Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Perpetual Student]

Hey everybody! I'm coming in late, here. I've taken the last five days (!) to read this thread, front to back. It's been considerably enlightening and informative. I do have a question, though. How can we be certain that Michael Mozina is real?

Let me clarify a bit here, because just saying that sounds odd to me, and I wrote it. What I mean is, how can we be sure this is a real person, and not some performance artist doing this for laughs? After reading all his posts from the day he's hopped in here, I've been noticing that each and every one of his replies is finely tuned to appear as though it is a caricature of a pseudoscience loving crackpot. A caricature, I say, and I think, not real. There's someone writing these posts, certainly. But I don't think the person we imagine is the one doing the writing. It's almost as if it's being written by someone playing a part. Who knows, it's possible, and in my mind, quite likely that this Mozina person is just someone's hobby to inject a few laughs into his or her day.

I don't know. I have my doubts.

But anyways, I do have a vague question regarding the topic at hand: (Keep in mind I'm a layman at science. Interested in it, but only educated up to the high school level, though hopefully shortly I'll be remedying that!) Under what we know now of the universe, is it possible that there are sections of it that obey different physical laws? If so, how would we know just from observations?

I have had similar thoughts. Sometimes it's hard to believe anyone could appear to have a real interest in physics and cosmology and hold such unscientific and illogical opinions. It is even more irrational that he does not pay attention to nor show respect for those who do have genuine knowledge in these fields. It could very well be a spoof!
I'll allow the cosmologists answer your second question, but I do think those parts of the universe we can observe appear to obey the same laws of physics we know. Regarding the unobservable parts of the universe ...?

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina's ignorance of the empirical link between acceleration and dark energy

That's reasonable since our own star emits light that we can directly measure.

This is a non-sequitur fallacy. There is no empirical link between acceleration and what you're calling 'dark energy'.

That is over the edge into the realm of stupidity, Michael Mozina. Dark energy is actually called ... dark energy !


We have exactly the same empirical link between stars/acceleration and lighgt/dark energy. That empirical link is the measured laws of physiucs. Since it is obvious that you remain ignorance of this here is it again for the umpteenth time:

• We detect light from points in the sky. This light is an effect. We call the most probable cause of this effect stars. The empirical link between stars and light is QM.
• We detect that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. This acceleration is an effect. We call a set of possible causes for this effect, dark energy. The empircal link between acceleration and dark energy is GR.

One more time MM. It is really simple sequitur logic.

1. Assume that every effect has a cause.
2. The measured acceleration is an effect.
3. Thus the acceleration has a cause
4. We call a set of possible set of causes that share certain properties: dark energy.

I cannot make it any simpler.

Since you have made it abundantly clear that you are incapable of understanding this really simple stuff and will just keep demonstrating this ignorance for the world to see, this is the last time that I will address this point.

ETA
The faulty science in the following has been pointed out to Michael Mozina many times before, especially his stupidity of calling possible causes (dark energy) of something that affects the entire universe, "impotent". Unfortunately he has some kind of mental block that prevents him from understanding this.

Whereas an ordinary EM field has a direct empirical connection to acceleration, your impotent sky entity does not. Do you recognize and accept that distinction, yes or no?

I do not have any "impotent sky entity". You may have delusions about a "impotent sky entity" in your head but there is no such thing in science.
Your ignorance that dark energy has nothing to do with a religious deity is still astounding through. This persistent delusion is just confirming that the answer to Are you aware that you are still showing the symptoms of a crank? remains no.

Whereas an ordinary EM field has a direct empirical connection to acceleration. A cosmological EM field slows down the expansion of the universe. We detect the opposite effect. Thus a cosmological EM field is not a possible cause of the observed acceleration.

Whereas an ordinary gravitational field has a direct empirical connection to acceleration. A gravitational field that includes a non-zero cosmological constant (or one of several other fields added to GR) speeds up the expansion of the universe. We detect this happening. Thus dark energy is a set of possible cuases of the acceleration.

