Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, Birkeland did controlled experiments with a charged sphere in a vacuum chamber. These were controlled experiments, and from them you learn (a) the behavior of charged spheres in vacuum chambers, and (b) if you'd like to generalize a bit, you can learn that plasmas consist of charged particles obeying Maxwell's Equations.

Is that *really* (truly) all you learned while reading through his work?

And here we are, MM, trying to explain to you that Maxwell's Equations describe magnetic reconnection---and you deny it even though Birkeland's experiments agree with Maxwell's Equations.

You seem to be missing a key issue here Ben. It could not *disagree* with Maxwell's equations unless Maxwell's equations were wrong. They however insist that a magnetic field is a full continuum, without beginning and without out. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines.

What Birkeland did was conduct *empirical experiments with a variety of control mechanisms, different sphere sizes and textures, different magnetic field strengths, different amounts of current flow, etc. These folks (not just Birkeland by the way) "simulated" what they believed were the actual conditions in space. They photographed and documented their work.

So much wrongness:
1) There is a difference between CMEs and the solar wind.

Sure, but a CME will have a direct impact on solar wind in the direction it's headed.

2) The speed of the solar wind is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Yes, but at a million miles per hour, it's *much much much* faster than anything "predicted" during his time. We have observed CME events that spit out particles at very high speeds and the solar wind speed is *faster* in the polar regions than nearer the equator.

3) The typical speed of a CME is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Sure, but it's incredibly fast isn't it? Besides *electrical discharges on Earth*, what do you of in nature that might have that affect on an atmosphere?

High-energy events include small numbers of relativistic particles zipping through the slow wind.

Ok, but then *what* is accelerating *these* particles in the solar atmosphere?

4) You are only saying "You folks can't explain solar wind acceleration" with an implicit addendum of "... if I ignore all of your non-electric-sun explanations because I personally don't believe them"

No, not at all. Depending on whether or not you would personally equate "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection/circuit reconnection", I'll even let you include Birkeland's experiments as a form of "support" for "circuit/particle/magnetic" reconnection theory. I guess it all depends on how you and I come down on that specific issue.

This is called a "hypothesis".

No, it's a "theory" that has no "hypothetical entities" in it, unlike you Lambda-ThreehypotheticalEntitiesInOne" theory.

He showed that electricity was one possible way of getting high-temperature plasma and filamentary structures.

It's a damn obvious one too, and one that we know is used in nature right here on Earth. We know there are *stronger* discharges in Saturn's atmosphere. The sun is certainly larger than either of these physical bodies in space.

That's fine. Subsequent research has shown many other ways.

Shown *empirically* with a sphere in a vacuum, or done in a computer simulation?

Modern science believes that these other ways, not Birkeland's way, are a better description of the Sun.

Based on modern satellite imagery and heliosiesmology studies, I think Birkeland's model wins hands down. Even if you prefer a gas model solar model, the 'discharge' aspects of his experiments would still apply.

You are saying something like, "Open your eyes! Niels Bohr showed that you can explain the atom with a solar-system model! He did all of these alpha scattering experiments which agree with it! He predicted the x-ray spectra of all hydrogenic atoms! How can you say that the Bohr model is wrong when all of Bohr's experiments confirm it?"

The problem of course with your analogy is that whereas today we have better atomic models than the one Bohr presented, you *don't have a better explanation* for solar wind around a whole sphere, high temperature coronal loops, "jets", those solar images on my website, or any of the key "predictions' of Birkeland's solar model. All you have are a bunch of ideas that fail to explain even the satellite images on my website, and that fail to "explain" in the sense of being able to "predict" any of the observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere.

What's that "stratification subsurface" doing there sitting at around .995R where the standard solar model predicts there to be an open convection zone?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, Birkeland did controlled experiments with a charged sphere in a vacuum chamber. These were controlled experiments, and from them you learn (a) the behavior of charged spheres in vacuum chambers, and (b) if you'd like to generalize a bit, you can learn that plasmas consist of charged particles obeying Maxwell's Equations.

Is that *really* (truly) all you learned while reading through his work?

And here we are, MM, trying to explain to you that Maxwell's Equations describe magnetic reconnection---and you deny it even though Birkeland's experiments agree with Maxwell's Equations.

