Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

There is no such thing as "negative pressure in a vacuum".

So the Casimir Research school is lying?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've got no leg to stand on with this claim, Michael.

Baloney. This whole conversation demonstrates my point. The denial thing kicks in the strongest the moment you folks are faced with "facts" that contradict your dogmatic belief systems. You all pretty much utterly ignored that recent data about the gaping "holes" in your theory. You utterly ignored the "dark flows' too. You can't even figure out basic things like "kinetic energy" at the level of subatomic physics.

I've already explained to you several times now that I actually completed my first year of Calculus while still in high school. I will not however bark math your command so that you can look for some flaw to claim "Aha! - There is proof you know *nothing* about math*". I'm sure that is exactly what would happen too.

This whole part of your personal attacks is so damn familiar when it comes to conversations with creationists. Since they can't *empirically* demonstrate their claims, they attack the individual. Since your cult can't damn me to hell, evidently the worst you can do it attempt to smear me personally in some way.

It is you that haven't got a scientific leg to stand on. You can't make inflation do anything to anything in a controlled test. You can't make "dark energy" do any lab tricks either. You can't tell the difference between a "pressure difference" and "negative pressure". You folks can't even seem to figure out that kinetic energy also exists at the subatomic level. The whole industry of astronomy seems to be in pure denial of "current flows" in space in spite of those million degree coronal loops we see all the time in satellite images, and in spite of those gamma ray emissions we see from these events, just like discharge events in our own atmosphere.

I'm afraid your personal attacks aren't going to cut it. You'll need to back up your claims with real empirical support, not mathematical formulas about how inflation (now full of holes) saved us from mythical monopole particles (which never existed in the first place).

You must realize that this whole debate would be over in an instant if you actually had a scientific leg to stand on and you could empirically demonstrate your claims about inflation and DE in controlled experimentation. It is only because you *can't provide empirical support* for your belief system that you require "faith" from me. If you claimed "electricity did it", you could certainly demonstrate electrical current has an effect on plasma. If you claimed "gravity did it", you could certainly demonstrate that gravity has an effect on plasma as well. It's only because you cannot demonstrate that inflation or DE has any effect on anything physical that you are forced to "pick on me" because I 'won't have faith' in your belief system.

 

[Vermonter]

Michael, simply looking at diagrams and pictures will not give you the entire picture. There are very few cases that one can derive a correct answer from simply looking at an illustration or picture. The mathematical formula behind the idea gives me a clearer view of how a process works than a simple illustration. The illustration helps, but without the math you are missing the background information of how it actually works.

The reason the other posters are calling into question your education is because for someone who touts that they have a lot of knowledge on the subject, your grasp on basic concepts is strongly lacking. I discussed your ideas several years ago on BAUT, and unfortunately you haven't changed any. I really think if you reevaluate your arguements, actually sit down and do the math behind it, you'll probably learn a few things. You haven't helped your position any by giving derogatory names to the concepts in this discussion. Calling "the dead inflation god" or "the invisible vacuum faeries" only demonstrates that you really have no clue what you are talking about. That is why you are rediculed. Until you can cease mocking what you don't understand, you will not be respected as a scientist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you have two choices: either claim that empty space has a positive pressure of +infinity, or that the pressure inside is negative. Take your pick.

You have *never* demonstrated that "pressure" (positive or negative) actually achieves "infinite pressure". Demonstrate your claim.

 

[Tubbythin]

Baloney. This whole conversation demonstrates my point. The denial thing kicks in the strongest the moment you folks are faced with "facts" that contradict your dogmatic belief systems. You all pretty much utterly ignored that recent data about the gaping "holes" in your theory. You utterly ignored the "dark flows' too. You can't even figure out basic things like "kinetic energy" at the level of subatomic physics.

You what? Where?

I've already explained to you several times now that I actually completed my first year of Calculus while still in high school. I will not however bark math your command so that you can look for some flaw to claim "Aha! - There is proof you know *nothing* about math*". I'm sure that is exactly what would happen too.

Physics is a quantitative science. Why should anybody take someone seriously who is completely unwilling to support their theory with quantitative evidence?