Do you recognize and accept that distinction, yes or no?

 

[Ziggurat]

Let me clarify a bit here, because just saying that sounds odd to me, and I wrote it. What I mean is, how can we be sure this is a real person, and not some performance artist doing this for laughs?

If it's a performance artist, he's quite dedicated to the persona.

He's managed to get his name attached to some papers by a professor from Rolla, Missouri (the papers are crap, but they exist), and there's a web page for a small business that Michael Mozina runs. So there is evidence external to this debate that a person by the name "Michael Mozina" exists.

In principle, this person could just be pulling our collective legs. But I don't think so. This has been going on for too long, and while Michael's beliefs are absurd, they're consistent (in the sense that he continues to express the same ideas, not in the sense that they form a logically coherent picture). I don't think a performance artist would have both the endurance and consistency of someone with real delusions.

But anyways, I do have a vague question regarding the topic at hand: (Keep in mind I'm a layman at science. Interested in it, but only educated up to the high school level, though hopefully shortly I'll be remedying that!) Under what we know now of the universe, is it possible that there are sections of it that obey different physical laws? If so, how would we know just from observations?

Yes, it's possible. Whether or not its detectable depends on exactly how you think the laws change. I don't remember the details, but certain sorts of changes (like varying speed of light) should leave signatures that would be observable, and which we don't detect. I think stuff like changing ratios in atomic emission line energies.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Distant laws of physics

How can we be certain that Michael Mozina is real?

As Ziggurat says, we have evidence that he is not that particular kind of fake person. We do have 4 papers appearing in 2005 and 1 in 2009 by Mozina (Mozina papers linked here), and he runs his own website The Surface of the Sun where he promotes his silly idea about an iron laden sun. And of course he is quite industrious, posting on many boards over several years. Quite an obsession for a "not-real" person.

Under what we know now of the universe, is it possible that there are sections of it that obey different physical laws? If so, how would we know just from observations?

We assume that the entire observable universe obeys the same fundamental laws of physics. While we can't say that we know this for a fact (hence it does qualify as an assumption), we can say both that it is a reasonable assumption and that there are no known observations that are inconsistent with this assumption. Keep in mind that in saying all this, we must remember that there is no good reason to assume that we actually know what all of those fundamental laws of physics are.

One good way to test this assumption is spectroscopy. We can study the spectra of atoms & molecules in great detail in laboratory settings, and then compare those observations with astronomical observations of atoms & molecules that are very far away. There are no apparent exceptions to the rule that those distant atoms & molecules share precisely the same spectral characteristics as the atoms & molecules we observe in laboratories. Those spectral characteristics are know to be quite sensitive to the form of the laws of physics, so that determination is strong evidence that the laws of physics (at least the laws of atomic & molecular physics, and quantum mechanics) are of the same form far away as they are nearby, but whether of not the "fundamental constants" such as the fine structure constant are the same everywhere is a matter of debate at the moment.

Another good way to probe the distant laws of physics is through gravity. Here the dark matter problem has brought the law of gravity under discussion. Are the observed effects caused by additional matter that we just can't see (dark matter), or are they the result of law of gravity slightly different than we thought (modified gravity), or perhaps some mix of the two? In this case, it's not that we think the law of gravity is different there than it is here, but more that the true law of gravity might include a long range component that we have not been able in the past to see with enough precision to detect. But the assumption that there is more matter than we can readily see is much more accepted at the moment, primarily because it is a much simpler assumption than requiring the law of gravity to be modified, and that observation thus far is consistent with this simpler assumption.

So the bottom line really is that we can see the universe, starting here and all the way out to many billions of light years distance. Over those distances, our observations are consistent with the fundamental assumption that the laws of physics billions of light years away are the same in form as they are here.