You seem to be missing a key issue here Ben. It could not *disagree* with Maxwell's equations unless Maxwell's equations were wrong. They however insist that a magnetic field is a full continuum, without beginning and without out. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines.

What Birkeland did was conduct *empirical experiments with a variety of control mechanisms, different sphere sizes and textures, different magnetic field strengths, different amounts of current flow, etc. These folks (not just Birkeland by the way) "simulated" what they believed were the actual conditions in space. They photographed and documented their work.

So much wrongness:
1) There is a difference between CMEs and the solar wind.

Sure, but a CME will have a direct impact on solar wind in the direction it's headed.

2) The speed of the solar wind is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Yes, but at a million miles per hour, it's *much much much* faster than anything "predicted" during his time. We have observed CME events that spit out particles at very high speeds and the solar wind speed is *faster* in the polar regions than nearer the equator.

3) The typical speed of a CME is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Sure, but it's incredibly fast isn't it? Besides *electrical discharges on Earth*, what do you of in nature that might have that affect on an atmosphere?

High-energy events include small numbers of relativistic particles zipping through the slow wind.

Ok, but then *what* is accelerating *these* particles in the solar atmosphere?

4) You are only saying "You folks can't explain solar wind acceleration" with an implicit addendum of "... if I ignore all of your non-electric-sun explanations because I personally don't believe them"

No, not at all. Depending on whether or not you would personally equate "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection/circuit reconnection", I'll even let you include Birkeland's experiments as a form of "support" for "circuit/particle/magnetic" reconnection theory. I guess it all depends on how you and I come down on that specific issue.

This is called a "hypothesis".

No, it's a "theory" that has no "hypothetical entities" in it, unlike you Lambda-ThreehypotheticalEntitiesInOne" theory.

He showed that electricity was one possible way of getting high-temperature plasma and filamentary structures.

It's a damn obvious one too, and one that we know is used in nature right here on Earth. We know there are *stronger* discharges in Saturn's atmosphere. The sun is certainly larger than either of these physical bodies in space.

That's fine. Subsequent research has shown many other ways.

Shown *empirically* with a sphere in a vacuum, or done in a computer simulation?

Modern science believes that these other ways, not Birkeland's way, are a better description of the Sun.

Based on modern satellite imagery and heliosiesmology studies, I think Birkeland's model wins hands down. Even if you prefer a gas model solar model, the 'discharge' aspects of his experiments would still apply.

You are saying something like, "Open your eyes! Niels Bohr showed that you can explain the atom with a solar-system model! He did all of these alpha scattering experiments which agree with it! He predicted the x-ray spectra of all hydrogenic atoms! How can you say that the Bohr model is wrong when all of Bohr's experiments confirm it?"

The problem of course with your analogy is that whereas today we have better atomic models than the one Bohr presented, you *don't have a better explanation* for solar wind around a whole sphere, high temperature coronal loops, "jets", those solar images on my website, or any of the key "predictions' of Birkeland's solar model. All you have are a bunch of ideas that fail to explain even the satellite images on my website, and that fail to "explain" in the sense of being able to "predict" any of the observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere.

What's that "stratification subsurface" doing there sitting at around .995R where the standard solar model predicts there to be an open convection zone?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

 

[Skwinty]

Question about magnetic lines connecting and disconnecting.
If you take two permanent magnets and allow them to stick together, could this be construed as magnetic line connection and when you pull them apart be magnetic line disconnection?

 

[Reality Check]

Question about magnetic lines connecting and disconnecting.
If you take two permanent magnets and allow them to stick together, could this be construed as magnetic line connection and when you pull them apart be magnetic line disconnection?

It would not. The magnetic lines between the permanent magnets do not disconnect - they basically stretch.

See Magnetic reconnection.

This topic has been in serveral threads over the last year or two.
An example of a posting in this thread by Tim Thompson:

Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).