This whole part of your personal attacks is so damn familiar when it comes to conversations with creationists. Since they can't *empirically* demonstrate their claims, they attack the individual. Since your cult can't damn me to hell, evidently the worst you can do it attempt to smear me personally in some way.

Ahem. Who is the person who has been constantly introducing words like "gnomes", "pixies" etc in an attempt to smear proponents of a theory. Who is the person incapable of quantitatively supporting their theories. And you've been given plenty of empirical evidence. If you don't understand it that's not our fault.

It is you that haven't got a scientific leg to stand on. You can't make inflation do anything to anything in a controlled test. You can't make "dark energy" do any lab tricks either. You can't tell the difference between a "pressure difference" and "negative pressure".

You don't even know what pressure is. You couldn't provide a definition. You are in absolutely no position to comment other people's abilities to understand these things.

You folks can't even seem to figure out that kinetic energy also exists at the subatomic level. The whole industry of astronomy seems to be in pure denial of "current flows" in space in spite of those million degree coronal loops we see all the time in satellite images, and in spite of those gamma ray emissions we see from these events, just like discharge events in our own atmosphere.

What are you talking about?

I'm afraid your personal attacks aren't going to cut it.

Oh the irony! What is the above except a personal attack of somebody incapabale of providing any support of there ridiculous theory?

You'll need to back up your claims with real empirical support, not mathematical formulas about how inflation (now full of holes) saved us from mythical monopole particles (which never existed in the first place).

You'll need to stop with alll these strawmen if you want people to take you seriously.

You must realize that this whole debate would be over in an instant if you actually had a scientific leg to stand on and you could empirically demonstrate your claims about inflation and DE in controlled experimentation. It is only because you *can't provide empirical support* for your belief system that you require "faith" from me.

The argument was over on the first page of the thread. The fact that you don't understand that isn't our fault.

If you claimed "electricity did it", you could certainly demonstrate electrical current has an effect on plasma. If you claimed "gravity did it", you could certainly demonstrate that gravity has an effect on plasma as well. It's only because you cannot demonstrate that inflation or DE has any effect on anything physical that you are forced to "pick on me" because I 'won't have faith' in your belief system.

The Universe is (very close to) flat. Explain without inflation.

 

[Tubbythin]

Until you can cease mocking what you don't understand, you will not be respected as a scientist.

Couldn't have put it better.

 

[sol invictus]

This thread is amazing... I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant example of absolute hypocrisy. We have MM accusing everyone else of ignoring empirical data and relying on math (as if that were a bad thing)... while he completely ignores all the empirical data that demonstrates that the Casimir effect behaves according to theory (namely, there is a pressure that goes to -infinity when the plates are close together).*

I can't tell if that's because he honestly doesn't understand this even after it's been explained very slowly and carefully over and over, or if he's simply a lying troll. Either way, he looks like a lost cause to me.

By the way, about dark flows - it turns out the error analysis the authors performed, which lead them to conclude the effect is significant, is incorrect (they applied the wrong Wiener filter). So while the effect is probably there in the data, it may be far below the level of statistical significance (in which case it means nothing). We won't know until someone does the analysis correctly.

*Could that theory be wrong? Sure - the simple quantum mechanical analysis that leads to that formula for the Casimir effect might be totally wrong, and the massive quantity of empirical evidence that supports it a coincidence. Hmm...

 

[Tubbythin]

By the way, about dark flows - it turns out the error analysis the authors performed, which lead them to conclude the effect is significant, is incorrect (they applied the wrong Wiener filter). So while the effect is probably there in the data, it may be far below the level of statistical significance (in which case it means nothing). We won't know until someone does the analysis correctly.

Interesting. Got a link (I'm curious, not that I don't believe you)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. Your comment has no relation to the comment you are responding to.

There is absolutely no reason for RC, or for you, or for anyone else to intentionally misrepresent my level of education on this forum. You can't personally justify RC's outright lies by claiming I "deserved" it. When did I intentionally lie about your level of education or anyone's level of education?

 

[Tubbythin]

There is absolutely no reason for RC, or for you, or for anyone else to intentionally misrepresent my level of education on this forum. You can't personally justify RC's outright lies by claiming I "deserved" it. When did I intentionally lie about your level of education or anyone's level of education?

I wasn't trying to justify RC's comments. I was calling you a hypocrite.

