Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

I am?

Yep, you and every Lambda-CDM proponent. How about all that "non baryonic matter" you keep expecting (predicting) you'll find? That sounds like clairvoyance to me, particularly after that last epic fail in the lab.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

For someone who's supposed to be extremely busy (with work), you seem to have found time to write a remarkable large number of posts today MM.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well I don't think it's so productive to try to 'falsify' a theory in a standalone sense. I like to run theories off against each other and pick the best. So for me, any theory that fitted observations either with enough extra accuracy (which given the state of observations is actually quite hard - when the experimental errors don't give you distinguishing power you have a tough time doing this) or with fewer parameters. All you have to do is give me a theory that does either or both of those.

That said, something that would falsify LCDM? Well, observations that don't fit w=-1 would do what you want, as RC said too. There's actually a wealth of possible observations that would falsify it, and a number of surveys in progress that could give those results.

Personally, I would love to see LCDM toppled, on the basis that anything that did topple it would almost certainly be more interesting. However, from what I've seen, what you favour is not in the running.

IMO the only reason EU/PC theory isn't "in the running" is because your industry is too busy playing with metaphysical friends, and too busy to notice empirical solutions. Birkeland already "predicted" things like solar wind acceleration, solar jets, coronal loop activity, etc. Once you folks get your collective head out of the metaphysical sand, EU theory will do fine IMO.

It's just getting you to let go of your trio of metaphysical security blankets that is tricky.

 

[D'rok]

Still waiting to see some dark currents.

Will we see mozplasma in the lab at some point, too?

 

[Michael Mozina]

In which papers - published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal - may one read details of this ""cathode solar theory""?

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still waiting to see some dark currents.

Why? What if it's internally powered as I believe? Why would you expect to see "dark currents"?

Will we see mozplasma in the lab at some point, too?

You really should resist picking up their lingo. GM still has no clue what the term "opaque" even means. This kind of stuff is pure nonsense since all that is required is "current flow" to ionize the ions. It's not that mysterious, although it can now be falsified as a theory via two different "predictions" I made about the Ne+4/+3 emissions and high cadence/averaged RD images. There's no need to recreate anything in the lab since nothing I'm suggesting requires anything "new", unlike their dark energy monsters and dark matter buddies.

 

[D'rok]

Why? What if it's internally powered as I believe? Why would you expect to see "dark currents"?

We're talking EU here. You said there is a galactic circuit. You are always banging on about current flows. Where are they? Show me the money.

You really should resist picking up their lingo. GM still has no clue what the term "opaque" even means. This kind of stuff is pure nonsense since all that is required is "current flow" to ionize the ions. It's not that mysterious, although it can now be falsified as a theory via two different "predictions" I made about the Ne+4/+3 emissions and high cadence/averaged RD images. There's no need to recreate anything in the lab since nothing I'm suggesting requires anything "new", unlike their dark energy monsters and dark matter buddies.

Yes you are. You are proposing a type of plasma never before observed.

And you still can't even understand that you need plasma that is transparent to ~80,000 km if your solar image "analysis" is correct.

Argh. The threads are getting muddled again.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yep, you and every Lambda-CDM proponent. How about all that "non baryonic matter" you keep expecting (predicting) you'll find? That sounds like clairvoyance to me, particularly after that last epic fail in the lab.

We have a rather severe breakdown in communication MM.

In the post I responded to you said this (I added some bold): "You're the clairvoyant one that expects and even predicts that we will find all new forms of matter and energy!"

But thanks, in one sense you have helped me understand why you wrote that (leaving out the "all", and just concentrating on CDM).

You see, I keep underestimating just how profound the communication gap between us is! From your, how did Zig describe it? math-phobic (and proud of it, to boot) worldview, "expecting (predicting)" is something you'd likely read into what I write.

However, my meaning is only clear if you accept the basis of my statements, which include a fundamental acceptance of the quantitative nature of physics (astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, etc), consistent with physics of the last several centuries. It also includes my thumbnail sketch of the criteria for theories to be worthy of detailed study (models similarly); namely:

* internally consistent
* consistent with other, well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap
* consistent with all good (reliable, independently verified) observational and experimental results, within the domain of applicability.

So, once again, we are staring at each other across a gulf that is so profound, so deep that I cannot think of a way to bridge it. Goodness knows I've tried, and tried hard ... maybe I should try to use your very own definitions etc, to evaluate your ideas, as written (as I have done in the Iron Sun with Aether batteries thread, showing the acute inconsistency of your ideas, by your very own criteria). Unfortunately, so far, you seem to have completely ignored every one of my posts written within this framework - do you want a dialogue MM (this is a serious question)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We're talking EU here.

I'm not sure why actually. We now have two conversations going on roughly the same two topics.