 

[GeeMack]

Hey everybody! I'm coming in late, here. I've taken the last five days (!) to read this thread, front to back. It's been considerably enlightening and informative. I do have a question, though. How can we be certain that Michael Mozina is real?

Let me clarify a bit here, because just saying that sounds odd to me, and I wrote it. What I mean is, how can we be sure this is a real person, and not some performance artist doing this for laughs? After reading all his posts from the day he's hopped in here, I've been noticing that each and every one of his replies is finely tuned to appear as though it is a caricature of a pseudoscience loving crackpot. A caricature, I say, and I think, not real. There's someone writing these posts, certainly. But I don't think the person we imagine is the one doing the writing. It's almost as if it's being written by someone playing a part. Who knows, it's possible, and in my mind, quite likely that this Mozina person is just someone's hobby to inject a few laughs into his or her day.

I don't know. I have my doubts.

He's real. This has been going on for years, since 2002 at least. His arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, arguments from lies, deflecting the burden of proof, his world class evasion techniques, his refusal to answer simple direct questions, his disdain for legitimate science, his math phobia, his hero worship of dead scientists, all of it. Nothing Michael presents as an argument here is new, not even sorta new. It's all reruns of reruns, Gilligan's Island and I Love Lucy, but only funny in the most pathetic way.

 

[sol invictus]

I've taken the last five days (!) to read this thread, front to back.

Dear god.

How can we be certain that Michael Mozina is real?

I think it would be very easy to write a Mozbot that could seamlessly take over for the real live Mozina (assuming there is one, that is). Any self-respecting performance artist, on the other hand, would long since have gone insane.

Under what we know now of the universe, is it possible that there are sections of it that obey different physical laws? If so, how would we know just from observations?

Yes, it is. In fact in some modern theories one expects such regions to exist (more precisely, the "low energy" laws of physics vary from region to region - but all the different versions are governed by a single unified theory that simply has many different possible phases). If we come in contact with such a region, we could learn about it. But if it's too far away, we're out of luck.

 

[GeeMack]

Any self-respecting performance artist, on the other hand, would long since have gone insane.

Insane, but still posting. Now there's a possibility that hasn't been ruled out by evidence.

 

[Perpetual Student]

He's real. This has been going on for years, since 2002 at least. His arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, arguments from lies, deflecting the burden of proof, his world class evasion techniques, his refusal to answer simple direct questions, his disdain for legitimate science, his math phobia, his hero worship of dead scientists, all of it. Nothing Michael presents as an argument here is new, not even sorta new. It's all reruns of reruns, Gilligan's Island and I Love Lucy, but only funny in the most pathetic way.

Gasp! If Dante were alive today he would have a Mozina level!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Honesty II

I think there's overwhelming empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that MM frequently, and consciously, lies.

The only one lying around here is you, and you're only lying to yourself. This "destroy the messenger" style of debate is the first "lie". It's not an honest debate tactic. It's a pitifully weak method of debate, but apparently it's all you've got.

Is it not somewhat ironic that, in the midst of accusing someone else of lying, Mozina lies? Reading this, someone might think that poor Mozina suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, nobly presenting real science in the face of peasants who never say or do anything, except to revert to personal assaults on him to avoid any real discussion. But of course the real truth is quite the opposite, which Mozina surely knows. It is Mozina who so consistently presents pseudo-scientific word-salad arguments and so consistently reverts to personal insults in order to avoid any real discussion.

Mozina says, "It's not an honest debate tactic", but as I have already pointed out in detail (e.g., Honesty, What is "Empirical Science"? VII, What is "Empirical Science"? IV), it is Mozina who dishonestly refuses to acknowledge his wholesale re-definition of the basic concept of empiricism, just to avoid any meaningful discussion.

Mozina says, " ... but apparently it's all you've got". Really? see, for instance, W.D. Clinger's posts Maxwell's equations and magnetic reconnection, mathematical prerequisites, mathematical prerequisites, part 2, or mathematical prerequisites, part 3. Is there really nothing there except egregious personal insult? Or is there a concrete discussion of real science, which Mozina has thus far chosen to ignore?