The argument that magnetic field lines are without physical substance, and therefore cannot reconnect, is purely a semantic argument with no basis in physics. The lines represent the topology of the magnetic field, and the change in the topology of the magnetic field is the physical manifestation of magnetic reconnection. The phenomenological consequence is a transfer of energy from the magnetic field (which loses internal energy) to the plasma (which gains kinetic energy). As noted in the papers cited above, the observations of laboratory plasma are consistent with the predictions based on magnetic reconnection theory. Furthermore, we know that double layers are not involved, because the topology of the field is observable before, during and after reconnection, so double layers would be obviously visible. Furthermore, the result of a collapsing double layer is observationally distinguishable from that of reconnection. The observations in fact are consistent with the latter, and inconsistent with the former.

Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.

One must also observe that the theory of magnetic reconnection is well developed, and is commonly described in plasma physics text books (i.e., Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, concentrates in detail on magnetic reconnection; other books typically include chapters on magnetic reconnection, i.e., Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Paul M. Bellan, Cambridge University Press, 2006 (Bellan heads the Bellan Plasma Group at Caltech, which does an outstanding job of simulating solar prominences in in the laboratory); Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005; The Physics of Plasmas, Boyd & Sanderson, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics, Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993).

Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.

 

[sol invictus]

It would not. The magnetic lines between the permanent magnets do not disconnect - they basically stretch.

That's not correct. If you move two standard permanent magnets around, lines will reconnect. But by "magnetic reconnection" people usually mean the analogous process in plasma, which is more interesting since it generally involves a release of energy.

So @Skwinty - yes, although it doesn't just happen when you first pull them apart.

 

[Skwinty]

So @Skwinty - yes, although it doesn't just happen when you first pull them apart.

I thought so, because when I played with 2 magnets, a piece of paper and some iron filings, thats what it looked like to me.
Just wanted to double check before saying anyone was wrong though

 

[ben m]

You seem to be missing a key issue here Ben. It could not *disagree* with Maxwell's equations unless Maxwell's equations were wrong. They however insist that a magnetic field is a full continuum, without beginning and without out. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines.

So the past 30-some pages of people explaining magnetic reconnection to you has had zero impact whatsoever, eh? You haven't even gotten to the point of saying "They cannot (despite arguments to the contrary) disconnect", nor "They cannot (AFAIK) reconnect", nor even "They cannot disconnect (although the topology of circuits can change this is not reconnection)". Nope. That's a classic rhetorical strategy you're missing, MM.

Anyway: you just made a false statement about Maxwell's Equations. Look at them again---do you see a "continuum" requirement? Nope. Do you see a "vector direction cannot change while B=0"? Nope. You just made it up. The only physical constraint on the magnetic vector field is that it be divergenceless. Any other field whatsoever is achievable for some value of the current field---and that includes reconnecting fields, and divergenceless reconnecting fields are easy to create.

Do you want to argue that no divergenceless vector field can reconnect?

Do you want to argue that there's some extra constraint on B fields other than divergencelessness?

 

[sol invictus]

Do you want to argue that there's some extra constraint on B fields other than divergencelessness?

The problem is that MM read on some quack website that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, and that became his new faith. Since he doesn't understand math he can't check that statement, and for the same reason he completely ignored the very simple and completely explicit solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects which was posted here many times. So he won't be able to answer that question - he'll just retreat into more schizophrenic ranting.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Question about magnetic lines connecting and disconnecting.
If you take two permanent magnets and allow them to stick together, could this be construed as magnetic line connection and when you pull them apart be magnetic line disconnection?

What a delightful analogy. I'm curious about their answer too. I suppose as long as you recognize that there is a *physical* (atomic) 'reconnection' and 'disconnection' process, sure, I *suppose* it could "seem" that way.

The basic problem I have with this idea, is that it is exactly like referring to a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere, or Saturn's atmosphere as a form of "magnetic reconnection". We know that *electrical discharges* in the Earth's atmosphere create gamma rays we can observe in Rhessi images. We use that same equipment to observe the solar atmosphere and we observe gamma rays there too. Suddenly "magnetic reconnection" did it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So the past 30-some pages of people explaining magnetic reconnection to you has had zero impact whatsoever, eh?

I would not say "zero impact" actually, but it's still illogical IMO for you to refer to high energy discharges as "magnetic reconnection" events. It's like calling a lightening bolt a "magnetic reconnection event". Even single coronal loops reach millions of degrees.

