Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Elliptical galaxies don't. The stars just move about pretty much at random, without much coherency in their orbits. I think this kills any idea that the stars are 'along for the ride'.

I would like to suggest that they are attached to a solid iron crust.

 

[edd]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20597-largest-cosmic-structures-too-big-for-theories.html



Oh please! Only in Lambda-religion theory would they have the emotional need to keep "dark energy", call it a "repulsive" force, and then claim it "pools" in some areas. This has the be the most ad hoc metaphysical Frankenstein of all time.

Regarding this story, I've been chatting with colleagues at work about it over coffee and http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2320 was brought up (not least because the author was there) and it essentially shows quite clearly that star contamination in your sample and other observing issues produce this effect.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think what he's saying is that if the plasma is being accelerated somewhere (lets just say it is for now), then the average barycenter of that plasma is going to move, and the stuff that's moving around that barycenter is going to move along for the ride (the other stuff that isn't being accelerated by whatever is accelerating the plasma).

That's what I understood him to be saying anyway.

Thanks for that response. At least I know that someone grasps the basic concept. One might imagine a series of ball bearings suspended in an expanding (rubber) sheet composed of plasma. As the plasma is accelerated, the embedded objects "spread out" along with the plasma. It might be helpful to imagine a spherical sheet, expanding out from a central point and growing larger over time. Everything expands, including the objects embedded in the plasma.

 

[ben m]

Thanks for that response. At least I know that someone grasps the basic concept. One might imagine a series of ball bearings suspended in an expanding (rubber) sheet composed of plasma. As the plasma is accelerated, the embedded objects "spread out" along with the plasma. It might be helpful to imagine a spherical sheet, expanding out from a central point and growing larger over time. Everything expands, including the objects embedded in the plasma.

OR:

The plasma is accelerated. The ball bearings do not accelerate because the plasma can't exert large enough forces to get them keep up. Now we have ball bearings doing whatever they were doing before, but with a plasma wind blowing past them.

Form a mental picture of that, please.

(Also: you've forgotten that we were discussing galactic rotation curves; you've suddenly switched to Hubble expansion. Go back.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

You haven't made that clear at all. In fact, you haven't even made your ability to do arithmetic clear. You can make all the claims you want to about your abilities, yet strangely, you never actually demonstrate them. One wonders why you never do calculations if you're really able to do them.

What would be the point in me doing them personally for you when I can't get any of you to even READ or RESPOND TO ALFVEN'S CALCULATIONS? Have you even read his book yet Zig?

What would be the point of me barking math on command in front of a room for of mathematicians? Sooner or later I'm going to make mistakes and you'll simply use that as an excuse to ignore your errors, none of which are "mathematical' in nature in the first place!

Dark energy does not exist. It doesn't matter if you can stuff it into an EFE or not. It's no better than stuffing the EFE's with magic mushroom energy.

And it isn't as a "messenger" that I'm attacking you. I'm attacking you for refusing to engage in the actual business of physics.

What "physics"? You can't even produce any "dark energy". You can't even tell me where it comes from or how to produce it in a controlled manner. You have no clue where it even comes from!

Your basic flaws have nothing to do with math, and everything to do with the fact you "made up" a bunch of invisible buddies that don't actually exist!

Which, despite all your protestations, IS the process of doing calculations.

No, it's more than simply "math" as the Chapman/Birkeland debate demonstrates. Chapman's math was "better" according to the "mainstream" for decades, but they never went to the lab to "check their work". Birkeland's math was "more correct" but never accepted until satellites in space officially ended the debate. Your industry has a bad habit of preferring a "math exclusive" orientation to physics and therefore it has constantly failed and it's been constantly revised in a purely ad hoc manner.

You refuse to engage in that endeavor.

I refuse to let you dance around the fact that your problem isn't mathematical in nature. I don't care if you can stuff the EFE's with magic mushroom energy. Doing so does not justify the existence of magic mushroom energy, even if you can "make it fit" mathematically to some event in the sky. The more I allow you to fixate on the math and ignore the physics part, the more you go astray. Show me that dark magic mushroom energy moves a few atoms in a lab and I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim 'dark magic mushroom energy did it".

