negative pressure". Guth's model requires "negative pressure". These are fundamentally different issues. One can have 'lower pressure' on the top of the wing, and create lift from the higher pressure under the wing, but that is not "negative pressure", simply a 'difference in pressure' between the top and bottom of the wing.

Your graphic has big arrows and little arrows.. what do the big arrows represent?

Pressure at the subatomic level. The little blue arrows between the the plates also represent kinetic pressure. There is just move of it on the outside pressing in than on the inside pressing out. There "pressure" is not "negative" even at the atomic level, let alone at the level of subatomic interaction.

You are addressing the key issue here. Guth's model requires "negative pressure". That does not exist in even a "pure vacuum". The vacuums today are full of kinetic energy and "pressure" from even the atomic level. There cannot be a "negative pressure", only a "pressure differential", but Guth's model *requires* "negative pressure", not simply a "lower pressure".

This is in fact Guth's fatal flaw. It requires something that is physically impossible.

 

[sol invictus]

This is in fact Guth's fatal flaw. It requires something that is physically impossible.

Why do you make these stupid pronouncements? Do you think anyone believes them?

I already told you how to get negative pressure - it's simply a tension. Einstein included a term with precisely the same property in GR.

Oh, and you don't understand the term "vacuum".

 

[Dancing David]

So lets see, photons have 'kinetic' energy, nutrinos have kinetic energy.

never mind the field effects, never mind that they are waves.

MM says they are little balls and that they carry energy as little balls.

But don't ask him to demonstrate that.

And especially don't ask him to show how Virtual Particles represent 'kinetic' energy.

So as the frequency of a photon increases it's kinetic energy increases?
Does the mass of a photon really increase with frequency?
Is the mass of an x-ray photon higher than the mass of a low frequency radio wave?
I could be wrong on this.

 

[temporalillusion]

"Lower ambient air pressure" is not "negative pressure". Guth's model requires "negative pressure". These are fundamentally different issues. One can have 'lower pressure' on the top of the wing, and create lift from the higher pressure under the wing, but that is not "negative pressure", simply a 'difference in pressure' between the top and bottom of the wing.

That's all negative means, a difference between one and another, but in the case of negative the difference falls below zero or the ground state.

Pressure at the subatomic level. The little blue arrows between the the plates also represent kinetic pressure. There is just move of it on the outside pressing in than on the inside pressing out. There "pressure" is not "negative" even at the atomic level, let alone at the level of subatomic interaction.

I don't even know what any of this means. What pressure from what subatomic particles? Subatomic particles hitting the plates?

You are addressing the key issue here. Guth's model requires "negative pressure". That does not exist in even a "pure vacuum". The vacuums today are full of kinetic energy and "pressure" from even the atomic level. There cannot be a "negative pressure", only a "pressure differential", but Guth's model *requires* "negative pressure", not simply a "lower pressure".

This is in fact Guth's fatal flaw. It requires something that is physically impossible.

When talking about vacuum I don't think I'm talking about just a lack of atoms or sub-atomic particles, I'm talking about the structure of space itself, the thing from which particles themselves arise.

You haven't answered any of my other questions:

"Energy in motion" has no meaning. Can you define it clearly? Where does the energy come from? Where's it moving to? Why is it moving? Why can't you detect that motion by changing the orientation of the plates?

What is the "Blocking effect"? Is that a physics term? Or a new force? Why doesn't this blocking effect happen more if I put the same plates together in an atmosphere, one would think with more atoms to block the effect would be larger!

If the pressure on the plates is from kinetic energy imparted by atomic or subatomic particles, how do you account for the difference on one side of the plate to another?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So lets see, photons have 'kinetic' energy,

Yes. It the wavelength determines the energy state.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00930.htm

nutrinos have kinetic energy.

Definitely. That is how we are able to detect them.
http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/ykphd/chap3-2.html

never mind the field effects, never mind that they are waves.

I'm not asking you to "never mind" anything, in fact the carrier particle of the EM field is the photon.

MM says they are little balls and that they carry energy as little balls.

No, they are quantized little "packets" of wave/particle in the case of photons, and simply kinetic energy in motion in the case of neutrinos.

