Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

If you have no evidence to contradict an assumption,

I don't need evidence to falsify their theory. Each and every 'assumption/claim' requires validation and verification from the one making that claim. Proposing MACHO forms of "dark matter" in distant galaxies is not an "extraordinary" claim. We know that massive planets cannot even be seen directly yet based on our current technology. It is therefore not an extraordinary claim.

SUSY theories however are purely *hypothetical* concepts. Not a single SUSY particle has been verified to exist. I did read about a recent article on axions, that *MAY* in fact have caused some track on a few plates from a collider experiment, but that has not been independently verified, nor have any of the "properties" of such hypothetical particles been determined. SUSY theories are "extraordinary" claims because we have no solid evidence that they even exist in nature. If they do, we still do not fully understand any "properties" any of these particles might posses. For instance, they may exist, but only for a few milliseconds before reverting into something else less exotic. In such a case the lack of longevity would preclude it from being able to be stuffed into Lambda-CMD theory.

The "properties" they have assigned to this exotic matter are all "made to fit" into the otherwise failed theory. In other words, all the "properties" of the materials are "made up" to fit.

and you have multiple assumptions that all fit the situation, it would be silly to throw any away over an issue of personal preferance.

It's really not a matter of "personal preference", it's really a matter of "standard scientific procedure". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. They've never provided such support in terms of real controlled experimentation. Instead they "make up" various properties for DM and *ASSUME* that's a valid property of DM. They made extraordinary claims and provided zip in the way of support.

 

[Ziggurat]

When exactly did mass come into existence?

That's a separate question, one which no theory can definitively answer.

Why wouldn't gravity make the whole thing implode if all matter and energy are collected to an area that is smaller than a breadbox. How the heck would anything escape the event horizon around such an object?

Once again, you display your ignorance of GR. There is no event horizon. You cannot use the solution for a static gravitational field in a situation which is highly NON-static and not close to flat. GR predicts no event horizon in this case.

No, you stuffing DE and DM into GR is "wrong". They don't exist in nature.

You've gone from claiming that there's no evidence for them to claiming that they are disproven. Quite the leap there, Michael. How, exactly, have you proven that neither DE nor DM are possible? Furthermore, in case you forgot what you were responding to, the non-existence of DE and DM would do nothing to change the conclusion that a big bang must have happened or GR (as Einstein taught it) is wrong.

GR is not an island unto itself nor is it the only force in nature.

I never claimed it was. But gravity is indeed the only force which tells you the shape of space-time. That is, in fact, the defining property of gravity. Unless GR is wrong, you're still stuck with that.

Any other force of nature might help to create a "stable" universe.

Nope. Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

You keep *ASSUMING* that GR in the only influence on objects in space,

I have assumed nothing of the sort. Once again, you keep ignoring the difference between objects within your space and space itself. Cosmology is primarily a description of what happens to space itself.

and you keep resurrecting "blunder theory" stuffed with invisible friends.

Not so. Let me make it more explicit: for the purpose of determining whether or not there was a big bang of some sort, I am willing to accept that there is no dark matter or dark energy. So what happens if I accept those statements? I'm still left with a big bang, as long as I have GR, the actual observations, and an assumption of large-scale homogeneity. Which of those do you want to do away with, Michael? And what will you replace it with?

Name even one hole and one inconsistency with GR.

He can't make any such model fit the GR field equation.

You can't get "space" to expand here on Earth.

So what? GR says space can expand under the right conditions. Either GR is correct, or it isn't. If it isn't, then we don't need to refute DM, DE, inflation, or anything else. Conversely, though, if GR is right, we don't need any of that stuff for a big bang either. So what's it going to be, Michael? Do you accept GR or do you reject it? The one option which is not available, if you want to be in the least bit honest, is to say you accept GR but reject its unambiguous predictions.

It is absolutely true in general,

Really? The electromagnetic force, not gravity, is what keeps the earth in orbit around the sun?

One of the neat features of gravity is that it is nonlinear. One of the consequences of such nonlinearity is that the force from gravity can diverge to infinity at nonzero distances. No other force can do that.

A simply refrigerator magnet can overcome the *ENTIRE* gravity of the Earth. It's certainly "true" in general.

Do you even know what "in general" means? Evidently not.

Why should I believe a simple distance metric changes somewhere out there in space someplace?

Because that's what GR says should happen. If it doesn't, then GR is wrong. Do you think GR is wrong?

I have no problem with GR as Einstein taught it.

Then why do you keep denying the consequences of GR that Einstein himself pointed out?

It's your metaphysical blunder theory that I'm not happy with because you stuffed invisible buddies into an otherwise perfectly good physics theory.

Once again, Michael: I don't need anything other than GR as Einstein taught it (plus observations and the assumption of large-scale homogeneity) in order to conclude that there was a big bang. I don't need dark matter, I don't need dark energy, I don't need inflation. None of it. Old-school vanilla GR is enough.

If inflation isn't necessary to achieve homogeneous layouts of matter, then the layout of matter cannot be used to support inflation.