To attack the messenger, there would need to be a message. And
the entire problem here is that, ultimately, there IS no message.

Oh yes, there is a message. The message is that a "math only" approach to "physics" simply doesn't work. It's never worked. Your sky entities are surely as impotent on Earth as any ordinary religious sky entity. They fail to show up in the lab as surely as any religious entity. It's pure a "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). In other words, it's a "religion", not a "science". That's the message.

 

[Ziggurat]

What would be the point in me doing them personally for you when I can't get any of you to even READ or RESPOND TO ALFVEN'S CALCULATIONS?

Well, for starters, you're claiming things that Alfven never claimed, so his calculations are rather irrelevant there, aren't they?

What would be the point of me barking math on command in front of a room for of mathematicians?

I already told you: so that we can discuss actual physics.

Sooner or later I'm going to make mistakes and you'll simply use that as an excuse to ignore your errors, none of which are "mathematical' in nature in the first place!

You've made so many errors even without math that it's not exactly credible that a few math mistakes would suddenly change everything. No, that's not the reason.

Furthermore, whether or not we dismiss whatever you do, it's rather striking that you aren't interested in the math even for your own sake. You've got all these revolutionary ideas which, if true, would completely upend astrophysics as we know it. Why aren't you doing any calculations to confirm to yourself whether or not your ideas work? If you're really able to do the calculations, as you claim, then the only excuse not to do so for yourself is if you don't want to know the answer. You don't want to find out that maybe you're wrong.

So the conclusion that you simply can't do the math is, in fact, the more charitable interpretation. Because the alternative is deep, deep denial.

What "physics"?

Well, for example, you can't deal with the basic definition of terms you use. Quantities like temperature and pressure are defined mathematically. But you don't know the definitions. You don't understand the definitions. And you refuse to learn the definitions. And your excuse is that you won't "bark math on command". But really, what you're refusing to do is physics.

Your basic flaws have nothing to do with math, and everything to do with the fact you "made up" a bunch of invisible buddies that don't actually exist!

Like temperature and pressure, evidently.

I refuse to let you dance around the fact that your problem isn't mathematical in nature.

But you WILL dance around the fact that your problem IS mathematical in nature.

Oh yes, there is a message. The message is that a "math only" approach to "physics" simply doesn't work. It's never worked.

Boy, that Einstein, what a failure.

 

[GeeMack]

What would be the point in me doing them personally for you when I can't get any of you to even READ or RESPOND TO ALFVEN'S CALCULATIONS? Have you even read his book yet Zig?

There has been plenty of response to Alfvén's work, in this and several other threads here, so this is another lie.

What would be the point of me barking math on command in front of a room for of mathematicians? Sooner or later I'm going to make mistakes and you'll simply use that as an excuse to ignore your errors, none of which are "mathematical' in nature in the first place!

There is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that any of the Lambda-CDM critics here are qualified to understand the relevant math, not even at the most rudimentary level. The continued refusal to demonstrate any such qualifications would indicate that they simply do not exist. Consequently any alleged criticism can be dismissed as unqualified blathering.

Dark energy does not exist. It doesn't matter if you can stuff it into an EFE or not. It's no better than stuffing the EFE's with magic mushroom energy.

Dark energy is a commonly accepted term for a measurable physical phenomenon, empirically observed, where "magic mushroom energy" is a silly term fabricated for the purpose of dishonestly diminishing the validity of the physics. The difference should be pretty obvious to most English speaking adults.

What "physics"? You can't even produce any "dark energy". You can't even tell me where it comes from or how to produce it in a controlled manner. You have no clue where it even comes from!

Make a star in a lab!

​

Your basic flaws have nothing to do with math, and everything to do with the fact you "made up" a bunch of invisible buddies that don't actually exist!

If the math works, the physics works. That's how physics is measured and tested. In essence they're one and the same. People who understand math understand this. People who don't, oh well...

