Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Wangler]

Wrong.
Weakly Interacting Massive Particle

From the Abell 520 paper:

snip:

"We note that light dark matter candidates such
as axions and supersymmetric weakly interacting massive
particles (WIMPs) have self-interaction cross sections
many orders of magnitude below all the values discussed
here (Kamionkowski 2002)."

 

[DeiRenDopa]

From the article;

"So what does this tell us? The model of the lens outlines the (projected 2D) mass profile of the cluster – which doesn’t seem to agree with numerical simulations for clusters, assuming a standard ΛCDM cosmology. The mass concentration in the center of the cluster is higher than predicted, a result that has also been found for other massive clusters studied with gravitational lensing. This implies that we’re either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model."


Let me see if I have this right.

They process the images based on the assumption that the "blue galaxies" are lensed by the "foreground" cluster. They convolve the images to some shape and measure the mass concentration in the images. If this does not match the ΛCDM model then they say there is dark matter there?

That is insane. Religion. Too much faith in their beautiful equations. Incorrect use of a computer. Danger Will Robinson.....

I would choose option B except I dont think that modify is a strong enough word. I would choose "falsify"..

I'll walk you through some of the actual astrophysics and astronomy involved in a later post (not so much for you, brantc, because you seem quite uninterested in such things, but for others such as Wangler and lurkers); in the meantime, here is the preprint of the paper referred to in the blog entry (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract).

For now I'll note that this thread is about whether 'LCDM theory is [scientific] woo or not' and that your post seems to contribute precisely nothing to the question.

More generally, posts, and questions, on the "it's scientific woo" side may be roughly classed as sensible and/or logical, giving a four-class system.

The distribution of such posts (and questions) seems to be strongly bimodal:

* posts (etc) by folk such as Wangler are 'sensible AND logical' (with an occasional 'sensible BUT illogical' and 'not really sensible BUT logical' outlier or three)

* posts by folk such as you and MM are 'not sensible AND illogical' (with an occasional 'sensible BUT illogical' and 'not really sensible BUT logical' outlier or three).

Does such a bimodal distribution (assuming it could be objectively, empirically, independently, and quantitatively characterised) say something about the fundamental worldview of the respective posters?

 

[Michael Mozina]

* posts by folk such as you and MM are 'not sensible AND illogical' (with an occasional 'sensible BUT illogical' and 'not really sensible BUT logical' outlier or three).

Does such a bimodal distribution (assuming it could be objectively, empirically, independently, and quantitatively characterised) say something about the fundamental worldview of the respective posters?

It seems to me that what it says is that if a specific individual does not have happen to share your "faith" in mainstream dogma, none of your statements or assumptions come across as "logical". The fact you have grossly underestimated the mass of a galaxy is not evidence of the existence of some new exotic form of matter. As long as you keep taking that same giant "leap of faith" off a tall bridge *without* demonstrating that exotic forms of matter actually exist in nature, your "logic" will never seem logical.

DM however is the very least of your problems frankly. "Dark Energy" was a purely ad hoc proposition, as was inflation. These things are simply "made up" and "made to fit" just like all the properties you assigned to exotic forms of "dark matter". Not one of these three metaphysical bad boys can be demonstrated to actually exist in nature in a controlled experiment. Instead we are obligated to share you faith with you, or simply reject that faith. There is no way to empirically verify any of your claims.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unfortunately all threads that MM is involved in will become like this one.

He whines and complains about lab experiments and dead deities without offering any evidence,

You are shifting the burden of proof. I am not required to prove your dead deity is non existent. Even by your logic, I would never be able to do so because it's dead. Instead I have to simply have 'faith' in a dead entity based on an uncontrolled point at the sky exercise.

we ignore his prattling and soapboxing and ask him questions which he ignores. It's a trainwreck in slow motion and repeat.

What questions have I ignored? The only reason it's a train wreck is because these things do not exist in nature, and none of you can demonstrate they do exist in nature in a controlled experiment. It absolutely requires a giant leap of faith.

Really now, MM. Dead inflation deities and invisible faeries? You're a troll. Unlike faeries, trolls exist. Arguing with you is pointless because you'll never admit you're wrong and you'll overlook every single time someone comes up with a counterpoint that refutes you.

The only "counterpoint" you seem to be able to offer me is a galaxy mass estimation technique that you expect me to simply have 'faith in', and then another wild claim about how exotic matter makes up the difference between what is actually there and what you actually predicted. Both of these things requires an "act of faith" on my part. How is that a valid refutation to the fact that your mass calculations are not verified to be accurate and your mythical entities do not exist in nature and never show up in controlled experimentation?