But don't ask him to demonstrate that.

Fortunately smarter and better funded folks have already done that for us.

So as the frequency of a photon increases it's kinetic energy increases?

The wavelength and energy state are related, yes. A gamma ray carries and delivers more kinetic energy than a wavelength of visible light. That is why gamma rays are bad for humans, whereas visible light is a good thing.

Does the mass of a photon really increase with frequency?

It would be more appropriate to say the *kinetic energy* of the photon increases.

Is the mass of an x-ray photon higher than the mass of a low frequency radio wave?

It's total energy state is greater, yes. Again, it's more appropriate to think in terms of kinetic energy IMO.

I could be wrong on this.

You are. I'm frankly surprised no one bothered to break it to you gently. FYI, you might checkout how a photocell works. It helps to explain the "kinetic energy" aspect of photons and how they create the movement of electrons in the photocell.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why do you make these stupid pronouncements? Do you think anyone believes them?

I think it's absurd to claim a vacuum has negative pressure. Sooner or later others will also realize it's a lame idea.

I already told you how to get negative pressure - it's simply a tension.

A "tension' of "what"? There is no such thing as "negative pressure". Pressure is simply a function of kinetic energy in motion, typically related to the movement of atoms in a gas. It can apply to kinetic energy like the energy in photons too because photons carry kinetic energy too.

Einstein included a term with precisely the same property in GR.

What does that have to do with a "vacuum" having "negative pressure"? Mass may have an effect on "spacetime", but a "pure vacuum" (devoid of all mass and energy) does not.

Oh, and you don't understand the term "vacuum".

It is you that does not understand the term "vacuum". All "vacuums" have atoms in them. All vacuums have neutrinos blowing through them by the trillions. There can only be "positive pressure" because it is directly related to kinetic energy. In a vacuum we cannot even achieve a "zero" energy state because we can't even remove all the atoms from the chamber, let alone all the subatomic kinetic energy!

Why didn't any of you bother to explain to DD that photons carry kinetic energy?

 

[Reality Check]

The only difference here is at the level of QM it's simply "subatomic kinetic energy". The "fluctuations" as you call them are due to the fact that no vacuum is devoid of *all energy*, and they never will be. There is no "negative pressure" inside even the very best vacuums on Earth, and at the subatomic level, there is an enormous amount of kinetic energy in motion even in the best of vacuums.

The fluctuations are a result of the same QEDequations that have been tested to parts per billion in QED experiments. They are present even if there was no matter at all.

Where is this "net force" you keep mentioning coming from in your opinion? You do realize that no vacuum on Earth has ever had every single atom removed from the chamber, right? You do realize that there is a net positive amount of kinetic energy in motion flying right through that vacuum chamber, correct?

Net force = force from the outside of the plates minus the force from between the plates.
A positive net force moves the plates apart.
A negative net force moves the plates together.
Read the article for the explanation.

ETA:
1. I seem to recall that the Casimir effect experiments are NOT done in a vacuum. I will have a look at the experimental papers again.
2. If they were, do you think that the scientists who did the experiments to measure the Casimir effect were so dumb that they forgot to include the the effect of other atoms in the vacuum?

ETA2: At least one recent (Submitted on 1 Dec 2008) experiment was done in a vacuum chamber:
On electrostatic and Casimir force measurements between conducting surfaces in a sphere-plane configuration mentions a "typical vacuum pressure of 1.6×10^-4 Torr in the vacuum chamber."

So it looks you need to answer option 2 above.

 

[Tubbythin]

I just showed you the *major* flaw in his theory. It's not a mathematical flaw. That's what you seem to be ignoring with a handwave.

You have done no such thing. How could I possibly have ignored something that you haven't done with a handwave?

Not every single flaw takes place at the level of mathematics. You keep insisting this *must* be the case, whereas Guth's major "flaw" was actually conceptual, and "physical' in nature. There is no such thing as a "negative pressure".

Yes there is.

No such thing exists in nature. The best we could ever achieve is a "zero" pressure, but the kinetic energy in motion flowing through everything prohibits us from ever achieving a zero energy state.