No, it's more than simply "math" as the Chapman/Birkeland debate demonstrates. Chapman's math was "better" according to the "mainstream" for decades, but they never went to the lab to "check their work". Birkeland's math was "more correct" but never accepted until satellites in space officially ended the debate. Your industry has a bad habit of preferring a "math exclusive" orientation to physics and therefore it has constantly failed and it's been constantly revised in a purely ad hoc manner.

The continued expression of contempt for legitimate physics and disdain for the language of physics, math, is noted. Also noted is the simple unsupported complaint and continued effort to dishonestly dismiss legitimate science for the sake of supporting crackpot "science".

I refuse to let you dance around the fact that your problem isn't mathematical in nature. I don't care if you can stuff the EFE's with magic mushroom energy. Doing so does not justify the existence of magic mushroom energy, even if you can "make it fit" mathematically to some event in the sky. The more I allow you to fixate on the math and ignore the physics part, the more you go astray. Show me that dark magic mushroom energy moves a few atoms in a lab and I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim 'dark magic mushroom energy did it".

"Dark magic mushroom energy" appears to exist only in a fantasy and is wholly unrelated to actual physics. No real scientist has mentioned it.

Oh yes, there is a message. The message is that a "math only" approach to "physics" simply doesn't work. It's never worked. Your sky entities are surely as impotent on Earth as any ordinary religious sky entity. They fail to show up in the lab as surely as any religious entity. It's pure a "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). In other words, it's a "religion", not a "science". That's the message.

The message is ridiculous, definitively meriting ridicule. The message is nothing but a bunch of complaining by a tiny handful of crackpots who are clearly unqualified to understand the subject they are attempting to criticize. The criticism, the complaints, the lack of qualification, the dishonest arguments from incredulity and ignorance, a bunch of sciency sounding words strung together into gibberish, still amounts to a pile of total failure.

 

[tusenfem]

What "physics"? You can't even produce any "dark energy". You can't even tell me where it comes from or how to produce it in a controlled manner. You have no clue where it even comes from!

Ah Micheal, I would love to see you move a stars through the flow of a dilute plasma in the laboratory. If you cannot do that, than that whole (rediculous) idea does not go, for reasons that should be obvious to youl

But probably the answer is that Birkeland already showed it in his terrella experiments.

 

[ben m]

What would be the point in me doing them personally for you when I can't get any of you to even READ or RESPOND TO ALFVEN'S CALCULATIONS?

You're not getting me to respond to "Cosmic Plasma" because it wouldn't make any difference to you. Tusenfem proved this handily, on these boards as well as at (e.g.) BAUT, by reading Cosmic Plasma and responding to Alfven's calculations. It didn't make any difference to you.

Your present comments are an assertion that gravity has a frictiony behavior that sort of sweeps things along. This is (a) wrong according to gravity equations, (b) wrong according to gravity data, (c) would not even if it were true account for observed stellar motion in galaxies, and (d) is not mentioned anywhere whatsoever in 'Cosmic Plasma' by Hannes Alfven..

You made it up all by yourself, Michael. It's wrong, its wrongness is your fault and yours alone. If you want to keep being wrong you're doing just fine. If you want to convince anyone you're right, you have to discuss (a),(b),and (c) above.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're not getting me to respond to "Cosmic Plasma" because it wouldn't make any difference to you. Tusenfem proved this handily, on these boards as well as at (e.g.) BAUT, by reading Cosmic Plasma and responding to Alfven's calculations.

When did he point out a single mathematical flaw in Alfven's calculations?

It didn't make any difference to you.

It did demonstrate to me that t had read the materials in question and had at least some handle on their content.

Your present comments are an assertion that gravity has a frictiony behavior that sort of sweeps things along.

Even the simple movement of matter has an attractive effect on stationary objects Ben! Come on. If I moved 1000 tons of plasma past a stationary object, the increase in gravity on the other side of the object will increase! You're ignoring physics altogether now.

This is (a) wrong according to gravity equations,

Oh boloney.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There has been plenty of response to Alfvén's work, in this and several other threads here, so this is another lie.