You haven't even gotten to the point of saying "They cannot (despite arguments to the contrary) disconnect", nor "They cannot (AFAIK) reconnect", nor even "They cannot disconnect (although the topology of circuits can change this is not reconnection)". Nope. That's a classic rhetorical strategy you're missing, MM.

As Skwinty noted, and your side has also noted, the "topology" of the field lines can and does change depending on the *physical conditions* being changed. In the case of two magnets, the lines rearrange themselves based on a repositioning of solids. In the case of a singular plasma filament, the topology of the field line around the thread changes as the plasma filament moves around and the currents change direction. The current flow generates the show. Turn off the current, not more light show. You folks have the cart before the horse as it relates to *powerful* magnetic field *in light plasma*. How do you figure that's done if not *because of the current flow in the filament*?

Alfven essentially rejected all forms of 'magnetic reconnection' theory because he understood it was the *current flow* that was changing direction. It would be far more congruent to simply call this "circuit reconnection", or "particle reconnection" so that it remains consistent with other branches of physics, including electrical engineering. I suppose that due to his background in electrical engineering, that is exactly why Alfven rejected that label.

The solar wind is whipping by us at over a million miles per hour. We're sitting inside of a "current flow' between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.

 

[ben m]

I would not say "zero impact" actually, but it's still illogical IMO for you to refer to high energy discharges as "magnetic reconnection" events. It's like calling a lightening bolt a "magnetic reconnection event". Even single coronal loops reach millions of degrees.

One thing at a time. Please agree or disagree:

1) I can set up some currents over here and get some magnetic fields in a vacuum over there. Yes or no?

2) If yes, those magnetic fields---way over there in the vacuum, not just in the middle of the source current---can change topology in the way that everyone refers to as "reconnection", as in the several explicit Maxwell's Equations-obeying examples we've shown you. Yes or no?

Let's start there. Notice: no plasma yet, no energy releases. I just want to see if you've gotten it straight on the easy part.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The problem is that MM read on some quack website that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations,

No, I actually read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, and that is where my original objections came from. He rejected the idea as "pseudo-science", mostly because it ignored the actual *physics* going on at the level of particle physics.

and that became his new faith.

I only have faith in empirical physics and personal experience. I experience gravity. I have "faith" it exists in nature.

Since he doesn't understand math he can't check that statement,

This is BS. I simply won't do the math dance at your command. None of this even relates to a problem with the math in the final analysis, it's a problem with a conceptual understanding at the level of *physics* again, as is *always* the case with you folks. Particles and *circuits* can physically "reconnect". Magnetic line topology changes are to be expected and can be observed in any electrical discharge.

and for the same reason he completely ignored the very simple and completely explicit solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects which was posted here many times. So he won't be able to answer that question - he'll just retreat into more schizophrenic ranting.

Actually, that isn't true. I was handed a paper over at space.com from Birn et all a few months ago, that convinced me that there was no problem with that particular mathematical presentation of "magnetic reconnection". The only problem I could find in the whole paper was the "name of the process". It was a mathematical presentation of 'circuit reconnection' or "particle' reconnection, but there is nothing unique about this energy exchange process. It is simply a kinetic energy exchange at the level of charged particles in motion with maybe a wee bit of 'induction' just for fun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is the abstract from Tim's first link:

Abstract
The behavior and interaction of magnetic flux ropes have long been a topic of interest to solar and space plasma physicists, but few laboratory experiments have been performed as it is necessary to have a relatively collisionless plasma and currents with significant self-generated fields. Movable lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes have been developed to study the 3D dynamics of flux ropes in the Large Plasma Device (LaPD). Each 2.5~cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm2 and Δ B/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 1012 cm-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τrep= 1 s) is produced with a DC discharge using a pulsed barium oxide-coated cathode. The two current channels are created by biasing the LaB6 cathodes with respect to a grid anode at the opposite end of the chamber. They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field. J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents. The role of reconnection in these interactions will be investigated through detailed volume measurments of the magnetic field and current density (65000 time steps at 20000 spatial points). Data from Langmuir probes and microwave horn antennas will also be presented.

In other words "currents interact" between the two plasma threads. Wow, I'd have never guessed! Come on. Such experiments simply demonstrate that "currents flow" in plasma and electrons seek the path of least resistance and will "jump" between the plasma threads, and eventually change the flow pattern entirely. This is simply "circuit reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

None of this has anything to do with cosmology.