I'm not asking you to accept inflation, Michael. I'm asking you to accept the big bang, because you claim to accept GR. The two are not the same thing. You really are struggling with basic reading comprehension here.

 

[Molinaro]

I don't need evidence to falsify their theory. Each and every 'assumption/claim' requires validation and verification from the one making that claim. Proposing MACHO forms of "dark matter" in distant galaxies is not an "extraordinary" claim. We know that massive planets cannot even be seen directly yet based on our current technology. It is therefore not an extraordinary claim.

SUSY theories however are purely *hypothetical* concepts. Not a single SUSY particle has been verified to exist. I did read about a recent article on axions, that *MAY* in fact have caused some track on a few plates from a collider experiment, but that has not been independently verified, nor have any of the "properties" of such hypothetical particles been determined. SUSY theories are "extraordinary" claims because we have no solid evidence that they even exist in nature. If they do, we still do not fully understand any "properties" any of these particles might posses. For instance, they may exist, but only for a few milliseconds before reverting into something else less exotic. In such a case the lack of longevity would preclude it from being able to be stuffed into Lambda-CMD theory.

The "properties" they have assigned to this exotic matter are all "made to fit" into the otherwise failed theory. In other words, all the "properties" of the materials are "made up" to fit.



It's really not a matter of "personal preference", it's really a matter of "standard scientific procedure". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. They've never provided such support in terms of real controlled experimentation. Instead they "make up" various properties for DM and *ASSUME* that's a valid property of DM. They made extraordinary claims and provided zip in the way of support.

But isn't that exactly how science should progress? There is a situation that cannot be sufficiently explained with known phenomena. Therefore, ideas are put forward that fit the data. Then, looking at those ideas, new consequences are determined to see if the idea can be validated or invalidated. Experiments/observations are done to gather the needed data, and the ideas are weeded out.

Leaving out an idea simply because you don't have enough evidence, when that is true of all the ideas, seems like a shortsighted way of going forward that could lead you to miss the true explanation.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Fudge Factors in Cosmology? II

If however someone intends to claim that any of the "missing mass" is contained in a special form of matter, then I will require that they demonstrate such matter exists in nature.

And you would be both unscientific and wrong to do so. We have strong observational evidence that, in the case of the Milky Way, no amount of any type of known matter can account for the apparently missing mass of the Galaxy (as I have pointed out before). If it is not any known type of matter, then it must be an unknown type of matter. A perfectly reasonable assumption to explore, and any real scientist would do so. You, however, are not a real scientist. You reject everything at once if it does not match your fixed pre-conception. That's how you manage to paint yourself into a corner insisting that the impossible must be true.

My point is that we can't even spot large planets directly yet.

Oops. large planet spotted.

It's silly to simply "assume" that any "missing mass" is found in exotic matter because no forms of exotic matter even exist or have been identified in controlled experiments.

No it is not silly. Silly is petulantly demanding that everything be demonstrated in a controlled laboratory experiment before it is given any scientific merit. Science does not work that way, and it should not work that way. The whole point of science, which sails far over your head, is the art of inference from observation. That observation might be a controlled laboratory experiment, or it might be an astronomical observation, or it might be a naturalist observing birds in the wild. This truly silly notion of demanding controlled laboratory experiments for no particularly good reason is why I brought up that other thread, Fundamental Question on the Nature of Science.

You did not contribute to that thread, but you have already made your stand clear enough ...

Observations are *not* empirical experiments.

That is a position that I brand as silly. I reject it, and so does the entire discipline of science.

More importantly, none of the "properties" of any hypothetical form of matter can yet be "identified" based upon real experimentation.

Not only is it not "more important", it is not "important" at all. It's irrelevant.

All of the "properties" being assigned to "dark matter' are purely "ad hoc" creations so that these things will fit into their theory. In other words they are "made to order" fudge factors.

Hah. You don't even know what a "fudge factor" is. A fudge factor is a number inserted into an equation, with no explanation at all, in order to make the solution of the equation match an observation. Usually the method is to insert fudge factor, get "correct" result, and then thrash around for a while to find a good physical explanation of the fudge factor. Failing that, one might keep the equation and simply call it an "empirical fit" (because it fits the data), or trash the equation and go looking for a better one.

But dark matter is quite another story. For instance, you say the properties assigned are "purely ad-hoc", but you are dead wrong on that. First, non-baryonic is not ad-hoc, but rather an obvious consequence of the matter being "dark", as in not interacting with photons. Far from being "ad-hoc", it is a property specifically tailored to match the observation. Furthermore, "non-baryonic" is not just some made-up category, but one that already is known to exist (i.e, neutrinos are in fact non-baryonic dark matter). So there is nothing ad-hoc or fudgy about "dark matter" at all, it's just a very simple assumption that there is perhaps more that we expected of the same kind of stuff we already know about.

