Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Dancing David]

Yes he did and he wrote all about it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf



It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.

Nice bunny pictures, except one looks like a duck and the other looks like a goose.

So how does the scaling work from the Terrella to the sun again?

Oh , I forgot, math and data aren't your thing.

So the Terrella is the model , how does it scale to the sun?

What charge does the sun have?

Oh darn these pesky questions.

(And the fact that it sure looks like Birkeland models the earth and not the sun with his Terrella)(unless he also made a Solarellea)

And in fact MM, could you point out where in Birkeland's tretise he says that the terrlella is a model for the sun, I looked briefly at it and I missed that part:

Would you tell us again where Birkeland compares his Terrella to the sun?

 

[derekmcd]

The EM field applies 'force' or pressure to the plates, sure, but it is simply kinetic energy in motion that does this "pushing", not "negative pressure in a vacuum". The difference is there are photons doing the "pushing" rather than atoms doing the "pushing", but it's all "positive kinetic energy in motion" that "pushes the plates together". There is no "negative pressure" involved, it's pure kinetic energy in motion. Seriously.



You're simply describing the "force per unit area of the carrier particle of the EM field! It is a simple "force" of nature that "pushes" (from the outside) the plates together because the "pressure" of the particles on the outside is "greater than" the "pressure" from the particles on the inside of the plates. At no time is there any "negative pressure" doing any work inside the chamber, and there cannot ever be "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" as Guth needs to make his theory fly. Even if you claim there is an EM field "pushing" on his near singularity thingy, all the arrows will be pointed directly *into* the near singularity, not "away from" the near singularity, unless of course you claiming that it is "discharging towards" some external "nearsingularitymagnetosphere" of some sort?

You didn't answer my question directly, but I'll take the above quoted response as an answer.

Where are these particles (photons) coming from that are transferring momentum to the plates and pushing them together?

 

[paximperium]

Well, at least I'm good for something, if only for the entertainment value.

You have no idea how entertaining it is.

 

[Reality Check]

Inflation has made "postdictions" that have been falsified since the very first paper Guth wrote.

You still have not provided us a list of "postdictions" that have been falsified since the very first paper Guth wrote.

Until you do I have to conclude that you are just lying since I have no knowledge of any such falsified postdictions.

 

[Reality Check]

You mean it is big and full of positive energy.

You mean it was once "physically smaller" but it still had a positive energy density.

In other words that notion that this is a "zero net energy" scenario is totally bogus, it's *always* been a *positive energy* scenario? Is that it?

No. It is full of the stuff it has always been full of: postive energy and negative energy.

 

[GeeMack]

Nice bunny pictures, except one looks like a duck and the other looks like a goose.

So how does the scaling work from the Terrella to the sun again?

Oh , I forgot, math and data aren't your thing.

So the Terrella is the model , how does it scale to the sun?

What charge does the sun have?

Oh darn these pesky questions.

Oh, if only Birkeland was using the terrella as a model of the Sun. But alas, mostly he was using it to model the Earth and its magnetic field so he could explore the possible mechanism behind the aurora borealis. The Earth, you know terra firma, the planet we live on, not a single coronal loop in sight! Darn that Kristian Birkeland neglecting to mention to Michael how the term "terrella" means "little Earth". Poor Michael. All those years of confusion. All the wasted time preaching that EU/PC hokum. Failure upon failure upon failure. I imagine that gets to wearing on a guy after a while.

Alternate reply: Well it's obvious the model scales to the Sun exactly the same way this one...

... scales to Saturn. You know, that hollow brass planet encircled by rings of glowing electrons? Now I gave you a cute little picture to look at. Don't go muddying the waters by asking for some magical faerie math scales with real numbers the way real scientists might discuss real physics!

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Since you ssem to be incapable of following links here is the question yet again:

What happens when the plates are such that the Casimir effect pushes the plates apart? Is this replusive force also created by a positive pressure?

Actually I asked this before and you ignored it. Here it is again.


So is this what you are saying:

• If the plates are such that the net force is replusive then the net pressure (force divided by area) is positive.
• If the plates are such that the net force is attractive then the net pressure is still positive despite the fact that the net force has changed sign.