Baloney. We find "Birkeland currents" outside of our solar system.

Hypocrisy at its finest. The man who cannot explain any of the important cosmological observations of the last century

Excuse me? I simply *admit* my ignorance rather than just "make up" stuff and call it an "explanation". "Dark energy" is an "explanation"?

trying to pour scorn on theories that do

That do what? How does "dark energy" actually "explain" acceleration?

then accuses others of being "arrogant" for allegedly not being able to explain some things he hand-picked (which having nothing to do with cosmology).

I'm blaming you for being so arrogant that you would not listen to the one guy that *could* explain all these observations over 100 years ago, when you *still* cannot do it!

You're the one doing all the "hand picking" about what you're putting the most emphasis on here, not me. Birkeland currents exist in outer space, just as they exist here inside our own solar system. We even observe "current carrying' "magnetic ropes" form between the sun and the Earth. If and when you folks figure out that we live inside an electric universe, none of these "mysteries" will seem all that mysterious anymore. At the moment, you're all *INTENT* on *not* embracing the one thing that would help you understand these processes. Why would a "helix shape" in plasma be an enigma to you folks? Go out an purchase an inexpensive plasma ball, and you can watch them form in light plasma any time you wish.

What I most resent is the notion that Lambda-PureMakeBelieve theory is somehow superior to all other cosmology theories. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of *empirical physics*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not always possible to have things as quantifiable as one might like,......

Not everything can be demonstrated in the lab - which seems to be what you mean by a "physical demonstration of concept". As an example, gravitational lensing cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory but it is quite observable astronomically - I hope you would admit that?

We are still talking past one another here IMO. Lambda-CDM theory does not have a problem as it relates to "quantification". It's problems are related to a lack of "qualification". Sure, it is certainly true that we cannot demonstrate everything on Earth. We can't necessarily construct a whole sun in a lab. We can however simulate some of it's processes in lab. While we cannot create an environment capable of sustaining hydrogen fusion on Earth, fusion does occur in nature. It is therefore a valid theory to suggest it may power a star even if we cannot build a whole star in lab to verify this point.

If however you claim "dark matter" powers a whole star, I'd of course like to see "dark matter' power *anything* here on Earth. I'm not asking for the moon here, just a simple demonstration of concept. I'm also willing to let you scale anything to size so long as you can physically demonstrate it at some physical level.

To claim "inflation, dark energy and dark matter did it" is absolutely no better IMO than claiming God did it. IMO Lambda proponents are turning science into a faith oriented religion. It's one thing to figure out the mathematical odds of various theories as long as we all stick to empirical physics. If however we start stuffing a theory with elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries, those statistical comparisons between competing theories become physically meaningless.

 

[Tubbythin]

Baloney. We find "Birkeland currents" outside of our solar system.

So? "Out of the solar system" =/= cosmology

Excuse me? I simply *admit* my ignorance rather than just "make up" stuff and call it an "explanation". "Dark energy" is an "explanation"?

No you don't. You say PC/EU explains it. It doesn't. Dark energy is more an observation than an explanation. The cosmological constant is a possible explanation. That's why people are making empirical observations of the cosmos to see if it matches the theory that a CC causes the observed accelerated expansion.

That do what? How does "dark energy" actually "explain" acceleration?

See above.

I'm blaming you for being so arrogant that you would not listen to the one guy that *could* explain all these observations over 100 years ago, when you *still* cannot do it!

You're having a laugh right? Birkeland could explain the CMBR 50 years before it was discovered?

You're the one doing all the "hand picking" about what you're putting the most emphasis on here, not me.

I'm putting the emphasis on the observations that are relevant to LCDM since, after all, this is a thread about LCDM. If you want to discuss observations that have nothing to do with cosmology feel free, but its off topic for this thread.

Birkeland currents exist in outer space, just as they exist here inside our own solar system. We even observe "current carrying' "magnetic ropes" form between the sun and the Earth.

Right. Do you have any idea of the scale difference between and "between the sun and the Earth" and the typical scales for cosmology?

If and when you folks figure out that we live inside an electric universe, none of these "mysteries" will seem all that mysterious anymore.