Not by you. Tim and tusenfem are the only ones to have even read or commented on their work and neither of them has pointed out any mathematical flaws in his work.

There is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that any of the Lambda-CDM critics here are qualified to understand the relevant math, not even at the most rudimentary level.

It wouldn't even matter if that were in fact true. Your problem is not mathematical in nature, so your argument is moot. You folks invented invisible friends to do your metaphysical bidding, thereby creating a "religion". The math is simply "window dressing" to make it look "official". Your invisible sky friends are just as impotent in the lab as any sky god from any ordinary "religion". The math is irrelevant because your dark gods are are a total dud in the lab.

The continued refusal to demonstrate any such qualifications would indicate that they simply do not exist. Consequently any alleged criticism can be dismissed as unqualified blathering.

Your comments can pretty much be dismissed as unqualified blathering. "Electrical discharges in plasmas? What discharges?" "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". "Dark filament eruptions? What dark filaments?" Your comments demonstrate that you are utterly and completely clueless when it comes to this and pretty much EVERY physics topic under the sun. Literally.

Dark energy is a commonly accepted term for a measurable physical phenomenon, empirically observed,

BS. The only thing you "observe" is "acceleration". You *IMAGINE* your dark energy sky god did it.

where "magic mushroom energy" is a silly term fabricated for the purpose of dishonestly diminishing the validity of the physics.

No, "dark energy" is silly fabricated term for the dishonest purpose of dismissing empirical physics.

The difference should be pretty obvious to most English speaking adults.

When it comes to the lab, they are EXACTLY the same. They are both completely and utterly impotent creations of the human mind, nothing more.

Make a star in a lab!

Why? Birkeland simulated one quite nicely over 100 years ago and you STILL ignore his results.

If the math works, the physics works. That's how physics is measured and tested. In essence they're one and the same. People who understand math understand this. People who don't, oh well...

The math is cult window dressing. It looks pretty. It's pretty red lipstick on a big fat *HUGE* metaphysical pig, nothing more.

The continued expression of contempt for legitimate physics and disdain for the language of physics, math, is noted.

I have no such disdain for legitimate physics, just metaphysical BS with math.

Also noted is the simple unsupported complaint and continued effort to dishonestly dismiss legitimate science for the sake of supporting crackpot "science".

96 percent of mainstream theory is pure metaphysical baloney. Its full of stuff that fails to show up in the lab, and it always will be full of it. If anyone here is peddling 'crackpot' physics, it's the guys pointing that sky claiming "dark' stuff did it.

"Dark magic mushroom energy" appears to exist only in a fantasy and is wholly unrelated to actual physics. No real scientist has mentioned it.

Likewise 'dark energy' is simply a figment of your religion's collective imagination. It's a collective fantasy. It's no more real than dark magic mushroom energy and it has exactly the same effect on matter.

The message is ridiculous,

No, your dark energy religion is ridiculous. Your 'bash the individual' religion is ridiculous. Your personal attack style is ridiculous, not to mention just plain pitiful.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Regarding this story, I've been chatting with colleagues at work about it over coffee and http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2320 was brought up (not least because the author was there) and it essentially shows quite clearly that star contamination in your sample and other observing issues produce this effect.

FYI, thanks for that. That was the only legitimate rebuttal of the article I cited, and I almost missed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If IMME is consistent with Einstein's Field Equations then quite possibly. If not, then no. So, is IMME consistent with the EFEs?

.....

Nobody has. LCDM = Lambda cold dark matter. Lambda = the lambda in the EFEs. If you have a problem with lambda you have a problem with the EFEs. If you do not have a problem with lambda then you do not have a problem with dark energy.

Most of your post was posturing and/or just drifting further off topic, but these comments were worth responding to IMO.

Physics be damned. It only seems to matter to you that you can stuff that constant in the EFE's with SOMETHING, ANYTHING, even magic, and "make it fit". You've failed to establish any cause/effect relationships between the acceleration of matter and "dark energy". As long at it works on paper, physics be damned. If IMME fits, IMME did it.