And what about my own posts? See, for instance, Dark Energy and Empirical Science II (and the many posts linked therein) or Dark Matter and Science V (and the many posts linked therein). And my posts on magnetic reconnection, e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI, Magnetic Reconnection Redux X, or Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III. And my posts on the iron sun idea, e.g., No Iron "Surface" for the Sun, The Great Iron Layer or Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V. Are these posts nothing but personal ad-hominem attacks of no other substance? Or perhaps there is some real science content, to which Mozina has never made any viable response?

There are many more examples from many more posters, all of whom have dealt fairly with Mozina, only to be repaid with insults and then being ignored.

The pitifully weak, dishonest debating around here comes from Mozina, and Mozina alone. He will not acknowledge his blatant re-definition of the concept of empiricism, while at the same time accusing others of not being empirical because they do not conform to his prejudiced version of same. His choice to replace genuine, honest inquiry and rational science with a prejudiced, irrational, infallible doctrine of faith is indeed his choice. He has nothing to complain about when it is his own free choice that brings no comfort. All he has to do is change to the extent of preferring an honest & open inquiry. It's amazing how fast something like that will change the circumstances of any discussion.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Maybe this fascinating discussion, of quantum metastability events and vacuum bubbles, could be taken to a different (new) thread?

 

[Mister Earl]

You're right. Sorry for the derail.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

I don't have to understand all the math related to Maxwell's equations to see EM fields *DO* something in the real world. It's only because your invisible sky entities don't show up on Earth that you're insisting some "math" relates to your sky entities somewhere "out there" where I can't get to. Your sky entities are impotent on Earth and they will forever be impotent on Earth so they will forever be based of faith in sky entities that have no measurable effect on humans. That's a "religion", not empirical physics. Your problem is not related to math, it's related to your lack of a cause/effect demonstration of concept. No amount of math is going to fix your empirical physics problem.

I don't have any invisible sky entities. Do you really think lying helps you make a compelling argument? Don't you find it the least bit odd that you are a known liar and you've never once been able to convince a single professional scientist that anything you have to say is more than a pile of manure? Could there be a link? Were Alfvén, Bruce, and Birkeland liars?

I think there's overwhelming empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that MM frequently, and consciously, lies.

However, there's also a profound gulf in basic communication; wrt this: "I don't have to understand all the math related to Maxwell's equations to see EM fields *DO* something in the real world."

What are these "EM fields" of which MM speaks? What is it that one actually observes, empirically, in the lab, in controlled experiments?

Well, there's fridge magnets, electric motors, x-rays, CCDs, radio, discharges, polarised light, waveguides, particle-wave duality, and a lot more besides.

What is it about these amazingly different phenomena that permits us to describe (many of) them in terms of "EM fields", and electromagnetism in general?

The answer is math; specifically Maxwell's equations and QED. Sadly, MM does not understand this; to him, apparently, all these diverse phenomena are, in a very basic, intuitive, sense, "electromagnetism". But could MM demonstrate the deep relationship between, say, a fridge magnet and a double-slit experiment? Without maths? I don't know, but I have my doubts.

In other words, "EM fields" exist only wrt the math that describes them, Maxwell's equations, say. Shorn of the math, what is there? Only a diverse list of well-observed phenomena, with few, or no, connections between and among them.

Now MM may be quite sincere in believing that he can, in fact, understand what "EM fields" are, or what electromagnetism is. However, because he does not recognise - even refuses to recognise - that unless and until he grasps the math, what he believes is a delusion, a fantasy. In this restricted sense, MM is not lying.

There's something deeply ironic that lurked just below the surface, in my post; ironic wrt MM's "EM fields", electromagnetism, and MM's apparent delusion/fantasy.

What is it?