None of your anti dark matter arguments have any scientific merit at all. None of your constant railing about the absence of controlled laboratory experiments have any scientific merit at all. They are just excuses for you to hide behind because you will not admit what everybody else has already figured out long ago. It's all about your own built in pre-conceptions. Your own hypothesis is just one big fudge factor from beginning to end, you will even freely reject the laws of physics in their entirety to rescue an obviously failed hypothesis. That's why you essentially stand alone.

 

[Wangler]

That's part of rho (although it's sometimes written separately).



No you don't. Even in the fully general case you have no wiggle room at all.

It's true that if you add curvature and/or a cosmological constant, you can find solutions in which H vanishes at one instant (as the universe reaches either a minimum or a maximum of its expansion). It's also true that you can find ONE - one out of an infinite continuum - solution in which H=0 for all time. You need both positive cosmological constant, which MM regards as nonsense, and positive spatial curvature, and rho that's perfectly, infinitely tuned to the right value. That solution is as sensible as the one that would tell you an exactly symmetrical, infinitely sharp pencil can balance on its tip. It is unstable among other things to spatial perturbations - a slight overdensity in one spot will destroy it.

But anyway, we don't live in that universe (no spatial curvature, or at least nowhere near enough), so it's not very relevant.

Thanks, Sol.

So lambda may give you momentary stability, but not a long term stability, right?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But isn't that exactly how science should progress? There is a situation that cannot be sufficiently explained with known phenomena.

But we are discussing events that are usually millions if not billions of light years away, based upon very "primitive" technologies that cannot yet see something even larger than Jupiter at this point in time. We don't have the tools necessary to rule out *EVERY* competing theory of how to explain missing mass in something so far away.

Therefore, ideas are put forward that fit the data.

Some of these ideas are entirely logical. For instance I've seen papers trying to explain some "missing mass" may be found in neutrinos. That is a logical possibility and the existence of neutrinos has been verified by multiple independent groups of scientists. There is nothing "extraordinary" about that idea. The same is true for dust. That could have some influence. It's not an extraordinary claim. That is true of all MACHO oriented dark matter theories as well. All of these things should be logically explored and all of them probably do contribute to some of that 'missing mass'.

When we get to SUSY theory however, it's a whole different ballgame. SUSY particles have not been independently verified to even exist in nature. A recent article reports some visual evidence that may be attributable to one type of axion particle. That claim will of course need to be scrutinized very carefully before any conclusions are drawn. Even still, no 'properties' have been identified of such a particle. All DM theories are predicated upon a "property" of "longevity". For all we know, even if SUSY particles do exist in nature, they may be extremely short lived. They may revert to ordinary matter in a matter of milliseconds and therefore they would not work correctly to explain persistent "missing mass" in distant galaxies.

What astronomers are doing with this "gap" is they are stuffing all sorts of ascribed "properties" to these hypothetical forms of matter, starting with longevity. They are literally "making it up" as they go in order to make it fit into their otherwise failed "guestimation" of galactic mass. Doesn't that seem the least bit "fishy' to you? You'll find all sorts of papers talking about other hypothetical properties of hypothetical particles that have been "verified" by distant events in space. For instance, you can find papers on how DM lasts billions of years and eventually decays to emit gamma rays that have now been seen in the sky. Who ever actually demonstrated this claim of longevity and this claim of decay, or this claim that they emit gamma rays when they decay? It's all based on *ASSUMED* properties of *HYPOTHETICAL* particles. That isn't just "fishy", that is down right ridiculous.

Then, looking at those ideas, new consequences are determined to see if the idea can be validated or invalidated.

They are now attempting to 'validate' these ideas based on "point at the sky and add math" exercises. In other words, they *ASSUME* the longevity of the particle. They *ASSUME* that it eventually decays. They *ASSUME* it will emit gamma rays, and they assume they emit gamma rays. They then point at the gamma rays in the sky and claim "dark matter did it". Baloney. These are not "controlled experiments". These are "make believe fantasies" with math.

Experiments/observations are done to gather the needed data, and the ideas are weeded out.

Real "experiments" have actual "control mechanisms" so that we can determine "cause/effect" relationships. Their "point at the sky and add math" papers are not based upon "controlling" anything. They are all based upon pure ad hoc assertions and pure make believe properties of hypothetical entities. It's a "religion", not empirical science.

Now keep in mind that it 'could be' empirical science if you worked it the "right way". In other words if we already had found some SUSY particles and everyone agreed they had specific properties like longevity, *THEN* it would be logical to attempt to explain this "missing mass" with such particles. Since none of these particles have been independently confirmed, no "properties" are know, and no ad hoc assertions should be allowed, it's no longer science. All of these SUSY particles are "acts of faith", usually "several" acts of faith all roled into one, and of course there is the mathematical dressing to make it all look legit. None of it is actually "legit". It's all ad hoc assertion with pretty window dressing.

Leaving out an idea simply because you don't have enough evidence, when that is true of all the ideas, seems like a shortsighted way of going forward that could lead you to miss the true explanation.

IMO the likelihood of mythical particles being long lasting and having the various properties being ascribed to them is about a billion to one. Sure, there is some *TINY* possibility that some of the missing mass (not all) might be contained in some type of unidentified particle. It's a scientific possibility. It's a billion to one shot however since no particles have been identified and confirmed. No "properties" like longevity have been confirmed. No properties like decay have been identified. No emissions have ever been seen that could eventually be attributed to them.