Note that one *CONTROLLED* experiment would end this debate instantly. The fact you don't have one is not my fault, and I am no obligated to share your faith in mythical forms of matter only because you grossly understimate the mass of distant galaxies.

 

[Singularitarian]

Dogmatism comes in many forms, despite its contradictory narrow veiws. Correspondent to this obvious fact, any claim which remains scientific Micheal will remain a theory, but nothing more until incontravetible evidence is witheld.

 

[Vermonter]

You are shifting the burden of proof. I am not required to prove your dead deity is non existent. Even by your logic, I would never be able to do so because it's dead. Instead I have to simply have 'faith' in a dead entity based on an uncontrolled point at the sky exercise.

What questions have I ignored? The only reason it's a train wreck is because these things do not exist in nature, and none of you can demonstrate they do exist in nature in a controlled experiment. It absolutely requires a giant leap of faith.

The only "counterpoint" you seem to be able to offer me is a galaxy mass estimation technique that you expect me to simply have 'faith in', and then another wild claim about how exotic matter makes up the difference between what is actually there and what you actually predicted. Both of these things requires an "act of faith" on my part. How is that a valid refutation to the fact that your mass calculations are not verified to be accurate and your mythical entities do not exist in nature and never show up in controlled experimentation?

Note that one *CONTROLLED* experiment would end this debate instantly. The fact you don't have one is not my fault, and I am no obligated to share your faith in mythical forms of matter only because you grossly understimate the mass of distant galaxies.

Dude. The burden of proof is on you and only you. If you think it's wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is. You repeat yourself endlessly as if that'll change our minds. It's aggravating and meaningless. You ignore the posts that others have made listing unanswered questions. When a direct question pops up, you simply pass it over to rinse and repeat your "4% metaphysical" garbage for the 100th time. I gave you the direct, actual definition of empirical experiment and observation. Guess what? It fits what scientists are doing. But no, you whine and bitch and moan and stamp your feet that you're being persecuted and executed like a good little martyr. Is that how you think science is done, by whining and moaning like a child? You're a troll. End of story.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One would not wonder that if one knew any physics.

I know physics just fine. It's the "mythical" brand of SUSY theory that I don't know because to the best of my knowledge no such thing as a SUSY particle has ever been verified to exist, no properties of such particles have ever been identified and there is no need in particle physics for these things to even exist.

The pixels that are false colored pink are the X-rays from any gas (baryonic matter) that is colliding.

So you have images of gas colliding in the galaxies. So what? The baryons contained in suns and planets and matter that has "clumped" isn't going to collide in the first place. So what if you found some plasma collisions?

The blue areas are the matter in the galactic cluster whether visible or not.

The blue parts are likely to be composed of matter than is not in the form of loose plasma, but rather it likely to be contained in planets and other massive clumps that simply don't "collide" with things from the other galaxy. So what?

Wrong.

From your last paper on 520:

A recent study of the merging cluster A520 by Mahdavi et al. (2007) rests less easily within this simple picture. For A520, Mahdavi et al. (2007) find a central mass peak that contains gas and dark matter but no significant galaxy concentration. These authors argue that such a configuration could occur if dark matter is collisional with a self-interaction cross-section of 3.8 ± 1.1cm2g−1, a result that is inconsistent with the Bullet Cluster limits.

So which is it? Does it collide or not? How's a guy supposed to verify either claim?

Your color coded "blobs" tell us absolutely nothing about the makeup of the matter in those blogs. You keep pointing me at a few blurry blobs from many light years away and the authors of these studies are making conflicting claims about what is required to explain them. How am I supposed to know which of these claims about DM is true? Is this hypothetical mass collisionless, or does it collide with other DM particles?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dude. The burden of proof is on you and only you. If you think it's wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is.

Nope. I can't and will never be able to falsify your claim because you never verified it in any empirical way in the first place, and by your logic it's dead and I can't ever verify or falsify your claim now via controlled experimentation. I simply have to "have faith" in what is literally a *SUPERNATURAL* construct that is now dead and gone.

You repeat yourself endlessly as if that'll change our minds. It's aggravating and meaningless.

You don't figure that works both ways?

You ignore the posts that others have made listing unanswered questions.

Which *SPECIFIC* questions related to this topic have I left 'unanswered"?

When a direct question pops up, you simply pass it over to rinse and repeat your "4% metaphysical" garbage for the 100th time.

That is false. The only thing that keeps "popping up" are "point at the sky" claims that cannot be verified in any controlled way. It's just more of the same "here MM, have faith in our dead deity."