I love how you folks write off the whole idea of using EM field effects inside of those same exact equations. Epic fail IMO.

 

[Ziggurat]

I love how your write off the whole idea of using EM field effects inside those same exact equations. Epic fail IMO.

Electromagnetic fields are already included in the Einstein field equations. They have been considered. And they don't (and can't) produce the observed acceleration. Epic fail indeed.

 

[ben m]

Even the simple movement of matter has an attractive effect on stationary objects Ben! Come on. If I moved 1000 tons of plasma past a stationary object, the increase in gravity on the other side of the object will increase! You're ignoring physics altogether now.

Yes, if you start with 1000 tons of plasma behind you, you accelerate backwards. Later, if the 1000 tons of plasma is in front of you, you accelerate forwards.

If the 1000 tons of plasma simply moved past you, from back to front, in a straight line, your (brief) forwards acceleration and you (brief) backwards acceleration cancel---i.e. they sum to zero---and the whole passage has no net effect on your velocity. None. Zero. You DO NOT simply pick up velocity in the direction of the moving thing. DO THE MATH. ADD IT UP.

If it's a nonstop flow---not like a water balloon, but like a river---then there's always as much mass in front of you as there is behind you. (Which mass is where? That changes, but gravity doesn't keep track, it just adds up the total.) In such a flow the net, i.e. sum, gravitational acceleration is zero all the time, not just on average.

Do you think I'm making this stuff up to justify dark matter cosmology? I'm not. This sort of calculation was familiar to Newton, and Kepler, and Goddard, and presumably Alfven, and everyone in a high-school AP Physics class anywhere on earth.

Let's look at reality: the Sun is moving towards Cygnus at 220km/s but accelerating towards Sagittarius (Cyg and Sgr are at right angles to each other) at 10^-11 m/s/s. Where do you think there is mass, and how much of it, and moving in what direction, to explain this motion? The obvious answer is that there has to be a lot of mass in the direction of Sgr from us. There is! It's true! It's called "the Milky Way". It doesn't need to be flowing past us to exert a gravitational pull.

 

[ben m]

Oh boloney.

F = GMm/r^2. Calculate the net impulse on an object due to a mass flying past it in a straight line. Or, better yet, a stream of matter. That's the easy version, later you can do mass-flying-up-and-stopping-suddenly or whatever you like.

I've done this calculation (or the equivalent) probably five hundred times. You have done it zero times. You think my version is baloney? Prove it. Get to work.

Don't just guess the answer. Your guessing skills are terrible; your first guess is always "EU/PC is right" and your second guess is always "why should I make a second guess after you ignored my first guess". Your third guess is the same as your first guess.

 

[Tubbythin]

Most of your post was posturing and/or just drifting further off topic, but these comments were worth responding to IMO.

If you insist.

Physics be damned. It only seems to matter to you that you can stuff that constant in the EFE's with SOMETHING, ANYTHING, even magic, and "make it fit". You've failed to establish any cause/effect relationships between the acceleration of matter and "dark energy". As long at it works on paper, physics be damned. If IMME fits, IMME did it.

What are you talking about? I haven't stuffed any constant in there. Lambda was already there. What on Earth made you think I put it there?

I love how you folks write off the whole idea of using EM field effects inside of those same exact equations. Epic fail IMO.

EM fields are included in those equations.

 

[GeeMack]

Not by you. Tim and tusenfem are the only ones to have even read or commented on their work and neither of them has pointed out any mathematical flaws in his work.

Thanks for admitting that this...

What would be the point in me doing them personally for you when I can't get any of you to even READ or RESPOND TO ALFVEN'S CALCULATIONS? Have you even read his book yet Zig?

... is a lie.

There is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that any of the Lambda-CDM critics here are qualified to understand the relevant math, not even at the most rudimentary level.

It wouldn't even matter if that were in fact true.

It is true. And it matters because the Lambda-CDM critics are criticizing exactly the math. Since none of them has demonstrated the remotest understanding of the math, the criticisms are just a bunch of useless words on the screen.