IMO it's a *LOT* more likely that the limits of our technology are the ultimate culprit here. We just can't even see a "dark star" or a "dark planet" or even a "light planet" for that matter. We can't see anything at this distance related to objects that don't emit light at level our technology can observe from this distance. The size and content of the cometary rings around the solar system could be a lot more dense than we realize. There could be a lot of reasons why we do not observe nor include real objects that exist at these distances that we simply cannot observe due to the limits of our technology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oops. large planet spotted.

I'm going to start here by stating "I stand corrected". In some *LIMITED* scenarios, evidently we can indeed see light from a planet. What strikes me the most about that particular image is the amount of other materials that can be seen in that image. How can we know exactly how much material is contained in that whole pattern of emitting matter?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And you would be both unscientific and wrong to do so. We have strong observational evidence that, in the case of the Milky Way, no amount of any type of known matter can account for the apparently missing mass of the Galaxy (as I have pointed out before).

Exactly how many of these visually emitting planets have been observed inside our galaxy? How many planets are inside our galaxy in your "estimation"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it is not silly. Silly is petulantly demanding that everything be demonstrated in a controlled laboratory experiment before it is given any scientific merit.

So the statement "invisible magic elves did it" has automatic scientific merit? Suppose I add math and point to the sky? Will that help? What exactly gives an idea scientific merit?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But dark matter is quite another story. For instance, you say the properties assigned are "purely ad-hoc", but you are dead wrong on that. First, non-baryonic is not ad-hoc, but rather an obvious consequence of the matter being "dark", as in not interacting with photons.

"Dark" as in it emits so little light we can't yet see it with our primitive technologies is very different from 'dark invisible elves did it, therefore they be invisible by definition. If you could demonstrate that.....

A) Some SUSY particle exist.
B) It's 'dark' like you claim
C) It exists for more than a millisecond before reverting to something we can see.

...then I might have some sympathy for your argument.

Far from being "ad-hoc", it is a property specifically tailored to match the observation.

You specifically "tailored" it alright. You custom tailored it to make it fit into your theory. You didn't demonstrate such a particle exists in nature or has any of the properties you suggest.

Furthermore, "non-baryonic" is not just some made-up category, but one that already is known to exist (i.e, neutrinos are in fact non-baryonic dark matter).

No, they are "non baryonic neutrinos". They've been identified and as I explained, I have no problem with you using them in "dark matter" theories.

So there is nothing ad-hoc or fudgy about "dark matter"

MACHO forms of DM, neutrino forms of DM and other forms of DM are not "ad hoc". We can verify the "properties" of these particles with some degree of accuracy. SUSY theories are pure AD-HOC as is the whole concept of custom tailoring it's "properties" to make it fit.

at all, it's just a very simple assumption that there is perhaps more that we expected of the same kind of stuff we already know about.

Just because neutrinos exist are are not baryonic does not mean that there are a bazillion other such particles in existence Tim. You can't *ASSUME* legitimacy that way.

None of your anti dark matter arguments have any scientific merit at all.

Baloney.

None of your constant railing about the absence of controlled laboratory experiments have any scientific merit at all.

Baloney. "Invisible elves did it" is not a scientific theory only because you add math and point at the sky.

They are just excuses for you to hide behind because you will not admit what everybody else has already figured out long ago. It's all about your own built in pre-conceptions.

Somehow I have them but you do not?

Your own hypothesis is just one big fudge factor from beginning to end,

Let's get something straight right here an now. When it comes to explaining the age of the universe, the size of the universe, etc, I have no personal beliefs of any sort that I put any faith in. It could be infinite and eternal for all I know. It could be finite and eternal. It could be finite in terms of age and size. I have no idea from based on what I can see from this little corner of the universe. If you want to put faith in some specific creation date, or some specific event that started it all, I will simply expect you to justify that belief you hold. Period. I don't hold any beliefs about the universe as a whole. Well, that's not entirely true, but I don't have any set beliefs about the age or size, etc. I do believe that it has electric currents in it, but I already see the evidence to support that conclusion from solar wind acceleration to that "slinky" in space.

you will even freely reject the laws of physics in their entirety to rescue an obviously failed hypothesis. That's why you essentially stand alone.

What failed hypothesis? FYI I've "stood alone"' plenty of times in my life. That is no barometer of "truth".

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a separate question, one which no theory can definitively answer.

So let me get this straight. You essentially "rewind the clock" to a "point" (smaller than a breadbox) but you have no idea when mass formed? Hmm. How do you know it wasn't there all the time?

Once again, you display your ignorance of GR. There is no event horizon. You cannot use the solution for a static gravitational field in a situation which is highly NON-static and not close to flat. GR predicts no event horizon in this case.

If you packed all that mass into a single light year sphere it's going to "implode" based on gravity, correct? How is anything ever going to overcome the gravitational pull off all that material?