 

[sol invictus]

Interesting. Got a link (I'm curious, not that I don't believe you)?

No link, sorry. Have a look at their longer paper, eqs. 1 and 2, and you'll probably see what I'm talking about.

 

[Ziggurat]

Baloney. This whole conversation demonstrates my point. The denial thing kicks in the strongest the moment you folks are faced with "facts" that contradict your dogmatic belief systems.

There's a difference between "facts" and actually, you know, facts. You're quite accomplished at presenting the former, but you've got a rather loose grasp of the latter.

I've already explained to you several times now that I actually completed my first year of Calculus while still in high school.

Evidence?

I will not however bark math your command so that you can look for some flaw to claim "Aha! - There is proof you know *nothing* about math*". I'm sure that is exactly what would happen too.

So am I - because you can't do math, and you would in fact screw it up. You're scared of getting caught making a mistake because you know that's what will probably happen, even though the problems I've presented to you are trivially easy.

This whole part of your personal attacks is so damn familiar when it comes to conversations with creationists. Since they can't *empirically* demonstrate their claims, they attack the individual. Since your cult can't damn me to hell, evidently the worst you can do it attempt to smear me personally in some way.

You compare me to creationists and say I'm part of a cult, and you expect me to feel sorry for attacking you? Sorry, not going to work. Play the victim card elsewhere, I don't give a damn about your persecution complex.

You can't tell the difference between a "pressure difference" and "negative pressure".

Said the man who still can't even define pressure. Even after having been given simple textbook definitions.

You'll need to back up your claims with real empirical support, not mathematical formulas

Said the man who thinks the sun is a solid shell of iron, and supports his idea with videos of water bubbles in freefall. It's amusing to me that you think drawing-based arguments are somehow superior.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This thread is amazing... I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant example of absolute hypocrisy. We have MM accusing everyone else of ignoring empirical data

Yep, just like you're ignoring those dark flows and *gaping holes* in your theory.

and relying on math (as if that were a bad thing)...

Relying *only* on math *is* a bad thing, particularly if you never check your work in the real world in real physical "experiments". You for instance "assume" (evidently based on a math formula *ONLY*) that the "pressure" achieves "infinity". Care to physically demonstrate this for us, or are you just putting absolute *faith* in a math formula only?

while he completely ignores all the empirical data that demonstrates that the Casimir effect behaves according to theory (namely, there is a pressure that goes to -infinity when the plates are close together).*

Which specific *empirical data* that demonstrates "infinite pressure" did I ignore?

I can't tell if that's because he honestly doesn't understand this even after it's been explained very slowly and carefully over and over, or if he's simply a lying troll. Either way, he looks like a lost cause to me.

You are a lying troll when you claim that I ignored "empirical data" demonstrating "infinite pressure" in some actual experiment. Where's your data?

By the way, about dark flows - it turns out the error analysis the authors performed, which lead them to conclude the effect is significant, is incorrect (they applied the wrong Wiener filter). So while the effect is probably there in the data, it may be far below the level of statistical significance (in which case it means nothing). We won't know until someone does the analysis correctly.

Reference please.....

*Could that theory be wrong? Sure - the simple quantum mechanical analysis that leads to that formula for the Casimir effect might be totally wrong, and the massive quantity of empirical evidence that supports it a coincidence. Hmm...

Which "quantity of evidence" demonstrates that this process achieves "infinite pressure"? You seem *incapable* of distinguishing between a "math formula" you put faith in, and an "actual physical experiment" to demonstrate your claim. There is no physical way you could ever hope to demonstrate "infinite" pressure. I'd be curious what the actual maximum measured "pressure" might be, but I guarantee you that it was not "infinite".

The problem with your favorite math formula is that it is based upon "perfect" circumstances that never exist in nature. There is no 'perfectly flat" surface, or perfect physical experiment. The most you might hope to demonstrate is that the measured pressure was "greater than 1ATM", but you could never hope to demonstrate that the pressure achieves "infinity" in the real world. That is why you can't rely *exclusively* on a math formula.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No link, sorry. Have a look at their longer paper, eqs. 1 and 2, and you'll probably see what I'm talking about.