I gave you the direct, actual definition of empirical experiment and observation. Guess what? It fits what scientists are doing. But no, you whine and bitch and moan and stamp your feet that you're being persecuted and executed like a good little martyr. Is that how you think science is done, by whining and moaning like a child? You're a troll. End of story.

You simply resent me because I don't share your faith in dead entities and make-believe forces of nature. You don't like the fact I prefer to stick with empirical physics. If I simply changed my opinions, and adopted your faith, you'd be happy and thrilled to explain your dogma to me in great detail. Since I won't do that without empirical support, you get upset. Religious people do that all the time. Oh well.....

 

[Singularitarian]

How can any experimental set-up make any definate claims? In every year, there is around i estimate 100 discrepencies in gravitational influences within the cluster and super-cluster of galaxies.

With this in mind, we turn to hidden matter from the visible eyes of any measuring machine, but we don't even know if our theories can go past than what we can achieve. Today, our greatest temperature we have reached in labs is actually around a quadrillion times less than what we would have for reaching the Planck Energy.

Our limited means gives limited effects, and we will always have an incomplete theory of physics.l

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dogmatism comes in many forms, despite its contradictory narrow veiws. Correspondent to this obvious fact, any claim which remains scientific Micheal will remain a theory, but nothing more until incontravetible evidence is witheld.

In almost all instances in science, the difference between "dogmatism" and physics is easily distinguishable because physics can be verified in a physical manner in controlled empirical tests and they can be repeated by anyone. Only dogma requires an act of faith on the part of the "believer."

 

[Singularitarian]

I disagree. One of physics problems is that its many theories are not distinguishable. None can attribute wholey towards a unification, nor can any be held more superior than the other in the general chances of being right. The dogmatism of physics is wide, for it will choose biastly that the standard model is the more probable model that is correct, but truth be told it's the only most credible model universally. There are almost certainly other models yet to be developed that must answer for the problems it so far cannot fix, as though it's impervious to corrections because it follows the wrong quantum mathematical laws.

.. or ... at least, that is what this world of physics to me seems to be.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I disagree. One of physics problems is that its many theories are not distinguishable. None can attribute wholey towards a unification, nor can any be held more superior than the other in the general chances of being right. The dogmatism of physics is wide, for it will choose biastly that the standard model is the more probable model that is correct, but truth be told it's the only most credible model universally. There are almost certainly other models yet to be developed that must answer for the problems it so far cannot fix, as though it's impervious to corrections because it follows the wrong quantum mathematical laws.

.. or ... at least, that is what this world of physics to me seems to be.

The assumption you appear to be making is that the current model is "right" until something "better" comes along. I would tend to disagree. Each model, in fact each scientific theory must stand on it's own physical merits based upon what can be physically demonstrated. Particle physics theory isn't "complete" at this point, but many of the "particles" in standard theory have been seen in controlled experiments. Their "properties" can be verified and they directly overlap with many other areas of science. For instance, electrical engineers rely upon known properties of electrons to produce useful consumer products that directly benefit humanity. Whether or not the Higgs exists remains to be seen, but other parts of standard particle physics theory are already producing useful consumer products.

Compare and contrast that usefulness factor in particle physics today, vs. the dogma of astronomy. What useful consumer product relies upon inflation? No one could in fact create such a thing because inflation is now dead. It is a mythical idea with no usefulness whatsoever outside of astronomy. The same is true of SUSY DM and DE. Neither of them show up in a consumer product. Only one of the two of these items even has the potential of *ever* being verified in the standard scientific manner, and DE theory will *NEVER* produce a useful consumer product here on Earth because it has no physical effect on anything on Earth.

Whereas many branches of science remain "incomplete", only in astronomy do we find such a complete detachment between what can be physically shown to exist in nature, and theory. Only in astronomy must we accept the idea that some 'special" circumstances prevents us from *EVER* empirically demonstrating the validity of these ideas, or falsifying them in a standard controlled experimental setting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Compare and contrast that usefulness factor in particle physics today, vs. the dogma of astronomy. What useful consumer product relies upon inflation?

What useful consumer product relies upon quarks? You aren't even willing to apply the standard you are attempting to construct for astronomy (or more accurately, cosmology) to the field you want to contrast it with. But I have come to expect such intellectual dishonesty from you.

 

[Reality Check]

I know physics just fine. It's the "mythical" brand of SUSY theory that I don't know because to the best of my knowledge no such thing as a SUSY particle has ever been verified to exist, no properties of such particles have ever been identified and there is no need in particle physics for these things to even exist.