You've gone from claiming that there's no evidence for them to claiming that they are disproven. Quite the leap there, Michael. How, exactly, have you proven that neither DE nor DM are possible?

They don't exist in nature. (Note that only applies to SUSY DM theory, not *EVERY* DM theory)

Furthermore, in case you forgot what you were responding to, the non-existence of DE and DM would do nothing to change the conclusion that a big bang must have happened or GR (as Einstein taught it) is wrong.

No. Alfven's "bang" didn't require that the whole physical universe be collected to a point. It also assumes a "compression" process. It simply doesn't compress as far as yours. GR theory as Einstein taught it doesn't validate your belief system in any way.

I never claimed it was. But gravity is indeed the only force which tells you the shape of space-time.

So what? We only see a *TINY SLIVER* of "space-time" as we know it. While our little part of the universe could be expanding, other parts could be contracting. You're making so many assumptions now about what the universe looks like in all areas that it isn't even funny. There could be all sorts of "current flows' and EM fields involved in keep it "stable" for all we know. You can't simply *ASSUME* that Gravity is all that is important.

That is, in fact, the defining property of gravity. Unless GR is wrong, you're still stuck with that.

"Gravity" doesn't do repulsive acceleration tricks. You made that idea up and stuffed it into a "blunder" theory. That isn't "GR". GR doesn't speak to the whole universe unless it is the only thing that has any effect on the universe as we know it. That is obviously not true as that million mile per hour solar wind demonstrates in no uncertain terms.

I have assumed nothing of the sort. Once again, you keep ignoring the difference between objects within your space and space itself. Cosmology is primarily a description of what happens to space itself.

GR with the constants set to zero as Einstein taught it only describes "space time", not space.

Not so. Let me make it more explicit: for the purpose of determining whether or not there was a big bang of some sort, I am willing to accept that there is no dark matter or dark energy. So what happens if I accept those statements?

At that point your theory no longer matches observation and it's "falsified".

I'm still left with a big bang, as long as I have GR,

No. You're left (at best) with an observed expansion process, and no way of determining how "small" it may have once been. All the concepts involving "near singularities" all *ASSUME* something that cannot be demonstrated, namely that all matter was once contained in something less that a few hundred million light years across. You could never get it condensed to a "point" based on what we observe. That's pure faith on your part. Alfven's "bang" is in fact a "bang" of sorts, but it isn't a "creation event". It *ASSUMES* that something predated this bang, namely galaxies. That gives us plenty of time to create dead stars and plenty of cool objects.

I'm getting busy at work so I'm going to cut some of the redundant parts out.

I'm not asking you to accept inflation, Michael. I'm asking you to accept the big bang, because you claim to accept GR. The two are not the same thing. You really are struggling with basic reading comprehension here.

I do accept the possibility of a "bang" as Alfven describes it. I have no faith at all in inflation. GR does not allow you to *ASSUME* the level of compactness that you ASSUME.

 

[Ziggurat]

So let me get this straight. You essentially "rewind the clock" to a "point" (smaller than a breadbox) but you have no idea when mass formed? Hmm. How do you know it wasn't there all the time?

"All the time" starts to lose meaning when you reach t=0.

If you packed all that mass into a single light year sphere it's going to "implode" based on gravity, correct?

Incorrect. If you do that in an asymptotically flat, static space-time, that would indeed happen. But the early universe is not static, and in the case of a finite universe it's not flat either. Solutions for an asymptotically flat, static space will not work. Actual solutions to the field equations show that no implosion should be expected, unless we're at the big crunch end of a bang-crunch universe.

They don't exist in nature.

And you've proven this... how? You have not. You have stated that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they exist, but a lack of evidence is not proof that they do not exist.

No. Alfven's "bang" didn't require that the whole physical universe be collected to a point.

Irrelevant. His cosmology is not consistent with GR.

GR theory as Einstein taught it doesn't validate your belief system in any way.

How would you know? You're clueless about what GR actually says, and have on multiple occassions (including in your last post) directly contradicted the unambiguous predictions of GR "as Einstein taught it".

So what? We only see a *TINY SLIVER* of "space-time" as we know it.

And that is enough to rule out static solutions under GR. The only remaining solutions require either a big bang or a lack of large-scale homogeneity.

While our little part of the universe could be expanding, other parts could be contracting.

Which would require that the universe be inhomogeneous even at the largest scales. Which is possible, as I've already stated. But because we see no signs of such inhomogeneity, that is a rather weak basis on which to hang your opposition. Since homogeneity is the simplest option, you're basically saying we should disregard Occam's razor in this case.

You're making so many assumptions now about what the universe looks like in all areas that it isn't even funny.

Nope. Depending on how you count, I'm making either one or two assumptions. I am definitely making the assumption that the universe is homogeneous at large scales. And one could argue that I am assuming that GR is correct. But there are no other assumptions involved.

There could be all sorts of "current flows' and EM fields involved in keep it "stable" for all we know. You can't simply *ASSUME* that Gravity is all that is important.