Kinetic energy of what? Why does this kinetic energy causing pressure happen to agree with the predictions of Casimir?

You folks can evidently not tell the difference between pure observation and controlled experimentation.

Well the experimental proof of the Casimir effect is certainly a controlled experiment so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Er, no. Unless you can demonstrate any of these casmir "tests" took place is a negative pressure scenario, Guth's plan isn't going to fly, and the Casmir effect isn't going to save you because that is simply due to the kinetic energy in motion that exists in our universe today. It has nothing to do with "negative pressure". Guth needs "negative pressure". That's impossible.

So I'll ask again, why do results of tests of the Casimir effect happen to agree with the predictions if the theory is so wrong?

It's typically done with VP's.

?

Er, no. Only cosmologists seem confused actually.

Erm, nope. The Casimir effect is in many many standard physics texts books. So, once again, you are wrong.

What "proper research" has demonstrated the existence of "negative pressure"?

The tests of the Casimir effect.

The very best vacuums on the planet are *physically incapable* of creating even a "zero pressure' environment. Nowhere in space is there even a "zero pressure" environment because light and neutrinos and all sorts of particles flow though space.

You think neutrinos are responsible? Do you have any idea what the mfp of a neutrino is?

It isn't "empty" and it never will be. The best you might hope to ever achieve is a "zero pressure" scenario, and no vacuum will *ever* contain "negative pressure", and Guth's whole paper relies upon this single premise.

The fact that the above is wrong, as has been amply demonstrated means you need to try again.

 

[Tubbythin]

What? Its the fact you can't and didn't *test* any of your beliefs that I find offensive.

What on Earth are you talking about? You said that the W and Z were ideas that "came from active experimentation". This is wrong. It just so happens that they do exist, however. And that theory correctly predicted them well in advance of their discovery.

I can't "test" inflation.

Sure "you" can. With cosmological observations. Make predictions from the theory then make observations to see whether the predictions match reality. Thats good old standard science.

I can't "test" monopoles are suppressed by inflation.

You don't need to. If magnetic monopoles don't exist (as you keep saying) then they don't need to be supressed.

I can't "test" expansion of space.

You can't test many things directly. You can test GR though. If GR is a good theory and the cosmo constant doesn't magically balance the Universe exactly then space absolutely must be either contracting or expanding. Its an inevitable result of GR. Observations show its the latter.

I can't test zero net energy expansion of objects.

You don't even understand "zero net energy", how could you possibly hope to test it.

I can't *test* dark energy because you don't even know where it comes from.

Observations show that the Universal expansion is accelerating. The placeholder for the thing causing the expansion is known as "dark energy". So, by definition, if the Universe is accelerating (which we're pretty sure we do) then we know dark energy exists. We can then use our best theorists to come up with ideas for what this "dark energy" really is and use predictions from these theories to test the theories. Good old standard science.

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.

Er, no. As anyone can see above, things you have said to be untestable quite clearly are testable and it is you who has no idea how testing relates to science.

 

[sol invictus]

I think it's absurd to claim a vacuum has negative pressure. Sooner or later others will also realize it's a lame idea.

You're not deluded enough to really believe that, are you? That 100 years of thoroughly-tested, ridiculously accurate, and massively successful science will be dropped because some ignorant internet quack can't comprehend it?

And that is what you're saying. There's nothing in Guth's paper beyond bog-standard field theory coupled to gravity -any Lorentz scalar field condensate in a positive minimum has negative pressure.

A "tension' of "what"?

The scalar condensate.

What does that have to do with a "vacuum" having "negative pressure"? Mass may have an effect on "spacetime", but a "pure vacuum" (devoid of all mass and energy) does not.

How stupid can you make yourself look? The state Guth is talking about has p=-\rho. There is a non-zero and positive energy in the field. There is more than an entire page of that paper devoted to just that.

All vacuums have neutrinos blowing through them by the trillions.

Absurdly wrong. You don't understand the meaning of the term, or the math, or the physics. Then you rant about how nothing makes sense when misinterpreted by you. I often hear people shouting on street corners doing the same.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

I can't "test" expansion of space.