Your problem is not mathematical in nature, so your argument is moot. You folks invented invisible friends to do your metaphysical bidding, thereby creating a "religion". The math is simply "window dressing" to make it look "official". Your invisible sky friends are just as impotent in the lab as any sky god from any ordinary "religion". The math is irrelevant because your dark gods are are a total dud in the lab.

No real scientist is talking about "invisible friends" or "religion" or "sky gods" or "dark gods". The near obsessive mentioning of these sorts of things is a fabrication of the crackpots. It is dishonest. It is a lie. No real scientists are discussing gods, religion, or metaphysical anything, but if that's how it is interpreted by the tiny handful of crackpots who criticize Lambda-CDM theory, it only adds to the mountain of evidence that they don't have the slightest grip on objective, quantitative, scientific reality.

Your comments can pretty much be dismissed as unqualified blathering. "Electrical discharges in plasmas? What discharges?" "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". "Dark filament eruptions? What dark filaments?" Your comments demonstrate that you are utterly and completely clueless when it comes to this and pretty much EVERY physics topic under the sun. Literally.

The continued extreme misrepresentation of my position is evidence of a severe inability to understand the simple English I write, or it is intentionally dishonest. I'd suggest if someone doesn't understand what I'm saying, ask me to clarify. And if it's just lying, it only adds to the mountain of evidence that lying makes up a significant amount of the Lambda-CDM critics' argument.

BS. The only thing you "observe" is "acceleration". You *IMAGINE* your dark energy sky god did it.

No, "dark energy" is silly fabricated term for the dishonest purpose of dismissing empirical physics.

Nobody has ever demonstrated, by empirical physics, that there is a better explanation than Lambda-CDM theory. Unsupported complaining doesn't count.

When it comes to the lab, they are EXACTLY the same. They are both completely and utterly impotent creations of the human mind, nothing more.

Make a star in a lab!

​

Why? Birkeland simulated one quite nicely over 100 years ago and you STILL ignore his results.

No he didn't. That nonsense has been proven to be a lie.

The math is cult window dressing. It looks pretty. It's pretty red lipstick on a big fat *HUGE* metaphysical pig, nothing more.

The criticism is invalid. There is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that any of the Lambda-CDM critics here are qualified to understand the relevant math, not even at the most rudimentary level.

I have no such disdain for legitimate physics, just metaphysical BS with math.

Again the criticism is invalid. There is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that any of the Lambda-CDM critics here are qualified to understand the relevant math, not even at the most rudimentary level.

96 percent of mainstream theory is pure metaphysical baloney. Its full of stuff that fails to show up in the lab, and it always will be full of it. If anyone here is peddling 'crackpot' physics, it's the guys pointing that sky claiming "dark' stuff did it.

Make a star in a lab, or a galaxy, or a planet, or an 8.5 earthquake, or an EF5 tornado!

​

Likewise 'dark energy' is simply a figment of your religion's collective imagination. It's a collective fantasy. It's no more real than dark magic mushroom energy and it has exactly the same effect on matter.

No real scientist is talking about sky gods, magic mushrooms, or any such religious entities. Those are apparently all figments of the crackpots' fantasies.

No, your dark energy religion is ridiculous. Your 'bash the individual' religion is ridiculous. Your personal attack style is ridiculous, not to mention just plain pitiful.

I bash the criticisms because they're just plain stupid. The criticism amounts to nothing more than a combination of gibberish, lies, and contempt for real science. We're moving on towards 5000 posts in this thread and not once has a Lambda-CDM theory critic offered an objective quantitative criticism or an objective quantitative alternative explanation. Not once. The message is pure nonsense. The individuals presenting the message? They're just the vehicle. That they choose to continue complaining about things they know nothing about is a problem of their own making.

 

[Perpetual Student]

And this thread goes on and on. Mr. Mozina, learned and highly credentialed physicist, cosmologist and guru of electrodynamic phenomena, keeps a plethora of mediocre thinkers at bay with his sharp wit and insightful commentary. Keep up the good work, Mickey.

 

[CaveDave]

...