So we just have to take your personal word for it eh? I don't suppose you have any actual evidence that they actually agree with you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I wasn't trying to justify RC's comments. I was calling you a hypocrite.

You could only rightfully accuse me of hypocrisy if I had intentionally lied about RC's level of education.

 

[sol invictus]

Which specific *empirical data* that demonstrates "infinite pressure" did I ignore?

You ignored the data on Casimir energies, all of which is perfectly consistent with the formula P = -1/d^4 for large parallel plates. Not to mention all the data that indicates QM is correct.

Since you didn't like the choices I gave you before, I'll offer a new one:

1) QM is wrong
2) the pressure outside is +infinity
3) the pressure inside is negative.

Go ahead - choose one.

I'd be curious what the actual maximum measured "pressure" might be, but I guarantee you that it was not "infinite".

Earlier, you (bizarrely) claimed it was 1 atm. After we pointed out how stupid that was you changed your story (to some vague and incoherent gibberish). So why not go look at the data - and then (after looking) you can "predict" the outside pressure for us. That would be nice, a real prediction (not based on anything other than ignorance, but a start nevertheless). Of course your new prediction would be falsified the next time someone improves the experiment.

So we just have to take your personal word for it eh? I don't suppose you have any actual evidence that they actually agree with you?

They don't, as far as I know. They're wrong. And no, of course you don't have to take my word for it. You can go read the paper and judge for yourself. Oh wait, I forgot... you're not capable of that. Too bad, huh?

Anyway, enough. You're a fool and a waste of time, and I regret taking you off ignore - so back you go into your troll-hole.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, simply looking at diagrams and pictures will not give you the entire picture.

Of course not, it typically takes years of study to begin to understand QM.

There are very few cases that one can derive a correct answer from simply looking at an illustration or picture.

On this particular point, that one illustration does in a single picture what would take thousands of words to adequately explain verbally. It's a good picture and it clearly demonstrates QM "pressure" on both sides of both plates.

The mathematical formula behind the idea gives me a clearer view of how a process works than a simple illustration.

That is not always necessarily true, and in this case it is definitely not true. The formula in use *intentionally* ignores the outside "pressure". As long as you recognize that it shows "relative pressure", it's not a problem relying on the math formula alone for an "understanding" of the physical process that it attempts to describe. If you don't recognize the limits of the math formula however, it can lead to all sorts of "wacky" ideas like "negative pressure in a vacuum", when such a thing is physically impossible. There is "pressure" from the atoms in the chamber, and there is "pressure" from the VP's in the chamber, but there is no form of "negative pressure" in that chamber.

The illustration helps, but without the math you are missing the background information of how it actually works.

If you rely *only* on the mathematical presentation alone, you can also end up with an extremely "oversimplified" understanding of what is going on. Chapman's theories looked great on paper, and worked out correctly on paper, but they did not accurately represent "reality" at it exists in nature. Math formulas are often *oversimplified* ideas that do not always accurately represent nature.

The reason the other posters are calling into question your education is because for someone who touts that they have a lot of knowledge on the subject, your grasp on basic concepts is strongly lacking.

Except of course my "understanding" matches that which is published on WIKI, and in that picture on Wike, and also in the article I cited. Why is that? How do you know I'm wrong when others agree with my presentation of this idea?

I discussed your ideas several years ago on BAUT, and unfortunately you haven't changed any. I really think if you reevaluate your arguements, actually sit down and do the math behind it, you'll probably learn a few things.

I've been learning quite a lot over the last few years. Ever since I opened my mind to Birkeland's EU ideas it's been a growth process.

You haven't helped your position any by giving derogatory names to the concepts in this discussion. Calling "the dead inflation god" or "the invisible vacuum faeries" only demonstrates that you really have no clue what you are talking about.

It only demonstrates that I have no respect for your personal brand of 'religion' and I have no faith in things that do not exist and cannot be shown to exist in nature. Inflation does not exist. It never existed. Guth literally "made it up" and attached some math to the idea. It's a figment of a human imagination that has become a social "MEME". His original theory was falsified as has every other brand of inflation in recent observations, and yet you refuse to acknowledge these observations? What else can I do but mock this denial song and dance routine?

That is why you are rediculed. Until you can cease mocking what you don't understand, you will not be respected as a scientist.