[...]

Actually, ...

... you can!

There are certainly many ways you can, in principle - measure the distance to a bunch of galaxies out to ~80 Mpc say, wait a million years or so, then remeasure the distances to the same galaxies - but none seem practical.

Well, maybe not: The time evolution of cosmological redshift as a test of dark energy:

The variation of the expansion rate of the Universe with time produces an evolution in the cosmological redshift of distant sources (for example quasar Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption lines), that might be directly observed by future ultra stable, high-resolution spectrographs (such as CODEX) coupled to extremely large telescopes (such as European Southern Observatory's Extremely Large Telescope, ELT). This would open a new window to explore the physical mechanism responsible for the current acceleration of the Universe. We investigate the evolution of cosmological redshift from a variety of dark energy models, and compare it with simulated data. We perform a Fisher matrix analysis and discuss the prospects for constraining the parameters of these models and for discriminating among competing candidates. We find that, because of parameter degeneracies, and of the inherent technical difficulties involved in this kind of observations, the uncertainties on parameter reconstruction can be rather large unless strong external priors are assumed. However, the method could be a valuable complementary cosmological tool, and give important insights on the dynamics of dark energy, not obtainable using other probes.

 

[GeeMack]

I think it's absurd to claim a vacuum has negative pressure. Sooner or later others will also realize it's a lame idea.

Because some day all the physicists in the world will wake up and say, "Wow, Mozina was right! He wasn't the crackpot idiot we all thought he was after all."

Because Mozina knows, and nobody else does. And the only thing that's prevented him so far from changing the world of physics as we know it is everyone else's abysmal lack of ability to understand him. While all the other physicists in the world have actually been educated in physics and communicate the science using math, Michael makes up his own vocabulary and uses cute little pictures. While all the other physicists take courses in physics to better understand the science, Michael takes a high school art class. After all, if only the entire body of scientists studying and working in the world today could realize they are all wrong and Mozina is right, if they would only realize they're talking math when they really only need to be swapping sketches of stick figures, the world would be a different place. And oh boy, would it ever.

You're not deluded enough to really believe that, are you?

Uh, you think not? There is a massive body of evidence to the contrary, sol.

How stupid can you make yourself look?

Oh god, don't ask that. You're likey to find out!

 

[sol invictus]

Uh, you think not? There is a massive body of evidence to the contrary, sol.

Damn it, you're absolutely right!

I'm as bad as MM - ignoring all evidence, theory, and past experience just because because I hold a religious faith - that no one can be quite that deluded...

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, how can I tell they don't interact "gravitationally" in some way, or *never* interact with any of atoms in the plates?

Well, we've got a handle on the interactions of neutrinos with ordinary matter, so one could calculate the expected neutrino pressure. How big is it? Of the top of my head, I couldn't say, but I can guarantee you it will be many orders of magnitude too low. Even if you don't believe me about that, there's still the rather obvious fact that it won't have the right dependence on cavity shape - in fact, it should have basically NO dependence on cavity shape, only on plate shape/composition. So as has already been pointed out to you, and which you'd know and understand if you had a clue about actual experimental physics which you seem to place such emphasis on, neutrinos have nothing to do with the Casimir effect.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What on Earth are you talking about? You said that the W and Z were ideas that "came from active experimentation". This is wrong. It just so happens that they do exist, however. And that theory correctly predicted them well in advance of their discovery.

You seem to be *ignoring* the "ability" to empirically "test" an idea and verify an idea in a lab, as in your example, vs postulating a purely mythical entity like monopole fighting inflation. Come on. There is no comparison between these two uses of "maths". One set of mathematical equations can be verified or falsified via active experimentation, whereas the other idea is absolutely impossible to ever find via experimentation.

Sure "you" can. With cosmological observations. Make predictions from the theory then make observations to see whether the predictions match reality. Thats good old standard science.

So if I blatantly "borrow" your math and claim "God did it with inflation", that is a "testable" idea based on pure observation and a wee bit of math?

You don't need to. If magnetic monopoles don't exist (as you keep saying) then they don't need to be supressed.

