Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

The "it" is this:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"^? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

Let's see how well MM's experiment/explanation (if that's what it is) of qualification works.

"Pick something up off the ground" - OK, did that.

"and let it go" - OK, did that too.

"I assure you gravity will show up and have an effect on that item" - um, if you say so ... but what "effect" did you predict "will show up"? And how did you relate the effect to "gravity"?

"if you jump up" - OK, did that

"you will come back down" - um, no, that did not happen ... does that mean that "gravity" does NOT "show up in the lab"? That it does NOT "have a tangible effect on real things"?

Also, does that mean that "gravity" affects only human beings who can jump up?

What is the point in responding to you when you go out of your way to *not* address the point?

Sorry MM, I thought I was directly addressing exactly the point you seemed (to me) to be making.

Would you care to try again to say what the point you think you making is?

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment.

It does?

I didn't know that.

For example, how does "gravity" show up in the classic double-slit experiment?

How about the experiment which shows white light is made up of all the colours of the rainbow?

(As Tubbythin already noted, there are a great many more such experiments)

Your three metaphysical invisible friends never show up in the lab.

I didn't know that I had any "metaphysical invisible friends", let alone three of them.

Care to explain?

You're comparing something "real" to something "imaginary" and you refuse to acknowledge their key differences.

I am?

I thought I was merely asking you to explain, in a simple way, what you mean by the term "qualification" (and similar words).

How does What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"^? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)? involve a comparison?

Your dark energy never shows up in the lab.

My dark energy? What are you talking about?

Your inflation friend is dead and is evidently incapable of *EVER* showing up in a lab.

My inflation friend? What are you talking about?

Your exotic matter hypothesis lacks any sort of empirical support in the lab.

My exotic matter hypothesis? What are you talking about?

Gravity isn't shy around the lab.

You've said this, quite a few times.

I don't understand what you mean.

Please explain.

Your three metaphysical entities are complete no shows in the lab.

My three metaphysical entities? What are you talking about?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If someone were proposing a scientific hypothesis involving "godflation", and that hypothesis made testable predictions, then I would certainly be willing to entertain the hypothesis no matter how bad a name had been given to one of its components.

Great. *I* propose "Godflation, "God energy" and God matter" did it, and I blatantly and brazenly pilfer the appropriate math. Now what?

Congratulations. You have just demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that you have no idea how falsification works in science.

In return for performing that service to this thread and to the world at large, I will answer your question. A scientific hypothesis X makes testable predictions of the form "if X, then Y". (If there were no such predictions, then X would not be a scientific hypothesis.) If we can come up with observations and/or experiments that will determine (with some reasonable level of confidence) whether Y is true, then we attempt to perform those observations and/or experiments. If we find that Y is not true, then X is falsified.

Someone who is unwilling even to consider predictions of the form "if X, then Y" until X has been "qualified" will never be able to falsify X.

So go ahead now and demonstrate that "Lambda-God did it" theory isn't valid.

You're completely affirming the consequent in each and every one of your claims. There are none of your claims that enjoy even a single shred of scientific support *outside* of your finger pointing (at the sky) exercise! If we simply rename the variables, there's no way to falsify the statement "God did it" because like the mainstream I intend to tweak all the variable for as long as they do in an effort to make everything fit. Each failure will simply result in a new form of metaphysical claim, and around and around we go....

 

[DeiRenDopa]

No it doesn't. It consistently fails to show up in almost all particle physics experiments.

I thought we were being intellectually honest? Does gravity show up on Earth in controlled experiments?

Yet another example of misrepresentation, intellectual dishonesty, abysmal reading comprehension, or weird logic (or some combo thereof).

In this post MM states (I added some bold) "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment."

Tubbythin responds by pointing out, accurately, that, pace MM, gravity does not "show up in every experiment".

And MM has the, um, chutzpah, to say TT is not being "intellectually honest"?!?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is often very shy. Try measuring the gravitatinal force in a proton-proton collision at the LHC.

That's a ridiculous argument IMO. Why would I even want to do that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet another example of misrepresentation, intellectual dishonesty, abysmal reading comprehension, or weird logic (or some combo thereof).

In this post MM states (I added some bold) "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment."

Tubbythin responds by pointing out, accurately, that, pace MM, gravity does not "show up in every experiment".

And MM has the, um, chutzpah, to say TT is not being "intellectually honest"?!?

Gravity didn't disappear or fail to show up in the experiments DRD, it's just not a relevant factor. Your stuff doesn't show up at all under *ANY* experiments. You guys call this intellectually honest debate?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It is often very shy. Try measuring the gravitatinal force in a proton-proton collision at the LHC.

That's a ridiculous argument IMO. Why would I even want to do that?

