Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina said that after reading this ...

Because "dark energy" is by definition the "anything" which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Tim, it's like a theist claiming God energy is by definition anything which is responsible for the accelerated sxpansion of the universe, therefore God energy (and God) exist by definition. You've created a complete arbitrary "cause/effect" *ASSUMPTION* out of what was strictly an observation of acceleration! Worse yet, you don't even know if it actually related to 'energy" (inside this universe) or that it's 'dark'! There is no empirical link to that observation and your trumped up term. It's meaningless and potentially misleading as well. It goes into the twilight zone stratosphere when you then start claiming that more than 70 percent of the universe is made of this mysterious 'dark energy". You've created a religion over a *STUPID TERM*! There is no 'dark energy", just "human ignorance". GM and you might as well be claiming that human ignorance is the cause of the acceleration and human ignorance makes up 70 percent of the universe. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you could end up being a PC/EU promoter in the end as your own words demonstrate:

If it is a problem with GR, then "dark energy" is that problem with GR.

In other words it may not even involve "energy" at all, but somehow seventy percent plus of the universe is made of some kind of energy that may or may not even exist except in your head.

If it is electromagnetism, then "dark energy" is that electromagnetism.

So as far you you actually know, you could end up right back at EU theory in the end. How quaint. I'll stick to empirical physics thanks.

If it is a repulsive term in Einstein's equations, then "dark energy" is that repulsive term.

I don't even have any clue what that is supposed to mean in terms of "cause/effect",. but it definitely clear that you have no idea if A) it actually involves "energy", B) that it's "dark" (could be EM fields as far as you know), and yet somehow you're selling the public on the concept that most of the universe is made of something that you don't even know exists! The whole thing REEEEEEEEEEKS of religion.

How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?

The problem is completely and entirely your own fault (collectively). Your industry never starts with "ordinary English". Everyone automatically knows what "Cosmic acceleration" refers to. That's too easy however because then your show is busted and you can't claim cosmic acceleration is the cause of cosmic acceleration so your religion won't fly. Instead of selecting something intelligent and that wasn't loaded with mythical entities, you picked a "mysterious" term, created a religion and hope nobody notices your god is impotent. Sorry Tim, dark energy is a figment of your collective imagination. Acceleration may be real, but your impotent god that supposedly makes up more than seventy percent of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with it!

 

[ben m]

There is no empirical link to that observation and your trumped up term. It's meaningless and potentially misleading as well.

Michael, do you remember any of the 12 times I've reminded you that "dark energy" is a HYPOTHESIS for the (observed) cosmic acceleration? Do you remember what "hypotheses" means?

There is no 'dark energy", just "human ignorance".

There *is* human ignorance about why the Universe is accelerating. That's why it is an open/unsolved science question, just like dark matter, the neutrino mixing angle, the strong-CP problem, and P=NP.

You are incorrect to assert---in the complete absence of evidence or understanding---that you know that the dark energy hypothesis is false.

In other words it may not even involve "energy" at all, but somehow seventy percent plus of the universe is made of some kind of energy that may or may not even exist except in your head.

Do you have a hypothesis under which the observed expansion of the Universe is caused by something which does "not even involve energy"? You are welcome to present such a hypothesis.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, do you remember any of the 12 times I've reminded you that "dark energy" is a HYPOTHESIS for the (observed) cosmic acceleration? Do you remember what "hypotheses" means?

So how is Lambda-CDM a "theory"? You guys mix and match terms a wee too liberally IMO.

There *is* human ignorance about why the Universe is accelerating.

Sure, but it's pointless to claim that human ignorance "causes" cosmic acceleration.

You are incorrect to assert---in the complete absence of evidence or understanding---that you know that the dark energy hypothesis is false.

Even if the acceleration is entirely real, dark energy is not. Cosmic acceleration is no more empirically related to dark energy as it is automatically related to God energy just because I happened to use that term! There has to be valid empirical cause.effect difference between a 'science' and a 'religion' other than a term. I don't see one in this case.