If so your conclusion must be that the area of the plates must have also changed sign to keep the pressure positive. Can you tell us how to measure a negative area? Do we construct square plates with imaginary sides and square their imaginary lengths?

I do have another thought: Maybe you have a definition of force where it is not a vector quantity but a positive scalar quantity? If so can you tell us what that definition is.

Actually I think that your problem is just a limited knowledge of physics, i.e. you have been fooled into thinking that all pressure is positive because all you know about is ideal gases and the ideal gas law (pV=nRT).

The actual definition of pressure though definitely allows negative pressures: p = dF/dA. The area is always positive but the force can be positive or negative.

A little Wikipedia for you:

Negative pressures
While pressures are generally positive, there are several situations in which negative pressures may be encountered:

• When dealing in relative (gauge) pressures. For instance, an absolute pressure of 80 kPa may be described as a gauge pressure of -21 kPa (i.e., 21 kPa below an atmospheric pressure of 101 kPa).
• When attractive forces (e.g., Van der Waals forces) between the particles of a fluid exceed repulsive forces. Such scenarios are generally unstable since the particles will move closer together until repulsive forces balance attractive forces. Negative pressure exists in the transpiration pull of plants.
• The Casimir effect can create a small attractive force due to interactions with vacuum energy; this force is sometimes termed 'vacuum pressure' (not to be confused with the negative gauge pressure of a vacuum).
• Depending on how the orientation of a surface is chosen, the same distribution of forces may be described either as a positive pressure along one surface normal, or as a negative pressure acting along the opposite surface normal.
• In the cosmological constant.

 

[derekmcd]

Just as an aside... I once provided MM with this link concerning the history of of the magnetosphere in which Birkeland, Chapman and Alfven were shown to be major influences. I provided this history to show that MM's presentation of how Birkeland was right in everything and Chapman was wrong (solely based on mathematical theories) is simply not correct.

All three individuals made contributions to our understanding of the magnetosphere and the subsequent magnetostorm and substorms. None of them got it precisely correct.

IIRC, I brought this up as MM was lambasting E.R. Priest's paper on magnetic reconnection. MM loathed the idea that Priest modeled a particle's trajectory within a monopole field. "MONOPOLES DON'T EXIST" was all I heard.

I went on to point out that Birkeland presented his work to Poincaire who went on to show how a particle's trajectory works in a monopole field.

For some strange reason, MM never addressed any of this. I've noticed how quickly the subject changes when cornered. Fortunately for Michael, he is usually dealing with many subjects in a single thread and diverts attention to a particular subject when it suits him.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Birkeland and the Solar Wind.

OK, I have a 994 page pdf compendium of Birkeland's writings. That's a lot. But since you have already read it perhaps you can tell me exactly where Birkeland tells us that the solar wind comes from electrical discharges? Or just point me to where in all those 994 pages that Birkeland explicitly models the solar wind generation process at the Sun.

He does his early calculations on page 330ish? Type in "uranium" in the search options, I think that should take you to within a couple of pages of his early calcs.

Not a bad guess. On page 325 of your 994 page document (numbered page 311) we find the beginning of the chapter entitled The Energy of the Corpuscular Precipitation. The Source of the Sun's Heat. Seems like a good place to start. Let me now quote directly from Birkeland, beginning on page 328 of the document (numbered page 314), and going on to the next page.

We then obtain (6.7x10¹⁵/7.3x10¹⁰) x 100/3600 gr. calories, answering to about 14 h.-p., which is the amount of energy that is set free by the disintegration of the sun's matter, which would answer to the quantity of rays emitted from it in the form of these corpuscular rays.

This amount corresponds, as already stated, to the amount of energy that the sun sends out in the form of light and heat. If the solar constant equals 3, we find a radiation from every square centimeter of the sun's surface of about 13 horse-power.

A disintegration such as this in the sun does not necessarily presuppose the presence there of great quantities of radium, uranium or thorium.