Sure we can. It's either that, or GR is wrong. If GR is right, then there is no possibility that ANY arrangement of currents, charges, or fields can in any way stabilize space itself.

"Gravity" doesn't do repulsive acceleration tricks.

Don't need it to. I'm not talking about inflation, I'm talking about the big bang.

No. You're left (at best) with an observed expansion process, and no way of determining how "small" it may have once been.

GR doesn't permit solutions which don't keep contracting as we go backwards. So either GR is wrong, or it gets arbitrarily small. Those are the only options available.

GR does not allow you to *ASSUME* the level of compactness that you ASSUME.

No, indeed it does not permit such an assumption. Rather, GR requires such compactness. You'd understand this if you have a clue about GR, but you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not.

 

[Molinaro]

Which would require that the universe be inhomogeneous even at the largest scales. Which is possible, as I've already stated. But because we see no signs of such inhomogeneity, that is a rather weak basis on which to hang your opposition. Since homogeneity is the simplest option, you're basically saying we should disregard Occam's razor in this case.

And that kind of reasoning by Mozina is exactly the kind of reasoning he told me should be used to discard the idea of SUZY particles.

Perhaps Mozina needs to be more consistant with their application of reasons for their choices.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"All the time" starts to lose meaning when you reach t=0.

This immediately *ASSUMES* everything was compacted to a point. You can't demonstrate that theory

Incorrect. If you do that in an asymptotically flat, static space-time, that would indeed happen. But the early universe is not static, and in the case of a finite universe it's not flat either. Solutions for an asymptotically flat, static space will not work. Actual solutions to the field equations show that no implosion should be expected, unless we're at the big crunch end of a bang-crunch universe.

I think I'm going to resist getting caught up in semantics here and focus on the key point. You *CANNOT* demonstrate that all matter and energy was condensed a single point. PERIOD.

And you've proven this... how? You have not. You have stated that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they exist, but a lack of evidence is not proof that they do not exist.

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof. I don't have to "prove" that invisible elves do not exist. If you believe they do exist, you must demonstrate that fact. If you cannot demonstrate the existence of elves, pointing at the sky and claiming elves did it won't fly, math or no math.

Irrelevant. His cosmology is not consistent with GR.

That is a ridiculous statement. It is not. It simply *PRESUMES* that gravity isn't the only influence that is relevant and important.

How would you know? You're clueless about what GR actually says, and have on multiple occassions (including in your last post) directly contradicted the unambiguous predictions of GR "as Einstein taught it".

GR as Einstein taught it included a constant set to zero. His one attempt to set to something other than zero he referred to as his "greatest blunder". You're using a variation of a "blunder" theory in Lambda-CDM theory, not GR.

And that is enough to rule out static solutions under GR. The only remaining solutions require either a big bang or a lack of large-scale homogeneity.

Again, I'm going to resist the urge to get into trivial disagreements here and simply point out that Alfven's "bang" is every bit as legitimate as your bang. It doesn't presume all matter was condensed to a single point. It is a "bang", but not a creation event per se, so it would in fact be "homogeneous over time" if all we need is outbound momentum to make it work.

Which would require that the universe be inhomogeneous even at the largest scales. Which is possible, as I've already stated. But because we see no signs of such inhomogeneity, that is a rather weak basis on which to hang your opposition. Since homogeneity is the simplest option, you're basically saying we should disregard Occam's razor in this case.

It could be inhomogeneous at scales larger than we can observe. We already observe "dark flows". It's not completely homogeneous even inside our little visible sliver of the physical universe, and there is no legitimate way I can be certain that *EVERY* sliver acts just like this one. I could "assume" something based on the assumption that all slivers act just like this one, but that is an ASSUMPTION, not a fact.

Nope. Depending on how you count, I'm making either one or two assumptions. I am definitely making the assumption that the universe is homogeneous at large scales.

So any sort of "bang" would work, right? What's wrong with Alfven's bang?

And one could argue that I am assuming that GR is correct. But there are no other assumptions involved.

False. You assume a level of compactness that is beyond your ability to demonstrate. Alfven's bang only compacted down to about 10 percent of it's present size before expanding again. You compact it down a lot further than he does. Why? What makes your theory more legitimate?

Sure we can. It's either that, or GR is wrong. If GR is right, then there is no possibility that ANY arrangement of currents, charges, or fields can in any way stabilize space itself.

This is not true, but I'm going to keep your feet to the fire on the compression/size issue until you get it.

Don't need it to. I'm not talking about inflation, I'm talking about the big bang.

A standard "bang" in "pure" (Einstein's brand) of GR would *DECELERATE*, not ACCELERATE. Gravity cannot therefore be the only force of nature worth investigating as it relates to activities in our universe.

GR doesn't permit solutions which don't keep contracting as we go backwards. So either GR is wrong, or it gets arbitrarily small. Those are the only options available.

False. You didn't read Alfven's bang theory obviously.

No, indeed it does not permit such an assumption. Rather, GR requires such compactness. You'd understand this if you have a clue about GR, but you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not.