Do you have a hypothesis under which the observed expansion of the Universe is caused by something which does "not even involve energy"? You are welcome to present such a hypothesis.

Well for one, you could start with charged bodies that all repulse each other via EM fields. You could start with mass *EXTERNAL* to this physical universe and achieve "acceleration* too. It' could be virtually anything and everything as far as we know. Why do I need to worship at the 'dark energy' temple when I can simply admit my ignorance and start looking for a *REAL* empirical cause that isn't impotent in the lab?

 

[GeeMack]

Tim, it's like a theist claiming God energy is by definition anything which is responsible for the accelerated sxpansion of the universe, therefore God energy (and God) exist by definition. You've created a complete arbitrary "cause/effect" *ASSUMPTION* out of what was strictly an observation of acceleration!

One would have to be a complete idiot to be so willfully and intentionally ignorant of the fact that there is a cause and effect, and it's certainly not arbitrary. I'll explain it again below. Then from now on when you say there isn't a cause and effect, even you will know you're lying. The rest of us already know...

The "strictly an observation of acceleration" is the effect. The "dark energy" is the name given to the cause. You've already agreed all effects have a cause. So once more, the name for the cause is dark energy. The mechanics of the cause may be god farts. The name for the cause is dark energy. The mechanics of the cause may be a psychokinetic aura cast into the Universe by those dangerously insane crackpots who believe the Sun has a solid iron surface. That wouldn't change the fact that the name for the cause is dark energy.

It's just too bad you don't like the name, isn't it? Petition the thousands of people in the scientific community who understand the term and use it when communicating with each other, and get them to change it. Good luck with that. But until you get them to change it, it is the name of the cause. And unless you're mentally ill and have English language skills less than that of a ten year old, you'll understand. Do you understand?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And unless you're mentally ill and have English language skills less than that of a ten year old, you'll understand. Do you understand?

What I understand (and pity) is the fact that you're a verbally abusive human being. That's what i understand about you. That is really all I need to understand about you, and the fact your dark energy god is empirically impotent, and therefore entirely unrelated to acceleration.

 

[Perpetual Student]

One would have to be a complete idiot to be so willfully and intentionally ignorant of the fact that there is a cause and effect, and it's certainly not arbitrary. I'll explain it again below. Then from now on when you say there isn't a cause and effect, even you will know you're lying. The rest of us already know...

The "strictly an observation of acceleration" is the effect. The "dark energy" is the name given to the cause. You've already agreed all effects have a cause. So once more, the name for the cause is dark energy. The mechanics of the cause may be god farts. The name for the cause is dark energy. The mechanics of the cause may be a psychokinetic aura cast into the Universe by those dangerously insane crackpots who believe the Sun has a solid iron surface. That wouldn't change the fact that the name for the cause is dark energy.

It's just too bad you don't like the name, isn't it? Petition the thousands of people in the scientific community who understand the term and use it when communicating with each other, and get them to change it. Good luck with that. But until you get them to change it, it is the name of the cause. And unless you're mentally ill and have English language skills less than that of a ten year old, you'll understand. Do you understand?

 

[GeeMack]

What I understand (and pity) is the fact that you're a verbally abusive human being. That's what i understand about you. That is really all I need to understand about you, and the fact your dark energy god is empirically impotent, and therefore entirely unrelated to acceleration.

Dark energy is the cause for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Yes it is, Michael. Yes it is. Now go read all my explanations again, then come back here and tell me exactly, not just whining, not just moaning, no crying, no lying, tell me exactly what you don't understand about my explanation, and I'll go through it again.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It is more tolerable following these threads, with Mozina on "ignore." However, the responses to whatever he says can be quite entertaining.
I cannot imagine what could be clearer than:

The "strictly an observation of acceleration" is the effect. The "dark energy" is the name given to the cause.