Why it's none other than our fave - not at all invisible - friend, the Casimir effect!

Here is an example of something quintessentially mozperical (thanks to Tim Thompson for this handy term): it is demonstrated in the lab, under controlled conditions, right here on Earth.

Better: it is an exquisite example of "see[ing] EM fields *DO* something in the real world"!

Even better: the "EM fields" cause acceleration!!

So where's the irony? Well, in MM's telling of this experiment, the acceleration is not caused by "EM fields"; indeed, in at least one of MM's telling of this (i.e. his "explanation"), there are no "EM fields" present at all.

But how do we *know* that "EM fields" are *DOING* something in this (real world) experiment? Well, we know because we understand "all the math related to Maxwell's equations"¹. Without understanding that math, we'd have no way to tell (short of some sort of religious intuition).

And to get to that understanding, we need to use the concept of pressure; and to use that concept, we need to have a quantitative, objective, independently verifiable, robust definition of pressure.

And that definition, of necessity, involves math.

And we all know that MM has shown - many times, in many threads here - that he does not even understand the necessity of such a definition, much less accept the one found in standard textbooks.

In short, in at least one case, MM cannot "see EM fields *DO[ING]* something in the real world", even when it is a perfect examples of mozpericism.

¹ Actually, QED, since the Casimir effect is a quantum-world phenomenon; however, at the level I'm discussing this, the fine details are not relevant ... all I'm doing is linking an observed (mozperical!) phenomenon to "electromagnetism", and showing that MM's oft repeated stance is internally inconsistent (and worse).

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is over the edge into the realm of stupidity, Michael Mozina. Dark energy is actually called ... dark energy !

Your statement is meaningless RC. The statement "dark energy is the 'cause' of acceleration" is a "statement of faith" in your dark religion. There is no empirical cause/effect link between acceleration and "dark energy'. You could call it RC's magic energy. That doesn't mean that RC's magic energy is real or is actually the empirical "cause' of anything.

 

[Mister Earl]

I believe they call it Dark Energy because it hasn't been directly observed. Hence, dark. If you don't like the name that badly, I think you could get away with just referring to it as "unknown energy". It's just a label. But, is it the label, or the hypothesis of its existance, specifically, that you do not like?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's something deeply ironic that lurked just below the surface, in my post; ironic wrt MM's "EM fields", electromagnetism, and MM's apparent delusion/fantasy.

What is it?

Why it's none other than our fave - not at all invisible - friend, the Casimir effect!

Here is an example of something quintessentially mozperical (thanks to Tim Thompson for this handy term): it is demonstrated in the lab, under controlled conditions, right here on Earth.

Better: it is an exquisite example of "see[ing] EM fields *DO* something in the real world"!

Even better: the "EM fields" cause acceleration!!

So where's the irony? Well, in MM's telling of this experiment, the acceleration is not caused by "EM fields"; indeed, in at least one of MM's telling of this (i.e. his "explanation"), there are no "EM fields" present at all.

But how do we *know* that "EM fields" are *DOING* something in this (real world) experiment? Well, we know because we understand "all the math related to Maxwell's equations"¹. Without understanding that math, we'd have no way to tell (short of some sort of religious intuition).

And to get to that understanding, we need to use the concept of pressure; and to use that concept, we need to have a quantitative, objective, independently verifiable, robust definition of pressure.

And that definition, of necessity, involves math.

And we all know that MM has shown - many times, in many threads here - that he does not even understand the necessity of such a definition, much less accept the one found in standard textbooks.

In short, in at least one case, MM cannot "see EM fields *DO[ING]* something in the real world", even when it is a perfect examples of mozpericism.

¹ Actually, QED, since the Casimir effect is a quantum-world phenomenon; however, at the level I'm discussing this, the fine details are not relevant ... all I'm doing is linking an observed (mozperical!) phenomenon to "electromagnetism", and showing that MM's oft repeated stance is internally inconsistent (and worse).