You are simply stating the same false statement again and again. GR does not "insist" on any of the things you claim. Alfven also began with the Hubble constant and worked backwards in time just like you did. He did not assume anything about it compacting itself to a single point. Why? How is you theory better than his?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And that kind of reasoning by Mozina is exactly the kind of reasoning he told me should be used to discard the idea of SUZY particles.

Perhaps Mozina needs to be more consistant with their application of reasons for their choices.

If all we need is a "bang" to achieve homogeneity over time, then Alfven's bang works equally well. It does not and did not *ASSUME* that this was:

A) a "creation event"
B) a process that led to all matter compacting itself to a single point.

If all that is relevant is the need for a "bang", then Alfven's bang is equally valid at all scales.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped usual *ASSUME* rant...
Not to your liking I'm sure.

In other words you do not have some other theory that explains Olbers' paradox, Hubbles law, the CMB, the Lyman-alpha forest, etc.?

That number is completely contrived and *assumed*. In the end, you have no way to justify that number. The best you could do is attempt to suggest that the universe has been contracting for awhile based on redshift data. You could come up with a number of how long that *could have been* *IF* everything condensed to a point. Alfven's bang theory however doesn't require that last assumption. Why should I believe your "bang" theory is "better" in any way?

Maybe because it fits the data?
13.7 billion years is not assumed. It is a calculation from the WMAP data using the BBT.

...snipped usual *ASSUME* rant...
I don't have any trouble accepting that you grossly underestimated the mass of a galaxy. I'm sure there is "missing matter". That is not the same as SUSY theory, nor does it give you the excuse to stuff SUSY theories into that gap.

The evidence allows us to say that the matter that we detect is nonbaryonic matter.

Of course you are ignoring the fact that there is dark matter (in fact most of it) between galaxies as this surface mass density diagram shows (the spikes are galaxies.

...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080515-galactic-dust.html
So why is that number off?

First that I have heard of this but I do note that nowhere in this press release does it state that there is more interstellar meduim - just that the ISM absorbs more light than expected.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words you do not have some other theory that explains Olbers' paradox, Hubbles law, the CMB, the Lyman-alpha forest, etc.?

Nope. That's exactly why I hold no set beliefs about large scale cosmology. The concept "I don't know and maybe never will know" is just fine by me. I do like Alfven's bang theory, but I'm not emotionally attached, nor would I necessarily say it's the "best" theory I've ever seen.

Maybe because it fits the data?
13.7 billion years is not assumed. It is a calculation from the WMAP data using the BBT.

Your theory doesn't fit the data any better than Alfven's theory. Aflven's theory doesn't claim to "know" the actual age of the original physical universe.

The evidence allows us to say that the matter that we detect is nonbaryonic matter.

False. You *ASSUMED* this part completely.

Of course you are ignoring the fact that there is dark matter (in fact most of it) between galaxies as this surface mass density diagram shows (the spikes are galaxies.
[qimg]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/05/the_camera_that_changed_the_u4/mass_recon0024_500.jpg[/qimg]

I'm not ignoring it at all. Birkeland predicted that ions and electrons would make up more mass than all the stars in the universe. It's not surprising to me in any way.

First that I have heard of this but I do note that nowhere in this press release does it state that there is more interstellar meduim - just that the ISM absorbs more light than expected.

Why does it do that if not because it's "dustier" than you originally thought? Maybe because there's more iron than you thought? Suddenly the same number of atoms absorbs double the light? How does that work exactly? Why should I *STILL* trust any of your numbers after we know that the universe is twice as bright as you thought?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think I'm going to resist getting caught up on semantic here and focus on the key point. You *CANNOT* demonstrate that all matter and energy was condensed a single point. PERIOD.

Unless you've got a way to create universes, this criticism applies to all cosmologies. So what?

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Attempting to? No, Michael. The burden has shifted. And it shifted as soon as you went from claiming a lack of proof in the existence of DM and DE to claiming with certainty that they do not exist. You shifted the burden when you made that claim. I just pointed out where it shifted to.

That is a ridiculous statement. It is not. I simply *PRESUMES* that gravity isn't the only influence that is relevant and important.

You can presume whatever you want to. There is no way to reconcile Alfven's cosmology with general relativity. You cannot formulate any version of it which is consistent with Einstein's field equations. So either that cosmology is wrong, or GR is wrong. They are mutually exclusive.

GR as Einstein taught it included a constant set to zero.

And why did he include that constant in the first place? Because without it (which is the same thing as setting it to zero), you get a big bang, and Einstein initially didn't like that solution.

His one attempt to set to something other than zero he referred to as his "greatest blunder". You're using a variation of a "blunder" theory in Lambda-CDM theory, not GR.

If you object to a non-zero cosmological constant, then a big bang becomes unavoidable. Oh, the irony of your ignorance.

Again, I'm going to resist the urge to get into trivial disagreements here and simply point out that Alfven's "bang" is every bit as legitimate as your bang.

Perhaps. And yet, it is inconsistent with GR. So maybe Alfven is right and GR is wrong. But I'm not going to bet that way. And you can't have both.