He is either amazingly dense or willfully contrary! I suspect the former.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There is no 'dark energy", just "human ignorance".

That's at least half right.

I don't even have any clue

I'll give you full credit for that one, without even reading the rest of your sentence.

Acceleration may be real, but your impotent god that supposedly makes up more than seventy percent of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with it!

Zero credit. While others have presented solid empirical evidence for dark energy, you have presented absolutely no evidence to support your denial of dark energy. What's more, you have demonstrated your complete ignorance of relationships between dark energy and general relativity, so it's safe to say you haven't the slightest idea of what you're denying.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dark energy is the cause for the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

BS. Your dark energy deity is empirically impotent. It doesn't 'cause' anything. When you folks claim it's just a name given to an unknown "cause", what does it then when you claim that 70+ percent of the universe is made of "dark energy". You don't even know for sure if it's dark at all, and it may not even involve energy?!?!? WTF?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is more tolerable following these threads, with Mozina on "ignore." However, the responses to whatever he says can be quite entertaining.
I cannot imagine what could be clearer than:

He is either amazingly dense or willfully contrary! I suspect the former.

I suspect the personal insults will go on forever since not one of you can prove "dark energy" isn't a figment of your collective imagination or has anything at all to do with "acceleration".

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's at least half right.

It's 100% right. There is no such thing as "dark energy". It does not exist. It's a figment of your collective imagination and essentially amounts to "pure human ignorance" in the final analysis. Period. Dark energy is a myth. It's isn't the "cause" of acceleration or anything else because it's empirically impotent. It's no more the "cause" of acceleration than Apollo energy is the cause of that same observation. You've used a slight of phrase to create a "dark energy religion".

 

[GeeMack]

BS. Your deity is empirically impotent. It doesn't 'cause' anything. When you folks claim it's just a name given to an unknown "cause", what does it mean when then you claim that 70+ percent of the universe is made of "dark energy" when it may not even be dark at all, and it may not even involve energy?!?!? WTF?

I have no deity at all, so I certainly don't have a deity related to cosmology. Your inference that I do is a lie. Bad habit with you, Michael, but not unexpected.

Dark energy may not be dark at all, but we can't see it, can we? And dark energy may not involve energy, but it sure does a fine job of causing accelerated expansion of the Universe, doesn't it?

I suspect the personal insults will go on forever since not one of you can prove "dark energy" isn't a figment of your collective imagination or has anything at all to do with "acceleration".

Dark energy is the name of the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe, Michael. It really is. Of course nobody really expects you to find that an acceptable explanation. You, after all, believe the Sun has a solid iron surface, one of the most ridiculously inane crackpot conjectures ever proposed by anyone outside of a work of fiction. Your qualifications to understand science at any level has been challenged, and you have time and again demonstrated that you simply do not possess any such qualifications.

​

It's 100% right. There no such thing as "dark energy". It does not exist. It's a figment of your collective imagination and essentially amounts to "pure human ignorance" in the final analysis. Period. Dark energy is a myth. It's isn't the "Cause" of acceleration or anything else because it's empirically impotent. It's no more the "cause" of acceleration than Apollo energy is the cause of that same observation. You've used a slight of phrase to create a "dark energy religion".

Dark energy exists. It is the name of the cause of the effect we recognize as the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The expansion is observed and measured, making it empirical by definition. Even you agree that there is a cause for the effect. We call that cause dark energy. Nothing religious about it, Michael. It's science, cause/effect, empirical, tested in labs right here on Earth, all that stuff you so vehemently demand, yet for some reason your religious attachment to that EU/PC crap doesn't allow you to accept it even when it meets your own convoluted standards.

 

[ben m]

So how is Lambda-CDM a "theory"? You guys mix and match terms a wee too liberally IMO.

Surprised? So I guess you didn't read this the other twelve times I explained it.