Rutherford, in his work titled "Radio-Activity" says:
"There seems too be every reason to suppose that the atomic energy of all the elements is of a similar high order of magnitude. With the exception of their high atomic weights, the radio-elements do not possess any special chemical characteristics which differentiate them from the inactive elements. The existence of a latent store of energy in the atoms is a necessary consequence of the modern view developed by J.J. Thomson, Larmor and Lorentz, of regarding the atom as a complicated structure consisting of charged parts of rapid oscillatory of orbital motion in regard to one another."

Under the temperature-conditions prevailing on the sun, it is possible that ordinary matter may be so radio-active, that it is not necessary to assume the presence in great quantities of the radio-elements known in ordinary temperatures.

It was pointed out by Rutherford and Soddy that the maintenance of the sun's heat for long periods of time did not present any fundamental difficulty, if a process of disintegration such as occurs in the radio-elements were supposed to be taking place in the sun.

We may perhaps succeed, in the way here indicated, in obtaining a distinct idea of the amount of heat that can be developed in the sun by disintegration; and thus an important contribution will be made to the old, and to natural philosophy so important, question of the origin of the sun's heat.

Well, there you have it, in Birkeland's very own words. This quote comes at the end of the book The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, volume I. The book was printed in 1908, and the archaic ideas are fairly obvious. The book was written at a time when Thomson's "plum pudding" model of the atom was predominate, the idea of + and - charges suspended in some wiggly medium; its mechanical normal modes of vibration were thought to be responsible for spectral features. Plank had only started his ideas of quantum mechanics in 1900. Rutherford scattering, and the downfall of the "plum pudding" atom came in 1909, the year after Birkeland's book was printed.

Obviously Birkeland thinks that the source of the sun's heat is radioactive decay, what we would call nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion, which we now accept as the primary energy source. Furthermore, considering his use of the word "disintegration" in describing the origin of the particles creating the auroras, it certainly looks like Birkeland thought that what we now call the "solar wind" was made of particles liberated by the radioactive decay of the sun. He is not quite to explicit there, so it is something of a guess.

But in any case, I can find no reference to electric currents in the sun, either as the source of the sun's heat, or as the source for his "corpuscular precipitation". Since you are so convinced that Birkeland has demonstrated the electrical source of the solar wind, and since you are the self-appointed expert on things Birkeland, you will have to stop guessing and show explicitly where Birkeland has modeled, or even mentioned, the electrical source of the solar wind, assuming you want to maintain any credibility at all on that point.

 

[Tubbythin]

Actually, no. He said "kinetic energy in motion", which is even more nonsensical.

You are correct. I should go to bed earlier.

At one point he called the energy stored in a static magnetic field "kinetic energy" as well. He is deeply confused.

Yes, he keeps (or at least kept) referring to things as "your theory". If only it was...

 

[Michael Mozina]

My point is you do not understand 1980s cosmology,

I believe you're missing something here. I don't *agree with* 1980's cosmological changes to BB theory. I'm old enough to remember BB theories that preceded Guth's fairytale version. Alfven's contraction-expansion model for instance was VERY different from contemporary BB theory. I guess it's a age factor here to some degree, and a *conscious choice* on my part to reject Guth's "negative pressure in a vacuum" theory.

let alone that of 20 years further observation and development.

Well, you're actually talking about 20+ years of "new and improved postdiction efforts". Instead of falsifying the model based on it's failed "predictions", you guys fudge the numbers and come out with "new and improved" brands with "better superhuman predictive abilities" that were all postdiction efforts. It's a never ending kludge since Guth's original inflation theory was shown to be falsified. Instead of "letting it go", you guys fudge the numbers so more.

In fact you do not even understand 1920s cosmology.

I don't know how old you are. Maybe it's an age thing, maybe it's just a personal choice issue. I'm old enough to have studied cosmology theory *before* Guth's monopole slaying inflation theory became "vogue". I've "been around the block" a few times and seen under the hood of more than a few "theories' on cosmology. Maybe your too young to have had that kind of exposure, or perhaps you simply made different conscious choices than I have made. I do understand that there are *many* cosmology theories, not just the *one* that you seem to prefer.