The point is that scientists are not saying that dark matter is actually SYZY particxles. They are saying that dark matter acts as if it was weakly interacting massive particles and they have various candidates fro what it is.

As for you knowing physics "just fine" - are you aware of just how ignorant of physics you have shown yourself to be in this forum?
Just how many weeks did it take you to find the standard defintion of pressure?
Shall we mention the Casimir force just so that you can post a pretty cartoon for the 100th time?

So you have images of gas colliding in the galaxies. So what? The baryons contained in suns and planets and matter that has "clumped" isn't going to collide in the first place. So what if you found some plasma collisions?

The point is that this is the majority of normal (visible) matter in the Bullet cluster.

The blue parts are likely to be composed of matter than is not in the form of loose plasma, but rather it likely to be contained in planets and other massive clumps that simply don't "collide" with things from the other galaxy. So what?

The point is that this is all of the matter in the Bullet cluster.
And...

And the question you are unable to answer (with more emphasis added)

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib bolb of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
4. We see 3 blobs.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the IGM in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222?

So which is it? Does it collide or not? How's a guy supposed to verify either claim?

The claim is that dark matter weakly interacts. This means that there is a non-zero cross section. That has been estimated using order of magnitude calculation for the 2 observations.
A guy would do the same calculation for other observations and see if there is a comparable result.

Your color coded "blobs" tell us absolutely nothing about the makeup of the matter in those blogs. You keep pointing me at a few blurry blobs from many light years away and the authors of these studies are making conflicting claims about what is required to explain them. How am I supposed to know which of these claims about DM is true? Is this hypothetical mass collisionless, or does it collide with other DM particles?

Dark matter weakly interacts. There are some collisions with both ordinary and dark matter.
What the blobs tell any intelligent person is that the matter in the galactic cluster is made up of 2 kinds of matter, one of which weakly interacts with the other.
Neither author is stating that DM does not exist. You are nitpicking about an order of magnitude calcuation about the properties of actual dark matter. So you must agree that these are three observations of dark matter !

Make up your mind - either they have not observed DM (and so the calculations are moot) or they have observed DM and the only problem is why the calculations differ.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What useful consumer product relies upon quarks?

Only the ones that use atoms in their design.

You aren't even willing to apply the standard you are attempting to construct for astronomy (or more accurately, cosmology) to the field you want to contrast it with. But I have come to expect such intellectual dishonesty from you.

Oh the irony. Don't even think about lecturing me about "intellectual honesty". You folks spend half of your time fixated on bashing the individual and rarely if ever do you actually focus on ideas. This post was no exception.

 

[Ziggurat]

Only the ones that use atoms in their design.

Oh, but I don't believe quarks are real. You can't show me a single quark. No product relies upon the existence of quarks - protons and neutrons may be real, but quarks aren't. In fact, even by their own admission, particle physicists tell us that you can't ever isolate a quark. What's up with that? Clearly it's a bogus theory.

Oh the irony. Don't even think about lecturing me about "intellectual honesty".

Said the man who can't quantify any of his ideas, and ignores the numbers when anyone else quantifies his ideas and demonstrates their absurdity.

You folks spend half of your time fixated on bashing the individual and rarely if ever do you actually focus on ideas.

Not so. I've spent a fair amount of time focusing on your ideas. In fact, I've done far more to quantify some of your ideas than you hae. And what was the result? I've demonstrated that they're nonsense. And you've just ignored it.

 

[Vermonter]

Nope. I can't and will never be able to falsify your claim because you never verified it in any empirical way in the first place, and by your logic it's dead and I can't ever verify or falsify your claim now via controlled experimentation. I simply have to "have faith" in what is literally a *SUPERNATURAL* construct that is now dead and gone.

You don't figure that works both ways?

Which *SPECIFIC* questions related to this topic have I left 'unanswered"?

That is false. The only thing that keeps "popping up" are "point at the sky" claims that cannot be verified in any controlled way. It's just more of the same "here MM, have faith in our dead deity."

You simply resent me because I don't share your faith in dead entities and make-believe forces of nature. You don't like the fact I prefer to stick with empirical physics. If I simply changed my opinions, and adopted your faith, you'd be happy and thrilled to explain your dogma to me in great detail. Since I won't do that without empirical support, you get upset. Religious people do that all the time. Oh well.....

I think you have this unhealthy obsession with anti-science. Just because you've never been able to demonstrate or model something doesn't mean everyone else is automatically wrong. You realize that if we demanded 100% lab-controlled experiments for every field, science would be pretty stale? That's pretty weird. I don't believe in supernatural things, especially "*SUPERNATURAL*" as if talking in Billy Mays mode will help you any. It shows that you're throwing a tantrum again and yelling is your only mode of arguement.