Of course it is. You all think that the universe had a "beginning" where all matter and energy came from a singular "clump".

No, you just want to believe we do. Ask around.

That constant has absolutely nothing to do with "dark energy" since you can't get "dark energy" to show up in a lab or have any effect on matter in a lab. That constant is no more related to 'dark energy' than it's related to the EM field. The only difference is that an EM field is "real" whereas your 'invisible sky entity" is not.

The effect is there, indistinguishable from all the other forces and buried in the noise far too small to be measurable on small objects, but still there.

Oh boloney. You folks expected the universe to be slowing down over time. It wasn't. You then added liberal doses of an invisible sky deity named "dark energy" that has no practical value outside of your "creation religion".

Do you have a better name than "dark energy"? Give it a try.

I could stuff "magic invisible Michael Mozina energy" in there and accomplish the same feat. So what? Does that mean "magic invisible Michael Mozina energy" did it?

Call it what you want, dark energy, MIMME, or Fred, it does the same thing. As long as everyone calls it the same, or know what others mean, communication works. And whachamacallit still has the same properties and characteristics.

That's pure denial actually. Mainstream theory has "failed" pretty much every single "prediction" it's ever made. The last failure was related to the mainstream's assumption that the universe was "slowing down" over time. When you discovered that was not the case, you folks stuffed it full of "dark evil energies". You simply 'make up" the properties of this stuff as you go. Unfortunately you "missed" again, and the "threads" of spacetime are longer than you 'predicted'. Now you need dark energy to not only do a repulsive trick, it also has to 'pool' in some places and not in others. The whole thing is based on absurd "ad hoc" properties galore!

The properties are OBSERVED, the equations derived, and someone gets to pick out a name (then comes the search for WHY it happens) - are you upset because they didn't let you name it?

That is because unlike dark sky entities, particle physics theory has "practical" value here on Earth. The fact we can "split" atoms helps heat my home. Your mythical sky beings have no effect on me whatsoever.

Yes it does - it's just so tiny and buried under MUCH larger effects, that it makes no difference on any scale as small as individual Galaxies, much less on solar systems or planets.

No, actually there's a "trilogy" of them, Inflation father (now deceased and not officially included in LCDM mind you), dark matter sun, and dark energy holy ghost.

As much as you claim to be educated, and you don't know that's son??? You lead a sheltered life?

How does the "dark energy Jesus" affect my life in a "tangible" way here and now?

So you choose that name? OK, without "d.e.Jesus" you would not be here: the universe would have behaved differently, and you would never be born. Tangible enough, Sparky?

You folks really should read Cosmic Plasma and Peratt's book too, but alas I doubt that will ever happen.

That sounds like typical proselytizer talk: "If yiu would only read this bible, you will believe and be SAVED!". Give us a break! Many more than you know have read your "scripture", and found nothing in it (except a few laughs at the ignorance).

Would you prefer one of Alfven's paper where he picks on all "prophet" forms of astrophysics?

That has been dealt with, too, in case you hadn't noticed.

FYI Ben, you need to think more in terms of how galaxies and galaxy clusters are attached the the intergalactic plasma sheet that contains most of the mass of the universe. The individual stars are simply flotsum and jetsum in the mix of what is ultimately a series of objects embedded in an *accelerating* plasma sheet. The plasma sheet isn't simply 'moving', it's actively accelerating over time.

What is your attraction to the letter "U"? Do you EVER look up spellings?
FlotsAm
JetsAm
And lest we forget:
OccAm

Look 'em up - I dare you!

Sure I have. I've provided a whole website to read.

Read, laughed at, and discarded. Try again.

Well, that would just be silly since my opinions do change over time and some calculations seem pretty valid to me, whereas others do not.

You keep assuming things about me, and making false accusations. Does that make you feel better about yourself somehow?

Yeah, we're childish and petty, just like you. Can you say "projection"?

I've provided you folks with REAMS of quantified materials to read by Alfven. To date nobody here has found a mathematical flaw in any of Alfven's work. I've even given you credit where credit is due and I've agreed with you that a sun is probably internally rather than externally powered when I felt your calculations were valid. You don't seem to hear or acknowledge any of that stuff.