The Victorian-ish hypothesis/theory/law definitions that you learned in middle school (I learned them then too) are not in common use. Ohm's law? Not actually a law. Tough---deal with it. Everyone seems to be able to handle this except for you and a handful of "evolution-is-only-a-theory" creationists.

Sure, but it's pointless to claim that human ignorance "causes" cosmic acceleration.

I didn't say that. I think you inferred it via an entirely novel logical fallacy.

1) The cookie has been eaten.
2) We don't know who ate the cookie.
3) IT'S POINTLESS TO CLAIM THAT HUMAN IGNORANCE ATE THE COOKIE.

Even if the acceleration is entirely real, dark energy is not.

Even if the cookie has been eaten, anyone that you think might have eaten the cookie does not exist. No one ate the cookie.

Cosmic acceleration is no more empirically related to dark energy as it is automatically related to God energy just because I happened to use that term!

You keep calling the cookie-eating suspect "John Doe"; you've invented a religion worshiping this John Doe character that you don't have any evidence for! There is no John Doe! Just an eaten cookie and your imagination.

Well for one, you could start with charged bodies that all repulse each other via EM fields.

(seriously) No you can't. It doesn't work, EM forces don't do that. Do the math.

You could start with mass *EXTERNAL* to this physical universe and achieve "acceleration* too.

Yep, that's an alternative hypothesis, called the local void hypothesis. There are many mainstream papers on this hypothesis. We have no concrete evidence---and certainly no direct-lab-evidence for such a void. But we gave it a name! Might as well call it the God-void, right? NOW YOU'RE SAYING THE GOD-VOID MIGHT HAVE EATEN THE COOKIE.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Even if the cookie has been eaten, anyone that you think ate the cookie does not exist.

Quite the contrary. I think it's possible that any (empirical) one could have eaten that cookie, but the invisible cookie monster had nothing to do with it.

 

[ben m]

Quite the contrary. I think it's possible that any (empirical) one could have eaten that cookie, but the invisible cookie monster had nothing to do with it.

Empirical my foot. For the 194th time:

What law of Nature says "all laws of Nature are testable in affordable, politically feasible sub-Solar-System-scale experiments by humans circa 2010 AD?"

 

[ben m]

Quite the contrary. I think it's possible that any (empirical) one could have eaten that cookie, but the invisible cookie monster had nothing to do with it.

So you're saying it's like a locked room mystery. "Ladies and gentlemen, the cookie was eaten by one of the four people sitting in this room! " In a mystery, you determine that after learning that the doors are locked, there are no footprints leaving the house, etc. You, Michael, are guessing (rather uninformedly) that the only possible suspects are the ones in front of you. (Never mind that you haven't looked outside. Never mind that the four in-house suspects have been exonerated.)

 

[GeeMack]

Quite the contrary. I think it's possible that any (empirical) one could have eaten that cookie, but the invisible cookie monster had nothing to do with it.

Good. So you accept that there is a cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Good. So you accept that there is a cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

Hello? That was never in question. I simply lack belief that your dark energy deity had anything to do with it. Your dark energy is a mythical creation and completely empirically impotent so it could not possibly have anything to do with acceleration.

 

[GeeMack]

Good. So you accept that there is a cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

Hello? That was never in question.

And...

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause.

Okay, so given that you accept that there is a cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe, and that cause has a name...

The "dark energy" is the name given to the cause. You've already agreed all effects have a cause. So once more, the name for the cause is dark energy. The mechanics of the cause may be god farts. The name for the cause is dark energy. The mechanics of the cause may be a psychokinetic aura cast into the Universe by those dangerously insane crackpots who believe the Sun has a solid iron surface. That wouldn't change the fact that the name for the cause is dark energy.

... you must accept that dark energy exists! See how easy?

Now if you don't get it, re-read everything above, over and over if necessary. Then I'm sure you'll agree that one would have to be a total moron, maybe suffering from delusions or mental illness, or possibly have the reading comprehension skills of a cow patty to misunderstand that dark energy, being the name for the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe, must exist. Understand?