But Guth used that idea as a justification of "inflation". He seemed to think it was a "big deal" and a key support of the whole inflation concept.

You can't test many things directly. You can test GR though. If GR is a good theory and the cosmo constant doesn't magically balance the Universe exactly then space absolutely must be either contracting or expanding. Its an inevitable result of GR. Observations show its the latter.

The key difference in this case is that I can "experience" gravity here on Earth. I have no doubt it exists in nature and has some affect on nature. Whereas Newton's formulas work very well for interplanetary space travel, I have no logical objection to you looking for a "better" mathematical expression of gravity because I have no doubt gravity exists, and there may be limits with Newton's equations that may prohibit us from fully understanding what's going on.

You don't even understand "zero net energy", how could you possibly hope to test it.

Guth's theory was *not* a "net zero energy" process. It began with *positive energy* in the form of heat. That's a "net positive energy" state from the start. Where did the "zero net energy" idea even come from exactly?

Observations show that the Universal expansion is accelerating.

That doesn't mean "inflation did it", or "elves did it with inflation and dark evil energies".

The placeholder for the thing causing the expansion is known as "dark energy".

So Lambda-CDM theory ceases to be an "explanation", rather it's mathematical kludge involving placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance. How then can this theory ever be "better than" a theory based on empirical science like MHD theory and GR theory? You don't actually *explain* anything in Lambda-CMD theory.

So, by definition, if the Universe is accelerating (which we're pretty sure we do) then we know dark energy exists. We can then use our best theorists to come up with ideas for what this "dark energy" really is and use predictions from these theories to test the theories. Good old standard science.

Since "dark energy" doesn't exist on Earth, how about starting with a known force of nature that happens to be 39 OOMs more powerful than gravity? Why begin with a "fudge factor"? How do I "test" "dark energy"?

Er, no. As anyone can see above, things you have said to be untestable quite clearly are testable and it is you who has no idea how testing relates to science.

No. I can "test" an idea like "EM fields caused expansion". I can't physically 'test" the idea that "dark stuff did it". Birkeland didn't just stare at the aurora and say "dark energy did it". He came up with a "plausible" cause based on known processes in nature and built real empirical experiments to test his ideas. Pointing at the sky and claiming "dark stuff did it" is not an "explanation", it's a fudge factoring mathematical mythology based on magic dark thingies.

Come on. There is a significant difference between postulating a real "cause" that might be "testable" in an actual experiment, albeit on a smaller scale, vs. postulating something like "inflation gnomes gave their lives to save us from the monopole clan, while embowering the physical universe with "dark energies" and "dark matter" that keep us expanding away from the monopole clan forever and ever. How does anyone actually "test" an idea that has no less that 7 different acts of faith that are impossible to physically test in a real experiment on Earth?

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, we've got a handle on the interactions of neutrinos with ordinary matter, so one could calculate the expected neutrino pressure. How big is it? Of the top of my head, I couldn't say, but I can guarantee you it will be many orders of magnitude too low.

I was thinking about this a little earlier. The mean free path of a neutrino is ~ a light year of lead, or 10¹⁶ m. Assuming we have a plate of lead of thickness 1mm then the probability of a neutrino interacting with the plate on its passage through is ~10^-19. Now suppose our plate has an area of ~10 cm² and we consider only solar neutrinos (flux of ~10¹¹ cm^-2s^-1 then we should expect one neutrino interaction every ~10⁷ s in our plate. Ie about once a year. Which is higher than I was expecting. Have I done anything silly?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're not deluded enough to really believe that, are you? That 100 years of thoroughly-tested, ridiculously accurate, and massively successful science will be dropped because some ignorant internet quack can't comprehend it?

How many personal insults can you pack into a single paragraph, only because you can't demonstrate *7* different leaps of faith required in Lambda-CMD theory and I therefore "lack belief" in these ideas? It's not my fault you chose to put your faith in a dead entity, a placeholder term for human ignorance, and non standard particle physics theories. I didn't make you do that, and I'm not asking you for the moon either.