Lesse, this post by Reality Check
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4916344&postcount=1101

Oh look, this other post by Reality Check
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4918393&postcount=1109

This post by Dancing David
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4919143&postcount=1120

The list goes on. You're avoiding them. You look at a picture that you don't even understand how it's made and claim it shows things that don't exist. The scientist who created the running difference graph you spam on here pretty much says you're wrong. You could ask him, but you know the answer already. And again with the dead deity. I've been tuning that nonsense out. If I took a drink for every comment you've made about that, I'd be pretty well drunk a while ago.

I don't resent you. I pity you. If you want to restrict yourself to a lab, have fun making Tesla coils. Actually, that would be pretty fun. And no, we don't want you to change your opinion just to make us happy. I'd rather you take a serious approach instead of whining and complaining about being persecuted and virtually executed and sit down and make a model and make a few predictions. I get irritated when you are presented with evidence and refuse to consider it, and throw it out because it wasn't made in a lab.

I'd like you to ask a university science professor about that. I really think that you're wrong about it. There would be very few, if any scientists and science professors that share that mode of thinking, because it is impractical to limit the range of experiments and observations they can do. Until then, I consider your complaints about lab experiments to be irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think you have this unhealthy obsession with anti-science.

No, I have a healthy respect for empirical science.

Just because you've never been able to demonstrate or model something doesn't mean everyone else is automatically wrong.

Nobody said you were wrong based upon my ability to model things.

You realize that if we demanded 100% lab-controlled experiments for every field, science would be pretty stale?

I don't see how.

That's pretty weird. I don't believe in supernatural things, especially "*SUPERNATURAL*" as if talking in Billy Mays mode will help you any. It shows that you're throwing a tantrum again and yelling is your only mode of arguement.

Vector and scalar fields in nature do not increase their volume by multiple OOM and retain the same density. That's a "supernatural' trick you folks assigned to inflation.

The list goes on. You're avoiding them.

I haven't avoided anything. These are two unrelated threads and my time is somewhat limited so I've been focused on this one for a few days. What's the big deal? Why are you worrying about that thread when you should be worried about supporting your own theories in this thread? Trying to change the subject by any chance?

I don't resent you. I pity you. If you want to restrict yourself to a lab, have fun making Tesla coils. Actually, that would be pretty fun. And no, we don't want you to change your opinion just to make us happy. I'd rather you take a serious approach instead of whining and complaining about being persecuted and virtually executed and sit down and make a model and make a few predictions. I get irritated when you are presented with evidence and refuse to consider it, and throw it out because it wasn't made in a lab.

You seem to be missing a key point here. Nobody doubts that your math works out fine because it is "fudged" to fit. The basic problem with your theory is a lack of *qualification*. I lack belief in your invisible fudge factors. The fact you can't demonstrate these things do exist in controlled experimentation is not my fault, nor am I beholden to give you a free pass. If you could demonstrate these things actually exist in nature we would not be having this conversation, and I would not be complaining. The fact you can't demonstrate they do exist in controlled experimentation makes your belief system an "act of faith", not a act of scientific knowledge.

I'd like you to ask a university science professor about that. I really think that you're wrong about it. There would be very few, if any scientists and science professors that share that mode of thinking, because it is impractical to limit the range of experiments and observations they can do. Until then, I consider your complaints about lab experiments to be irrelevant.

You're welcome to think whatever you like. Just don't expect me to accept your beliefs on faith and point at the sky exercises. It is not as though I'm asking you for anything "special" here, or holding you to any special standards. I'm expecting of you what I expect of all areas of science, and from all scientific theories. It's nothing personal.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, but I don't believe quarks are real. You can't show me a single quark.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309131725.htm

Wrong!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not so. I've spent a fair amount of time focusing on your ideas. In fact, I've done far more to quantify some of your ideas than you hae. And what was the result? I've demonstrated that they're nonsense. And you've just ignored it.

I haven't ignored anything, and you haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. You simply created a strawman of an argument and ignored the physical limitations of your mathematical calculation.

None of that is even related to this thread, and no amount of complaining about my theories improves the quality of your mythical entities. Inflation isn't going to get any better by bashing me personally or by fixating on solar theories. Dark energy isn't going to appear in a lab experiment like those quarks did by talking to me on the internet. Only controlled experiments could resolve this issue, but since you don't have anything like that, all you can do is complain about me and attempt to steer the conversation away from the weaknesses of your theory.