Perhaps because you claimed that "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment."?

Perhaps TT was merely seeking to test the hypothesis bald assertion you made?

More generally, this points to a serious problem in communication MM.

It seems that you (often) do not write what you mean to say, and/or make gross errors of logic.

 

[GeeMack]

Great. *I* propose "Godflation, "God energy" and God matter" did it, and I blatantly and brazenly pilfer the appropriate math. Now what?

Now what? Maybe show your pilfered math and explain how it applies?

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perhaps because you claimed that "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment."?

Perhaps you simply ignored the point again? You love to fixate on minute trivia to the complete exclusion of the key issue. Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It does show up. Your invisible make-believe entities do not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now what? Maybe show your pilfered math and explain how it applies?

Obviously you missed the point. They don't apply, and neither do your made up invisible friends.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Gravity didn't disappear or fail to show up in the experiments DRD, it's just not a relevant factor.

It most certainly failed to show up!

If you had meant to say "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every relevant experiment." (or similar; emphasis added), your comment would be perfectly reasonable.

However, you did not.

And everyone can see that you did not.

MM, you're making this far harder for yourself than it needs to be.

How about you simply start simply, by answering this question:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

Your stuff doesn't show up at all under *ANY* experiments.

My stuff? What are you talking about?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you folks had a *SHRED* of intellectual honesty, you'd simply admit the weaknesses in your argument and move on. Since you have an emotional attachment to your theory however, you seem to be completely incapable of embracing the problem.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you had meant to say "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every relevant experiment." (or similar; emphasis added), your comment would be perfectly reasonable.

So instead of actually addressing the key point of my argument, you're still dancing around the problem by playing games with my words? Care to address the issue?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Perhaps because you claimed that "Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment."?

Perhaps you simply ignored the point again? You love to fixate on minute trivia to the complete exclusion of the key issue.

Actually, I thought I was trying, very hard, to focus on both "the point" and "the key issue"!

And what is that?

Why it's "qualification" (and similar words)!

That's why I asked you - many posts (and pages!) ago now - to explain, simply, what you mean.

IIRC, you did not even try to do that (explain what you mean).

Never mind, here's my simple question again:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It does show up.

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes showing that "gravity isn't shy around the lab"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists, or "shows up" (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

Your invisible make-believe entities do not.

My invisible friends? What are you talking about?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Great. *I* propose "Godflation, "God energy" and God matter" did it, and I blatantly and brazenly pilfer the appropriate math. Now what?

Then we proceed exactly as we would have proceeded with the original, presumably less stupid, names.

To make that concrete, let's suppose you are talking about Einstein's revision of general relativity in 1917, and you are proposing we say "Godflation" instead of what is now known as the Einstein tensor, "God energy" instead of lambda, and "God matter" instead of the stress-energy tensor. We keep all the math exactly the same. We therefore draw exactly the same conclusions, including the conclusion that there is no non-trivial, static, stable solution for an isotropic, spatially homogeneous, dust-filled universe.

In short, the stupidity of your names makes absolutely no difference to the science. Hence your endless repetition of stupid names in this thread has been nothing more than a dishoneststupid rhetorical tactic.

You're completely affirming the consequent in each and every one of your claims.

Untrue. As we have tried to explain to you, with spectacular unsuccess, your unwillingness even to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y" until X has been "qualified" essentially disqualifies you from the scientific enterprise.

There are none of your claims that enjoy even a single shred of scientific support *outside* of your finger pointing (at the sky) exercise! If we simply rename the variables, there's no way to falsify the statement "God did it" because like the mainstream I intend to tweak all the variable for as long as they do in an effort to make everything fit.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said above you would "brazenly pilfer the appropriate math." Now you say you're going to tweak it until everything fits.

Let's take a concrete example: Einstein's 1917 field equations, with your stupid names as above. Einstein didn't like the conclusion to which he was eventually led by the math; you probably don't like it either. Just how do you propose to tweak those field equations to fit your prejudices?

Please be specific.

Each failure will simply result in a new form of metaphysical claim, and around and around we go....

That's why I'm asking you to be specific when you explain just how you're going to tweak the field equations. If you retreat into vagueness or mathematical nonsense, your tweaking will break the field equations so badly that they will no longer make testable predictions, thereby turning them into non-science.

 

[Tubbythin]

I thought we were being intellectually honest? Does gravity show up on Earth in controlled experiments?

Yes. Does it show up in every experiment, no. What was your claim again?:

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment.

So, in other words, your claim was wrong. How does me pointing out that your claim was wrong amount to intellectual dishonesty? Do you have your own definition of "intellectual dishonesty" too?

Does inflation show up on Earth in the lab?