I know we live in a Universe with gravity, the EM force, the strong force and the weak force. I also have a reasonable idea of when each is relevant.

At the moment, you're all *INTENT* on *not* embracing the one thing that would help you understand these processes. Why would a "helix shape" in plasma be an enigma to you folks? Go out an purchase an inexpensive plasma ball, and you can watch them form in light plasma any time you wish.

No. We're intent on having a conversation about LCDM... since that is the topic of this thread.

What I most resent is the notion that Lambda-PureMakeBelieve theory is somehow superior to all other cosmology theories.

I'm not familiar with LPMB theory. Anyway, its irrelevant. This is a thread about LCDM.

Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of *empirical physics*.

I wouldn't know. Like I said, I've never heard of LPMB theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

To claim "inflation, dark energy and dark matter did it" is absolutely no better IMO than claiming God did it. IMO Lambda proponents are turning science into a faith oriented religion. It's one thing to figure out the mathematical odds of various theories as long as we all stick to empirical physics.

Well if by faith you mean making precise empirical observations of the expansion rate of the Universe or the black-body spectrum of the CMBR then I suppose you're right about it being faith orientated. But that's a pretty unorthodox definition of "faith" imo.

If however we start stuffing a theory with elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries, those statistical comparisons between competing theories become physically meaningless.

Good job nobody is stuffing their theories with " elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries" then isn't it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So? "Out of the solar system" =/= cosmology

EU theory has been applied to "cosmology" as described in Cosmic Plasma. What's your point exactly?

No you don't. You say PC/EU explains it. It doesn't.

What I actually said is that *EM fields* could explain the acceleration of "plasma". Elves cannot.

Dark energy is more an observation than an explanation.

"Acceleration" is an "observation". "Dark energy" is more of a dogma than a real thing.

The cosmological constant is a possible explanation.

What is the *cause* of this "cosmological constant"?

That's why people are making empirical observations of the cosmos to see if it matches the theory that a CC causes the observed accelerated expansion.

From a skeptics perspective, you're trying to match up observations to your postdicted math theories about inflation elves and acceleration pixies.

I know we live in a Universe with gravity, the EM force, the strong force and the weak force. I also have a reasonable idea of when each is relevant.

How do you know when "dark energy" is relevant?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well if by faith you mean making precise empirical observations of the expansion rate of the Universe or the black-body spectrum of the CMBR then I suppose you're right about it being faith orientated. But that's a pretty unorthodox definition of "faith" imo.

Actually none of those "interpretations" of the redshift phenomenon are actually an act of faith. It's when Lambda proponents suggest that 'inflation and dark energy and dark matter did it" that it becomes an "act of faith". In other words, I don't object to your belief that the universe is expanding or accelerating. What I object to is the "belief" that "inflation did it", or "dark energy did it".

Good job nobody is stuffing their theories with " elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries" then isn't it.

Lambda theory has dead inflation elves, dark energy acceleration leprechauns, and big fat invisible dark matter fairies doing all the work, and it *includes math*! Wheeeeeeee!

 

[Tubbythin]

EU theory has been applied to "cosmology" as described in Cosmic Plasma. What's your point exactly?

"Cosmic plasmas" cannot be responsible for the key cosmological observations of the Universe. Fairly simple really.

What I actually said is that *EM fields* could explain the acceleration of "plasma". Elves cannot.

We're talking about the accelerated expansion of the universe as a whole. Or I was. You, for some very bizarre reason that I can't quite fathom, keep talking about elves.

"Acceleration" is an "observation". "Dark energy" is more of a dogma than a real thing.

Dark energy is just a name. How is this name a dogma?

What is the *cause* of this "cosmological constant"?

What is the cause of the fine structure constant being what we observe it to be?

From a skeptics perspective, you're trying to match up observations to your postdicted math theories about inflation elves and acceleration pixies.

a) They're not my theories.
b) The only one mentioning elves and pixies.
c) You really don't get this science malarkey do you. I'll repeat:
1) Make observation(s).
2) Construct theory to describe said observation(s).
3) Make predictions from said theory.
4) Compare prediction with observation/experiment.

How do you know when "dark energy" is relevant?

When we're observing on scales when it is observable?