It could be inhomogeneous at scales larger than we can observe.

Indeed, it could be. Not a safe bet, but I've never denied the possibility.

So any sort of "bang" would work, right?

Wrong. There is a whole class of big bangs which are consistent with GR (including open, flat, and closed universes, for example). But not everything that one could stick the "bang" label to is consistent with GR.

What's wrong with Alfven's bang?

Because it does not, and cannot, fit Einstein's field equations.

False. You assume a level of compactness that is beyond your ability to demonstrate.

I can't demonstrate terrapascal pressures either. Do you doubt that they can exist? And whether or not I can demonstrate such compactness doesn't change the fact that GR says they can exist. So either they can exist, or GR is wrong. Once again, those are the only options available.

Alfven's bang only compacted to about 10 percent of it's present size before expanding again. You compact it down a lot further than he does. Why? What makes your theory more legitimate?

Big bang agrees with general relativity. Alfven's theory does not. You are free to decide which you prefer, but you are not free to claim that Alfven's is consistent with GR when it is not.

This is not true,

Yes it is.

but I'm going to keep you feet to the fire on the size issue until you get it.

Get what? That GR doesn't permit lower size limits?

A standard "bang" in "pure" (Einstein's brand) of GR would *DECELERATE*, not ACCELERATE.

And that gets you out of a big bang scenario... how? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

Gravity cannot therefore be the only force of nature worth investigating as it relates to activities in our universe.

Nobody is claiming that. Quite the reverse, in fact. But it is the effects of those other forces on Einstein's field equations which determines stuff like acceleration or deceleration rates for cosmological expansion.

False. You didn't read Alfven's bang theory obviously.

I've read enough to recognize the inconsistency. But perhaps you would like to prove me wrong. Go on, Michael: show us how Alfven's theory provides a valid solution to the Einstein field equation. Hell, just point us to where Alfven shows such calculations if you can't do them yourself.

You are simply stating the same false statement again and again. GR does not "insist" on any of the things you claim.

Yes it does. Go on: prove me wrong. Find a non-static solution to the Einstein field equation which doesn't involve a big bang.

Alfven also began with the Hubble constant and worked backwards in time just like you did.

But not using the Einstein field equation.

He did not assume anything about it compacting itself to a single point. Why? How is you theory better than his?

I've already told you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unless you've got a way to create universes, this criticism applies to all cosmologies. So what?

It does *NOT* apply to Alfven's bang theory. So what if you never read it eh?

Attempting to? No, Michael. The burden has shifted. And it shifted as soon as you went from claiming a lack of proof in the existence of DM and DE to claiming with certainty that they do not exist.

I am equally certain that invisible elephants do no exist. I am not required to "disprove" every possible concept. Your the one that has to provide evidence, not me.

You shifted the burden when you made that claim. I just pointed out where it shifted to.

Unless you have valid evidence to support your theory (and you don't), the burden will always remain on you.

You can presume whatever you want to. There is no way to reconcile Alfven's cosmology with general relativity.

That is false. He never tried to detach his theory from GR, nor to explain everything from GR. It's completely compatible with GR.

You cannot formulate any version of it which is consistent with Einstein's field equations.

So what? What makes you think you *SHOULD* try to stuff the EM field into GR in the first place?

So either that cosmology is wrong, or GR is wrong. They are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. They are mutually *INCLUSIVE* to GR and MHD theory. You're the one that is being "exclusive" as in being exclusively emotionally attached the the idea that GR is everything there is to know about the universe or that everything should revolve around GR.

And why did he include that constant in the first place? Because without it (which is the same thing as setting it to zero), you get a big bang, and Einstein initially didn't like that solution.

No. You get either a bang *OR* a crunch or some other force must be involved.

If you object to a non-zero cosmological constant, then a big bang becomes unavoidable. Oh, the irony of your ignorance.

The fact you excluded the crunch part only shows YOUR ignorance, not mine.

Perhaps. And yet, it is inconsistent with GR. So maybe Alfven is right and GR is wrong. But I'm not going to bet that way. And you can't have both.

That is simply a false dichotomy fallacy. Alfven never *EXCLUDED* GR, nor did he ever suggest there was anything wrong about GR. You make that up.

The rest of this post seems redundant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've read enough to recognize the inconsistency.

Please explain which *SPECIFIC* statement in that paper was inconsistent with GR?

But perhaps you would like to prove me wrong. Go on, Michael: show us how Alfven's theory provides a valid solution to the Einstein field equation. Hell, just point us to where Alfven shows such calculations if you can't do them yourself.

Alfven wasn't trying to explain the physical universe *STRICTLY* in terms of GR. Why would he? Why would I? He wrote MDH theory and he explained the universe in terms of MHD theory, not GR alone. GR is simply something that he accepted as being *a* factor, but it wasn't the *overriding* factor, nor is gravity the deciding factor in your theory, otherwise the whole thing would simply sit there and do absolutely nothing but stay bundled together in a nice big singularity thingy forever and ever.