No. Is it expected to? No. What is your point? Are you trying to claim that the laws of the Universe be such that all aspects of physics should be testable in a lab on or before the date of June the 4th 2010? If so, please explain why you believe this to be the case. If you do not believe this to be the case, please explain what on Earth is your point.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If you folks had a *SHRED* of intellectual honesty, you'd simply admit the weaknesses in your argument and move on.

The funny thing is, MM, that it is only you (apparently) who thinks there is a weakness.

And, for half a decade now (more or less), you have been singularly unable to explain what you mean by the central point of your case ("qualification").

How can anyone "admit the weakness in" an argument if they do not understand the weakness only you see so clearly?

Shouldn't your evident failure to explain what you mean spur you to try even harder?

You might like to start with this:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

Since you have an emotional attachment to your theory however, you seem to be completely incapable of embracing the problem.

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I have is absolutely no idea what you mean by the central, key terms in your argument ("qualification", "empirical", for two). Given that, then of course I am "completely incapable of embracing the problem"! I can't "embrace" something I have no clue about!

 

[Tubbythin]

That's a ridiculous argument IMO.

How so? You made the utterly ridiculous claim that:

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment.

I pointed out a clear example where it doesn't show up, thus highlighting that you are clearly wrong. If you don't want me to show you up, as wrong, don't make such ridiculous statements.

Why would I even want to do that?

You wouldn't. It was a way of highlighting how ridiculous your statement was.

 

[Tubbythin]

So instead of actually addressing the key point of my argument, you're still dancing around the problem by playing games with my words? Care to address the issue?

Your argument was:

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. It consistently shows up in every experiment.

I pointed to a clear example of an experiment in the lab where gravity doesn't show up thus proving your proclamation that gravity "consistently shows up in every experiment" to be wrong. What is that if it is not addressing the argument?

 

[Tubbythin]

If you folks had a *SHRED* of intellectual honesty, you'd simply admit the weaknesses in your argument and move on. Since you have an emotional attachment to your theory however, you seem to be completely incapable of embracing the problem.

Care to tell us all why the laws of the Universe be such that all aspects of physics should be testable in a lab on or before the date of June the 4th 2010? Because that seems to be your argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then we proceed exactly as we would have proceeded with the original, presumably less stupid, names.

Less stupid? IMO it's three of one, a quarter dozen of the other.

To make that concrete, let's suppose you are talking about Einstein's revision of general relativity in 1917, and you are proposing we say "Godflation" instead of what is now known as the Einstein tensor, "God energy" instead of lambda, and "God matter" instead of the stress-energy tensor. We keep all the math exactly the same. We therefore draw exactly the same conclusions, including the conclusion that there is no non-trivial, static, stable solution for an isotropic, spatially homogeneous, dust-filled universe.

In short, the stupidity of your names makes absolutely no difference to the science. Hence your endless repetition of stupid names in this thread has been nothing more than a dishoneststupid rhetorical tactic.

What you're claiming is that Lambda-God theory is just a valid as Lambda-CMD theory?

Untrue. As we have tried to explain to you, with spectacular unsuccess, your unwillingness even to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y" until X has been "qualified" essentially disqualifies you from the scientific enterprise.

How did I qualify God energy, or associate it with Lambda? You failed to show any physical cause/effect relationship between X and Y! You simply "assumed" it!

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said above you would "brazenly pilfer the appropriate math." Now you say you're going to tweak it until everything fits.

Like the mainstream's variables, there's nothing preventing me from making changes as I go because I never have to physically demonstrate any of it. I can modify the variables and properties of these "God thingies" just like the mainstream creates ad hoc properties for it's variables. Nothing prevents me from using that approach as the mainstream. That's all I was implying.

Let's take a concrete example: Einstein's 1917 field equations, with your stupid names as above. Einstein didn't like the conclusion to which he was eventually led by the math; you probably don't like it either. Just how do you propose to tweak those field equations to fit your prejudices?

Please be specific.

You'll have to elaborate more on this question for me to answer it. I don't have any particular need to change any of the original equations. I simply "lack belief" that exotic brands of dark matter, dark energy or inflation have anything to do with those formulas or any variable in those equations. I have no emotional or intellectual need to change any of the original GR formulas however.

That's why I'm asking you to be specific when you explain just how you're going to tweak the field equations. If you retreat into vagueness or mathematical nonsense, your tweaking will break the field equations so badly that they will no longer make testable predictions, thereby turning them into non-science.

I think that the communication problem here is my fault. I'm simply willing to change the numbers when I see fit, much like the mainstream did when they stuffed "dark energy" into those equations when they found out that the universe was accelerating. I am no more limited by my ability to tweak the variables than the mainstream and the number of my variables can change at any time.