And that is what you're saying. There's nothing in Guth's paper beyond bog-standard field theory coupled to gravity -

That's been the whole area of contention from the start! You're trying to stuff GR with metaphysical entities that do not and physically *cannot* exist in nature. There is no such thing as "negative pressure". It does not exist in nature and Guth's entire theory is predicated upon a physical impossibility.

Vacuums do not have a "negative pressure".

The rest of your post is more of you pointless nonsense.

Name the *physical thing* you intend to put into a pure vacuum (one with nothing in it) that will make it contain a "negative pressure". Dodges and insults will be ignored. Only a valid physical answer will be considered.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, we've got a handle on the interactions of neutrinos with ordinary matter, so one could calculate the expected neutrino pressure. How big is it? Of the top of my head, I couldn't say, but I can guarantee you it will be many orders of magnitude too low. Even if you don't believe me about that, there's still the rather obvious fact that it won't have the right dependence on cavity shape - in fact, it should have basically NO dependence on cavity shape, only on plate shape/composition. So as has already been pointed out to you, and which you'd know and understand if you had a clue about actual experimental physics which you seem to place such emphasis on, neutrinos have nothing to do with the Casimir effect.

Gah. I have already noted that it is not necessarily the influence of neutrinos on the plates directly that "pushes" the plates together. There is simply a "positive energy density" throughout the universe. The area between the plates experiences a lower "pressure" from atomic and subatomic particles than the outside of the plates. It's not magic, it's kinetic energy that does this. There is no "negative pressure' in the vacuum because the best vacuums on Earth has some residual "positive pressure" from atoms alone!

Hoy.

While it may be possible to get to a "zero pressure vacuum" in terms of atomic interactions, the subatomic world is full of energy flowing through everything all the time. Space is not even "empty" or devoid of kinetic energy at the subatomic level. Photons and electrons and protons and neutrinos and other particles cruise through interplanetary space in unbelievable numbers. We could not *ever* get to even a "zero kinetic pressure" environment even if we removed every atom from the vacuum. Since we are physically incapable of even removing all the atoms, it is outrageous to claim the Casmir effect is an example of "negative pressure". The whole chamber contains *positive pressure* and the sides of the plates are open. While you might achieve a lower quantum pressure between the plates than outside the plates, all these experiments are *certain* to involved "positive pressure* due the inclusions of atoms in the experimental vacuum.

Guth's idea *requires* the existence of something that does not exist in nature, and that physically cannot exist in nature. There is no such thing as a "negative pressure" vacuum. That is not physically possible as can be demonstrated by the fact that none of you have identified the physical item you would add or subtract from a 'pure vacuum' (with no kinetic energy flow in it) that would result in a "negative pressure". I'll bet I never get a straight answer to that question.

 

[Tubbythin]

You seem to be *ignoring* the "ability" to empirically "test" an idea and verify an idea in a lab, as in your example, vs postulating a purely mythical entity like monopole fighting inflation.

I'm not ignoring the idea. The fact that we can't fit a whole universe in our lab means many cosmological phenomena are untestable in lab conditions. If you can't understand this then your not even up to secondary school level science yet.

Come on. There is no comparison between these two uses of "maths". One set of mathematical equations can be verified or falsified via active experimentation, whereas the other idea is absolutely impossible to ever find via experimentation.

But we can test via observation.

So if I blatantly "borrow" your math and claim "God did it with inflation", that is a "testable" idea based on pure observation and a wee bit of math?

Of course not, not without a clear definition of God. If you have a precise definition of God it may be testable. Do you?

But Guth used that idea as a justification of "inflation". He seemed to think it was a "big deal" and a key support of the whole inflation concept.

It was thought at the time that it needed explaining. Now we know it probably doesn't. So what? It still explains the flatness and horizon problems, so unless someone comes up with a theory which agrees with observation at least as well as or better than inflation, its the best theory we have.

The key difference in this case is that I can "experience" gravity here on Earth. I have no doubt it exists in nature and has some affect on nature. Whereas Newton's formulas work very well for interplanetary space travel, I have no logical objection to you looking for a "better" mathematical expression of gravity because I have no doubt gravity exists, and there may be limits with Newton's equations that may prohibit us from fully understanding what's going on.