That paper I presented to you earlier on "expansion'" demonstrates that redshift does not imply "superluminal" expansion as even you have noted, and I personally prefer Alfven's "expansion" sort of theories over "monopole slaying inflation theories that require "negative pressure in a vacuum' to work correctly.

If you do not understand the most basic and fundamental principles of it you cannot understand the details and you cannot criticise them based on your misunderstandings.

A lot of my "misunderstandings" come from the fact that you guys never quite answer the important questions, like what 'form" of energy are we talking about prior to expansion? What holds this "heat" described in Guth's paper? "Heat" is typically associated with atoms that vibrate, much like that kinetic energy "bouncing ball" graphic. More heat, more movement of the particles that hold the heat. What physical particle holds this heat prior to expansion? If there is no "outside the near singularity", what kept it together all that time, and what made it go "bang" one fine spring day?

When Guth talks about "negative pressure" in a "vacuum", I wince. There is no such thing. There is "kinetic energy" flowing inside the vacuum, but there is no "negative pressure" in that vacuum. His theory is DOA for that reason.

Now I would be happy to let you argue that the kinetic energy flow inside the vacuum drives "acceleration", but there has to be some attempt on your side of the fence to grasp the concept of kinetic energy inside the "vacuums" of spacetime. There is no "negative pressure" in any vacuum. There is only "kinetic energy" inside all vacuums.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. It is full of the stuff

Correction. It's fully of *hot* stuff. In other words your "stuff" has "energy' in it in the form of "heat". Am I to assume it "vibrates" in some way as a result of this heat?

it has always been full of: postive energy

True.

and negative energy.

There is no such thing as "negative energy". It is possible that various forces can work in opposition to one another, but there is no "negative energy". Antimatter in motion is "kinetic energy". Matter in motion is "kinetic energy". Even if you combine "antimatter" with matter, you get "kinetic energy". There is no such thing as "negative energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow! I don't know how I can even hope to keep up with all the questions and posts in this thread. I've totally abandoned every other board I've been posting on, and every other thread on this board due to my time constraints, and I"m still *overwhelmed* at the number of responses. I'm sure you all feel utterly ignored at this point since I can't possibly respond to everyone and still have "life". I apologize if you feel like I've been non responsive to your personal posts, but at this point I'm just picking and choosing what to respond to given the limits on my time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, there you have it, in Birkeland's very own words. This quote comes at the end of the book The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, volume I. The book was printed in 1908, and the archaic ideas are fairly obvious. The book was written at a time when Thomson's "plum pudding" model of the atom was predominate, the idea of + and - charges suspended in some wiggly medium; its mechanical normal modes of vibration were thought to be responsible for spectral features. Plank had only started his ideas of quantum mechanics in 1900. Rutherford scattering, and the downfall of the "plum pudding" atom came in 1909, the year after Birkeland's book was printed.

I was impressed personally by his level of understanding (not necessarily "correctly" by our standards) of contemporary physics at that point in time. He seemed to have a pretty advanced understanding of contemporary theory of his day. His lab was pretty "high tech" too for it's day.

Obviously Birkeland thinks that the source of the sun's heat is radioactive decay, what we would call nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion, which we now accept as the primary energy source.

You'll note that my website is a "pure Birkeland" presentation, including the energy source.

Furthermore, considering his use of the word "disintegration" in describing the origin of the particles creating the auroras, it certainly looks like Birkeland thought that what we now call the "solar wind" was made of particles liberated by the radioactive decay of the sun. He is not quite to explicit there, so it is something of a guess.

That would seem to be a fair assessment IMO. He charged the sphere as a cathode relative to the chamber walls He needed a way to explain the release of charged particles and that seems to be how he "powered" his sun.

But in any case, I can find no reference to electric currents in the sun, either as the source of the sun's heat, or as the source for his "corpuscular precipitation". Since you are so convinced that Birkeland has demonstrated the electrical source of the solar wind, and since you are the self-appointed expert on things Birkeland, you will have to stop guessing and show explicitly where Birkeland has modeled, or even mentioned, the electrical source of the solar wind, assuming you want to maintain any credibility at all on that point.