I suggest you repost this in the other thread and lets at least *TRY* to separate solar theory and cosmology at least a little bit.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

IMO the only reason EU/PC theory isn't "in the running" is because your industry is too busy playing with metaphysical friends, and too busy to notice empirical solutions. Birkeland already "predicted" things like solar wind acceleration, solar jets, coronal loop activity, etc. Once you folks get your collective head out of the metaphysical sand, EU theory will do fine IMO.

It's just getting you to let go of your trio of metaphysical security blankets that is tricky.

The trouble is, MM, that the only person who thinks Birkeland predicted (standard meaning, not your idiosyncratic one) these things is you.

And, so far, you have failed - spectacularly - to explain your understanding (belief, opinion, ...) to anyone else (at least, here in this part of the JREF).

So, once again, we have thus deep gulf in communication.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In which papers - published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal - may one read details of this ""cathode solar theory""?

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

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

No mention - not a single one! - of "cathode solar theory" there (but, perhaps I missed it - on what page(s) are these trio of words to be found?)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This kind of stuff is pure nonsense since all that is required is "current flow" Mozcharge and Mozwind to ionize the ions.

Fixed that for you.

It's not that mysterious, although it can now be falsified as a theory via two different "predictions" I made about the Ne+4/+3 emissions and high cadence/averaged RD images. There's no need to recreate anything in the lab since nothing I'm suggesting requires anything "new", unlike their dark energy monsters and dark matter buddies.

Who wrote this, I wonder (bold added)?

"the scientific process is supposed to work something like: Observation->Need To Understand That Observation->Empirical Idea->Empirical Experimentation->Numerical Prediction->"

But perhaps you missed this post of mine, in which I examine your statements concerning the Mozplasma, and find it to be an even more magical thing than I had thought.

What are those "Numerical Predictions" again?

 

[Michael Mozina]

However, my meaning is only clear if you accept the basis of my statements, which include a fundamental acceptance of the quantitative nature of physics (astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, etc), consistent with physics of the last several centuries. It also includes my thumbnail sketch of the criteria for theories to be worthy of detailed study (models similarly); namely:

* internally consistent
* consistent with other, well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap
* consistent with all good (reliable, independently verified) observational and experimental results, within the domain of applicability.

The communication gap has nothing to do with math. It begins and ends with your lack of empirical support. You would love to believe that the problem is related to someone else, but it's directly related to a failure on your part, specifically the inability to demonstrate any of your physics in a lab.

You have a "need" to make your ad hoc entity 'fit' the rest of your theory. In your lingo it has to be "internally consistent". What it evidently does not need to be is "tested in the lab" from your perspective. That's the part that's missing from my perspective. Without that part of the "test', the 'properties' you keep assigning to your invisible friends looks to be completely "ad hoc" to "make it fit", not based upon actual laws or rules of "physics". In fact "physics" as we understand it has been relegated to a "bit part" (roughly 4%) and the rest is purely "made up" in an effort to make the rest of the theory "consistent".

Dark energy is a great case in point. You literally 'made up' the notion that it weakly interacts with gravitationally bound objects. You *assumed* that "property" to 'make it fit'. Dark matter is the same. You *assume* it's a magic form of matter because that's what you *NEED* it to be in order to save your otherwise falsified theory.

All of your consistency is based on NEED, and it is enabled by your phobia of real empirical tests with real control mechanisms.

Math is fine as long as you're applying your math to known forces of nature. If however you "make them up as you go", that type of math will never impress me nor make me change my opinions. IMO you simply "created" these ad hoc properties in a purely "as needed" basis.

 

[Reality Check]

...
Birkeland already "predicted" things like solar wind acceleration, solar jets, coronal loop activity, etc. ...

No he did not as anyone who has read his book knows. Scientific predictions usualy include things called numbers. If there are no numbers then a more appropriate term is suggestions. But I huess that is why you have predicted in quotes (unless this is just your usual quoting of random words madness ).

Birkeland noted a resemblance between sunspots and flares to the electrical discharges in his Tessells experiment.
He never predicted the solar wind acceleration - he just stated that a solar wind should exist (and was right).
He never said anything about solar jets unless you class them under a general "electrical discharges from brass balls look like stuff happening on the Sun" analogy.


As for trusting anything that you say about Birkeland, lurkers may interested in this list of questions from another thread about MM's lies and misinterpretations in respect to Birkeland's book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.

1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
4. Is Saturn the Sun?
5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm not sure why actually. We now have two conversations going on roughly the same two topics.

I suggest you repost this in the other thread and lets at least *TRY* to separate solar theory and cosmology at least a little bit.