Why should I not mock your theories when you folks go out of your way to mock PC/EU theory and real forms of "empirical science" that show up in a lab? Someone needs to knock you folks down off that high horse of yours and get you to acknowledge the value of "empirical physics", complete with "real experimentation".

Why should I not mock what does not exist? I mock invisible unicorns and monopoles and inflation and dark energy theories because these things do not exist in nature and have no effect on nature. If you believe otherwise, it is up to you to provide "empirical evidence" to support your opinions on these topics. That fact you cannot do that is not my fault, nor am I beholden to "have faith" in things that do not exist only because you collectively happened to believe in them.

One thing I've learned is that you folks don't even have a "singular" belief system in the first place. Some folks like DRD reject inflation, but offer no explanation as to how things "got started". Some folks have little or no faith in "dark energy" theories. Some folks aren't be "dark matter" fans, especially the SUSY brand of dark matter. Some folks have definite theories about the "size" of the physical universe prior to expansion, whereas others do not. In spite of your suggestion, there is no 'singular' viewpoint, even among the 'experts' in this field. It's very much like a "religion" too because all of it requires "faith" on the part of the "believer", and there are individual's that deviate from the standard dogma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You ignored the data on Casimir energies, all of which is perfectly consistent with the formula P = -1/d^4 for large parallel plates.

Specifically (no weaving or dodging) which physical experiment demonstrates that this "pressure" become "infinite", or even say "100 ATM"?

Not to mention all the data that indicates QM is correct.

PFFT. QM blows your ideas out of the water, you just refuse to listen to anyone outside of yourself for an answer. I gave you two perfectly good references which you simply *ignored*. QM demonstrates my position, not yours. There is no "negative pressure", just "more pressure" on one side of the plate than the other.

There is nothing wrong with QM, just your understanding of QM. The person who created that diagram on Wiki didn't suffer from your same delusions, nor did the author of the article I cited. You simply refuse to listen or learn.

 

[ben m]

I am amused by MM's shifting approach to experiments.

Birkeland's terella experiment: "Look at this empirical experiment on a 10cm sphere, whose features that look sort of like features on the Sun. We can probably extrapolate plasma physics across large scales (ed: using math) because we know how plasma physics works (ed: MM will claim that someone knows how to extrapolate, but he has never shown an actual extrapolation). Therefore we know that solar effects have the same cause as terella effects." MM is very liberal with his experiment/model/data comparisons, isn't he?

Decades of mainstream Casimir-effect experiments: "Look at this empirical experiment on forces appearing between small conducting plates at largeish separations. We can extrapolate these forces to smaller separations because we know quantum electrodynamics. (nb: totally standard extrapolation) Therefore OMG YOU IDIOTS THE PLATES AREN'T NECESSARILY FLAT and LOOK, YOU'RE EXTRAPOLATING and YOU DIDN'T MEASURE IT AT EXACTLY PRECISELY THE SAME SCALE I DEMANDED" Wow, MM has suddenly become a Humean who wouldn't forecast the phase of the moon because 1000 years of data plus Kepler's laws aren't necessarily the right predictor.

Decades of neutrino experiments: "Look at this empirical experiment showing that the neutrinos (not antineutrinos) from the sun come from fusion, not fission, at exactly the rates, energies, and flavors predicted by the standard solar model and the (reactor+accelerator tested) standard neutrino model, and very specifically not the rates predicted by the MM fission model, and with no extrapolations at all. Therefore WELL, IT SURE TOOK A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT AND THERE'S PROBABLY STILL STUFF WE DON'T KNOW" Wow, now MM wants us to ... look over there, it's Halley's Comet!

Decades of mainstream magnetic-reconnection experiments: (no comment)

My conclusion: it is impossible convince MM of something that doesn't jibe with his personal preferences. Forget him.

 

[Ziggurat]

MM is very liberal with his experiment/model/data comparisons, isn't he?

That's an understatement. When I pointed out that his model of the sun as a spherical solid shell was gravitationally unstable and would collapse, his answer was a YouTube video of a bubble within a sphere of water which was in free fall. As long as he has pictures with some superficial similarity to what he wants to be true, he accepts it as proof. His inconsistencies are epic.