In truth DRD, your dark entities are as impotent on Earth as any religious entity. They are identical in their effect upon me as a human being. They only purpose your invisible deities seem to serve is to prop up your otherwise falsified little dark religion. Acceleration has nothing to do with your invisible friends. That acceleration may be very real, but your invisible friends are not real, they have no effect on anything outside of your head, and they don't *do* squat in the lab.

You can bitch about me all you like, but I'm simply pointing out that the dark emperor has no empirical clothes on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I believe they call it Dark Energy because it hasn't been directly observed.

The term 'cosmic acceleration' is a logical term for an unexplained acceleration. You can't however claim "cosmic acceleration is the cause of cosmic acceleration.' Their word games just start with the name.

The problem from my perspective is that they can't explain solar wind acceleration either, and they dont' seem to 'see' the energy that is responsible for it, so should we call that "dark energy"?

It's just a label. But, is it the label, or the hypothesis of its existance, specifically, that you do not like?

But we learned earlier that it is *NOT* just a label. There are actually very "specific' ad hoc properties being assigned to it now. It's not only 'dark', it has a truly mythical form of "negative pressure" as well. When do these ad hoc properties end and when do we simply admit we're just ignorant of the empirical cause?

 

[Mister Earl]

In truth DRD, your dark entities are as impotent on Earth as any religious entity. They are identical in their effect upon me as a human being. They only purpose your invisible deities seem to serve is to prop up your otherwise falsified little dark religion. Acceleration has nothing to do with your invisible friends. That acceleration may be very real, but your invisible friends are not real, they have no effect on anything outside of your head, and they don't *do* squat in the lab.

You can bitch about me all you like, but I'm simply pointing out that the dark emperor has no empirical clothes on.

Here's how I understand it:

1.) Something caused the universe to expand at superluminal speeds at the beginning of time.
2.) Something is causing the universe to expand.
3.) The speed of the expansion is accelerating.
4.) The cause of the above is hypothesized, but unknown. (With the exception of #1)
5.) It would have taken, and still take, massive amounts of energy to cause the universe to continue to expand.
6.) The source or mechanism of this energy is not observable.
7.) Placeholder term "Dark Energy" used to reference this process.
8.) Hypothetical expansion processes created that make predictions to be confirmed or refuted.
9.) Confirmation or nonconfirmation strengthens or weakens various each hypothesis.
10.) Bit by bit, our understanding of the universe improves.

Where do you see a problem in any of that? How would you do it different?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is it not somewhat ironic that, in the midst of accusing someone else of lying, Mozina lies?.

Tim, your whole game seems to be "destroy the messenger" and pure denial. There's really no denying the empirical difference between an EM field and your mythical negative pressure mythos. One shows up in the lab, while the other is as impotent on Earth as any pantheon god. Rather than just "fess up' and admit your whole "religion' is based on "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), you're going to spend all your time and efforts bashing the messenger. Sorry Tim, your dark metaphysical emperor has no empirical clothes on. It's not my fault, that's just cold hard empirical fact. Your dark energy is completely and utterly empirically useless, and useless outside of your region.

 

[Mister Earl]

Michael, I'm a layman at this sort of thing, and I managed to wrap my head around the idea of negative pressure. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, I'm a layman at this sort of thing, and I managed to wrap my head around the idea of negative pressure. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

It's evidently a lot more complicated than they realize.

If you've been following this conversation (it's actually taken place in a lot of different threads now), they've been trying to suggest that the EM field *CANNOT* cause 'negative pressure" and it is therefore ruled out as 'dark energy'. They however turn right around and cite the Casimir effect as an example of 'negative pressure in a vacuum". The Casimir effect however is directly related to the EM field since plastics don't attract or repulse like metals.

Now Mister Earl, they can claim EM fields *CAN* cause "negative pressure", or they can claim they don't, but they can't have it both ways. Which is it?