The flaws or lack of them in his calculations are not the point. His conclusions may be suspect, but it is YOUR interpretation and expansion that is laughably misguided. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, but that slows you down not at all.

What would be the point in me doing them personally for you when I can't get any of you to even READ or RESPOND TO ALFVEN'S CALCULATIONS? Have you even read his book yet Zig?

The point would be, someone could show you the errors and help you make it right.

What would be the point of me barking math on command in front of a room for of mathematicians? Sooner or later I'm going to make mistakes and you'll simply use that as an excuse to ignore your errors, none of which are "mathematical' in nature in the first place!

Don't assume the fine Mathematical minds here would act like you do and play childish games.

What "physics"? You can't even produce any "dark energy". You can't even tell me where it comes from or how to produce it in a controlled manner. You have no clue where it even comes from!

So? That only means there is much left to be discovered. Fun for all involved.

No, it's more than simply "math" as the Chapman/Birkeland debate demonstrates. Chapman's math was "better" according to the "mainstream" for decades, but they never went to the lab to "check their work". Birkeland's math was "more correct" but never accepted until satellites in space officially ended the debate. Your industry has a bad habit of preferring a "math exclusive" orientation to physics and therefore it has constantly failed and it's been constantly revised in a purely ad hoc manner.

Sometimes, Science takes wrong turns and has to rethink things, what's your point? Do you know a better way?

Oh yes, there is a message. The message is that a "math only" approach to "physics" simply doesn't work. It's never worked. Your sky entities are surely as impotent on Earth as any ordinary religious sky entity. They fail to show up in the lab as surely as any religious entity. It's pure a "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). In other words, it's a "religion", not a "science". That's the message.

And i guess you think your electric plasma gods are doing much better? Learn to read and comprehend.

There has been plenty of response to Alfvén's work, in this and several other threads here, so this is another lie.

Yep.

There is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that any of the Lambda-CDM critics here are qualified to understand the relevant math, not even at the most rudimentary level. The continued refusal to demonstrate any such qualifications would indicate that they simply do not exist. Consequently any alleged criticism can be dismissed as unqualified blathering.

Positively.

Dark energy is a commonly accepted term for a measurable physical phenomenon, empirically observed, where "magic mushroom energy" is a silly term fabricated for the purpose of dishonestly diminishing the validity of the physics. The difference should be pretty obvious to most English speaking adults.

Like I said above, the name is not important, just what is being described. Names like MM uses are intended only to obfuscate and ridicule. what he doesn't get is that it only reflects poorly on his integrity and intelligence.

If the math works, the physics works. That's how physics is measured and tested. In essence they're one and the same. People who understand math understand this. People who don't, oh well...

The continued expression of contempt for legitimate physics and disdain for the language of physics, math, is noted. Also noted is the simple unsupported complaint and continued effort to dishonestly dismiss legitimate science for the sake of supporting crackpot "science".

"Dark magic mushroom energy" appears to exist only in a fantasy and is wholly unrelated to actual physics. No real scientist has mentioned it.

Well said, dude.

The message is ridiculous, definitively meriting ridicule. The message is nothing but a bunch of complaining by a tiny handful of crackpots who are clearly unqualified to understand the subject they are attempting to criticize. The criticism, the complaints, the lack of qualification, the dishonest arguments from incredulity and ignorance, a bunch of sciency sounding words strung together into gibberish, still amounts to a pile of total failure.

I could not have said it better. (Now watch him STILL try to dismiss you!)

When did he point out a single mathematical flaw in Alfven's calculations?

It isn't Alfven's calculations that are flawed, it is how you try to interpret and apply it that is dead on arrival.

Even the simple movement of matter has an attractive effect on stationary objects Ben! Come on. If I moved 1000 tons of plasma past a stationary object, the increase in gravity on the other side of the object will increase! You're ignoring physics altogether now.

And then it cancels out as it moves past. What is so hard to follow in that simple concept?

Cheers,

Dave