The reason for the muddle is that:

a) you keep introducing the false dichotomy logical fallacy
b) some of us are trying, very hard, to understand what you write; in particular:
c) how it is logical, consistent, and logically consistent.

Since you keep giving ordinary words your own, highly idiosyncratic, meanings, the only way to do b) and c) is to relate what you write on LCDM being scientific woo to the so-called models you have written most extensively about.

Do you know of any other way we can have a meaningful discussion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The reason for the muddle is that:

a) you keep introducing the false dichotomy logical fallacy
b) some of us are trying, very hard, to understand what you write; in particular:
c) how it is logical, consistent, and logically consistent.

Since you keep giving ordinary words your own, highly idiosyncratic, meanings, the only way to do b) and c) is to relate what you write on LCDM being scientific woo to the so-called models you have written most extensively about.

Do you know of any other way we can have a meaningful discussion?

You could start by not intentionally trying to blame me for your own failures in the lab. We would not even need to have any conversation at all if I could run down to the store and pick up some "dark energy" or some "dark matter" or find some useful product that runs on them. It is only because you *CANNOT* physically justify your claims that you suddenly need to "communicate" with me. My transmission on my car doesn't need to "communicate" with me, nor does my mechanic need to explain how it works to me. I can watch it work with my own eyes. I therefore have no doubt that it works even if I can't explain how or why it works with any precision.

The only reason you have to "communicate' is because you can't "produce the goods". If you could deliver something useful that works on "dark energy', I wouldn't have to "have faith' in it. Likewise if that last 'test' in the lab actually had worked in your favor, it might have been interesting. As it stands, it was an utter fail, your galaxy aging predictions are a total fail and you *STILL* expect me to believe you anyway? You'll have to be an "excellent communicator" to sell me a car that doesn't run and is obviously missing two of it's four tires.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The communication gap has nothing to do with math.

Why, then, have there never been any meaningful exchanges of posts involving even numbers, let alone math?

It begins and ends with your lack of empirical support. You would love to believe that the problem is related to someone else, but it's directly related to a failure on your part, specifically the inability to demonstrate any of your physics in a lab.

(bold added)

Well, we all know, by now, that "empirical support" is yet another of those terms which you use in a highly idiosyncratic way.

It gets even more difficult in light of your (it has to be you, no one else has even mentioned such ideas) inability to demonstrate any of your physics in a lab; specifically Mozeparation and Mozplasma, Mozode, Mozcharge, Mozwind, and Moztronium.

Do you genuinely, truly not see the inconsistency?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The trouble is, MM, that the only person who thinks Birkeland predicted (standard meaning, not your idiosyncratic one) these things is you.

And, so far, you have failed - spectacularly - to explain your understanding (belief, opinion, ...) to anyone else (at least, here in this part of the JREF).

So, once again, we have thus deep gulf in communication.

That seems to be directly related to your unwillingness to read or respond to any of the materials I have provided. Did you ever even sit down and read Birkeland's work after all these years of playing the role of Grand EU Inquisitor?

Somehow I doubt it. You never bothered to even correct GM when he was running around claiming Birkeland didn't even have a solar model. Your whole "style of communication" seems to be based on pure denial.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why, then, have there never been any meaningful exchanges of posts involving even numbers, let alone math?

(bold added)

Well, we all know, by now, that "empirical support" is yet another of those terms which you use in a highly idiosyncratic way.

It's not idiosyncratic the way *I* use it, just the way *YOU* use it.

If a theist told me that "dark evil energy did it", I would want to see empirical evidence to support that claim. Likewise when you say "dark energy did it" I expect exactly the same from you as I would expect from the theist. If you or the theist cannot demonstrate that dark evil energies did it, via standard empirical physics, how is that my personal fault?

If a creationist told you "God did it" and pointed at the sky, would that suffice for you in terms of empirical support? What would you accept as support of that claim?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You could start by not intentionally trying to blame me for your own failures in the lab. We would not even need to have any conversation at all if I could run down to the store and pick up some "dark energy" or some "dark matter" or find some useful product that runs on them.

Just like Mozplasma, a Mozode, and Moztronium, eh?

It is only because you *CANNOT* physically justify your claims that you suddenly need to "communicate" with me.

Just like the Mozwind, Mozcharge, and Mozeparation, eh?

The only reason you have to "communicate' is because you can't "produce the goods".

Just like Mozplasma, Mozeparation, Mozode, Mozwind, Mozcharge, and Moztronium, eh?

If you could deliver something useful that works on "dark energy' Moztronium, I wouldn't have to "have faith' in it.

Fixed that for you.

Likewise if that last 'test' in the lab actually had worked in your favor, it might have been interesting. As it stands, it was an utter fail, your galaxy aging solar "model" predictions are a total fail and you *STILL* expect me to believe you anyway?

Fixed that for you.