Alright, but it will probably be after work today. I must admit that of all the folks I've met in cyberspace, you and edd and derek seem to be the folks that are willing to role up your sleeves and do some reading. That's encouraging to me. I also respect the fact that you level "specific" criticisms at the scientific ideas being presented, which I find refreshing. I will try to focus more on your posts and less on some of the rest of them as it relates to my time especially since you have made a concerted effort to read the materials I have suggested. I appreciate that your time is valuable to you and I will find you specific page numbers as I get time today or tomorrow at worst case.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Derek.

Rather than go back and find the specific posts......

WRT the actual limit of "pressure" created by the 'Casimir effect":

There is no doubt that the total "pressure" on the plates is "greater than zero" and "less than infinity". 1 atmosphere of "pressure" seems to be pretty "achievable" in the natural world we live in. Yes, I'm sure we could build "near perfect" experiments, but they too would never reach "absolute zero" temperatures" and be able to accurately factor out gravitational forces, etc to give us a "final answer" on the amount of pressure we might achieve this way. I will grant you however that my statement was "less than 100 percent accurate, but I was only trying to point out to sol?(not sure who now actually) that it was not an "infinite" number.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are correct. I should go to bed earlier.


Yes, he keeps (or at least kept) referring to things as "your theory". If only it was...

I love how you folks "nitpick" on sloppy verbiage to the utter exclusion of the point I was making. There is always a positive amount of kinetic energy inside the vacuum at all times. There are kinetic energy transfer via atoms. There are kinetic energy transfers via photons, there are even kinetic energy transfers from neutrinos. No "vacuum" is devoid of "kinetic energy". It's a "positive energy" state, even in the very best "vacuums".

 

[Michael Mozina]

You still have not provided us a list of "postdictions" that have been falsified since the very first paper Guth wrote.

Until you do I have to conclude that you are just lying since I have no knowledge of any such falsified postdictions.

So in your opinion, this paper from Guth that I have been critiquing is 100% accurate and it is the same precise mathematical model being used today?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have no idea how entertaining it is.

You know, I'm happy to see that folks have a sense of humor about this, even if it is at my expense. I'd be really bumbed out if I had no entertainment value whatsoever for folks like you. Enjoy the show.

 

[Ziggurat]

A lot of my "misunderstandings" come from the fact that you guys never quite answer the important questions

Like what the definition of pressure is?

What holds this "heat" described in Guth's paper? "Heat" is typically associated with atoms that vibrate, much like that kinetic energy "bouncing ball" graphic.

Well, no. At sufficiently high temperatures, field excitations (including electromagnetic radiation, but even weak and strong nuclear forces if you get hot enough) will dominate over the kinetic energy of any mass you have.

When Guth talks about "negative pressure" in a "vacuum", I wince.

Yeah, math can be painful if you don't understand it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, if only Birkeland was using the terrella as a model of the Sun. But alas, mostly he was using it to model the Earth and its magnetic field so he could explore the possible mechanism behind the aurora borealis.

The term "mostly" is correct, but then he was a curious sort of bloke who liked to conduct real "experiments". He changed the polarities of the sphere and the box. He used different sorts of cathode ray configurations. He used different sizes and shapes and textures and materials in his sphere. He changed the magnetic field strengths and tinkered around with all the variables. He wrote about all those configurations, not just his original models.

The Earth, you know terra firma, the planet we live on, not a single coronal loop in sight!

And if you had actually read his materials you would know exactly why that is the case. Duh.

Darn that Kristian Birkeland neglecting to mention to Michael how the term "terrella" means "little Earth".

Oh, that does it. I must be wrong now......... Hoy.

Poor Michael. All those years of confusion. All the wasted time preaching that EU/PC hokum.

EU theory works in a lab. Inflation is "hokum", as is "dark energy", "expanding space" and all thing things you guys cannot physically demonstrate here on Earth.

Failure upon failure upon failure. I imagine that gets to wearing on a guy after a while.

I often fail to convert creationists. Oh well. Defending empirical physics does get tiring when talking to creationists/astronomers, but someone has to do it.