I'll repeat, space expansion/contraction is an inevitable result of GR. If you don't accept space expansion then you don't accept GR. Its that simple. So unless you have an alternative theory that agrees with as well as...

Guth's theory was *not* a "net zero energy" process. It began with *positive energy* in the form of heat. That's a "net positive energy" state from the start. Where did the "zero net energy" idea even come from exactly?

GR. Sol and Zig have already explained this.

That doesn't mean "inflation did it", or "elves did it with inflation and dark evil energies".

I know, inflation didn't do it. Inflation occurred at t = some tiny fraction of a second. Dark energy refers to the current accelerated expansion of the Universe. You've been told this multiple times. Repetition of the same wrong statement just goes to show every other reader of the thread you have no idea what you are talking about.

So Lambda-CDM theory ceases to be an "explanation", rather it's mathematical kludge involving placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance.

No.

How then can this theory ever be "better than" a theory based on empirical science like MHD theory and GR theory?

Huh? IT IS BASED ON GR THEORY!

You don't actually *explain* anything in Lambda-CMD theory.

How could you possibly know?

Since "dark energy" doesn't exist on Earth, how about starting with a known force of nature that happens to be 39 OOMs more powerful than gravity?

Precisely because we understand the EM force very very very well. That is why we know it cannot possibly be responsible for accelerated expansion. What you are advocating is the opposite of science.

Why begin with a "fudge factor"? How do I "test" "dark energy"?

Erm. We've been through this. Look at the observations. Construct a theory to explain the observations. Make predictions from the theory. Perform experiments/observations to see whether the theory matches reality.

No. I can "test" an idea like "EM fields caused expansion". I can't physically 'test" the idea that "dark stuff did it". Birkeland didn't just stare at the aurora and say "dark energy did it". He came up with a "plausible" cause based on known processes in nature and built real empirical experiments to test his ideas. Pointing at the sky and claiming "dark stuff did it" is not an "explanation", it's a fudge factoring mathematical mythology based on magic dark thingies.

That's why people are trying to come up with testable theories that explain the observations. Precisely so that "dark energy" is no longer just a placeholder.

Come on. There is a significant difference between postulating a real "cause" that might be "testable" in an actual experiment, albeit on a smaller scale, vs. postulating something like "inflation gnomes gave their lives to save us from the monopole clan, while embowering the physical universe with "dark energies" and "dark matter" that keep us expanding away from the monopole clan forever and ever.

There is a significant difference. One is a strawman, one isn't.

How does anyone actually "test" an idea that has no less that 7 different acts of faith that are impossible to physically test in a real experiment on Earth?

What, you mean the 7 "acts of faith" I completely took apart just a few posts ago?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because some day all the physicists in the world will wake up and say, "Wow, Mozina was right! He wasn't the crackpot idiot we all thought he was after all."

I'm sure people clung to flat Earth theories till death, and folks like you seem destined to fall into that kind of category. Empirical science however tends to triumph over BS over the long haul, but history isn't likely to remember either one of us. I don't frankly care what you think of me anymore than I worry about what creationists think of me. You can believe in negative pressure vacuums if you want to, but in the real world of real physics, that doesn't happen.

Because Mozina knows, and nobody else does.

Did you not read any of the names on that petition?
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Is my name even on that list?

And the only thing that's prevented him so far from changing the world of physics as we know it is everyone else's abysmal lack of ability to understand him.

Lots of PC/EU folks "understand me" just fine. I can't make creationists give up their faith, nor can I make you give up yours. That's something you'll have to do for yourself, or not.

While all the other physicists in the world have actually been educated in physics and communicate the science using math, Michael makes up his own vocabulary and uses cute little pictures.

Er, no. Michael believes in real stuff like EM fields and empirical experiments, not a cosmology theory that takes no less that 7 pure acts of faith to even entertain the idea. Get over it.

I see that the only trick you know is to personally attack the "non believer" for your lack of an ability to empirically demonstrate your case. You're like a inflation creationist with a bad attitude.