Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Ah, I see we're back to bashing the skeptic. Yawn.

Hardly. A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something without significant evidence being presented. Shouting random words and phrases you don't understand like "empirical", "electrical discharge", and "controlled experiment" and insulting theories you don't have the first clue about by adding words like "gumby", "god", "deity", "dead", "faeries" and so on does not match this criterion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hardly. A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something without significant evidence being presented.

And you have in fact failed to present any evidence for A) exotic matter, or your claim that B) dark energy causes acceleration.

Shouting random words and phrases you don't understand like "empirical", "electrical discharge", and "controlled experiment" and insulting theories you don't have the first clue about by adding words like "gumby", "god", "deity", "dead", "faeries" and so on does not match this criterion.

I didn't shout anything. I simply pointed out to you that we grossly underestimate the amount of stars in a galaxy, and all of your assumptions tend to favor the notion that "dark matter=exotic matter" in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. The more you simply ignore the argument and attack individuals, the more it simply demonstrates my point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What problem?

I rest my case.

 

[Reality Check]

And you have in fact failed to present any evidence for A) exotic matter, or your claim that B) dark energy causes acceleration.

You are lying. We have presented the evidence time and time again.

You have refused to listen to or understand that:
A) There is evidence that dark mater is 'exotic' (i.e. nonbaryonic). See my signature.
B) Dark energy is defined as the cause of the observed acceleration.
So we go looking for something in standard physics that causes acceleration on cosmological scales. A non-zero cosmological constant in GR causes acceleration.
Or we look a bit outside of standard physics (Quintessence (physics)).
Or a bit further out (brane cosmology).

 

[Reality Check]

I rest my case.

Your case never existed so it cannot be rested.
What I, ben m and others have been trying to inform you about is there are many techniques to measure the amount of normal matter in the universe. They are measuring the same thing. When there are multiple techniques to measure the same thing we expect them to give similar values. So using the old-fashions and imprecise star counting method has to give results that are close to the other methods, i.e. ~4.5%.

Think about measuring the length of a rod. If 4 different techniques give a length of 1 +/- 0.1 meters and another technique gives you a length of 1.1 +/- 0.5 meters then what do you conclude about the length of the rod?

Here is a good introduction to the techniques (again!):
Dark Matter Part II: How much Normal Matter is there?

 

[ben m]

I rest my case.

Last year the best available science was "The CMB/BBN/BAO tell us that baryons are 4.5% with small errors, and star counting tells us that stars are 0.5% with large errors". This year the best available science is "The CMB/BBN/BAO tell us that baryons are 4.5% with small errors, and star counting tells us that stars are 0.55% with large errors."

You still think this is a problem? Of course you do. You think every press release you've ever read was a problem.

 

[Tubbythin]

And you have in fact failed to present any evidence for A) exotic matter, or your claim that B) dark energy causes acceleration.

Except countless pieces of evidence have been given to you. So that statement is flat-out false.

I didn't shout anything. I simply pointed out to you that we grossly underestimate the amount of stars in a galaxy, and all of your assumptions tend to favor the notion that "dark matter=exotic matter" in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. The more you simply ignore the argument and attack individuals, the more it simply demonstrates my point.

No you didn't. You pointed to press releases and drew conclusions to match your own preferred scenarios that were (a) not supported by the paper refferred to in the press release and (b) not supported by other experimental observations. You know, the ones ben m keeps talking about. The ones you continue to fail to address. The hypocrisy of accusing others of ignoring people's arguments is... mind-blowing.

Remember this?:

Show me anything whatsoever other than LCDM(73/23/5), making any assumptions you like, and cite the paper showing that these assumptions pass the even one of the CMB/CMBpol/LSS/BAO/BBN/clusters/weak-lensing/strong-lensing/SNe hypothesis tests.

Are you going to address it? Or are you going to address it? Or continue to ignore it and accuse others of ignorance?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except countless pieces of evidence have been given to you. So that statement is flat-out false.

No, in fact your collective actions in this thread as it relates to "dark matter" conclusively demonstrate a preference for protecting your dark sky religion, over a preference for empirical physics. It's quite clear from your subjective choices that you have no desire to "fix" your metaphysical kludge, instead you consistently and collectively select a path that A) protects your sky religion, and B) attacks the individual rather than dealing the the issues.

You have NEVER shown any physical cause/effect connection between "acceleration" and your mythical dark sky energy entities. You have mathematical fallacies that defy the laws of physics, that's it.

Show me ANY experiment where "space" did any expanding in the lab?

No you didn't. You pointed to press releases and drew conclusions to match your own preferred scenarios

Yes, you are correct. Yes, as a skeptic of your religion, I subjectively and consciously chose a "solution" that minimized the need for "dark sky gods". You folks consistently chose a path to protect you dark sky religion.

that were (a) not supported by the paper refferred to in the press release

Yes it was! The galaxies are in fact twice as bright over virtually the ENTIRE SPECTRUM, not a couple of wavelengths.

and (b) not supported by other experimental observations.

Boloney. You can't make "dark energy" show up in real experiment with real control mechanisms. I know this for a fact because not a single one of you can tell me where your dark sky energy entity comes from!

You know, the ones ben m keeps talking about. The ones you continue to fail to address. The hypocrisy of accusing others of ignoring people's arguments is... mind-blowing.

I already handed Ben all of Ari's work and essentially all he did is handwave at it. He ignored the fact that Ari intentionally talks about scattering in a STREAM of charged particles, not a SINGLE particle. Ben essentially didn't like his 'solution' in terms of the scattering effect he proposes, so he simply dismisses it out of hand! Holy Cow!

Remember this?:

Are you going to address it? Or are you going to address it? Or continue to ignore it and accuse others of ignorance?

It's already been done!
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

[ben m]

It's already been done!
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

That's the same answer you gave last time. Must be the only such paper out there.

Remember when I pointed out the factor of 10^20 arithmetic error in this paper?

Remember how when you remove the error, the stated "plasma redshift" is undetectably small?

Remember how the paper didn't match the data even if the effect worked as stated?

See how nice this is? When you propose an actual hypothesis, there's something science can do with it---in this case, (1) check the calculation, (2) compare to data, and (3) REMEMBER THE RESULT AND MOVE FORWARD. Steps 1 and 2 are an improvement over your usual insult-LCDM-and-vaguely-cite-Birkeland approach. Give Step 3 a try sometime.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's the same answer you gave last time. Must be the only such paper out there.

Remember when I pointed out the factor of 10^20 arithmetic error in this paper?

It's not an "error" ben, it's his "theory" in effect that you're taking exception to. He's not describing the scattering from a SINGLE charged particle, rather he's describing the scattering effect from MANY (a stream of) charged particles. It's his "theory" you're blowing off with a handwave, without so much as a scientific "test", something that can actually be done with this idea.

 

[ben m]

It's not an "error" ben, it's his "theory" in effect that you're taking exception to. He's not describing the scattering from a SINGLE charged particle, rather he's describing the scattering effect from MANY (a stream of) charged particles. It's his "theory" you're blowing off with a handwave, without so much as a scientific "test", something that can actually be done with this idea.

Nope. I understand his theory. To calculate the damping (of, yes, a large number of particles) he tries to use the Larmor formula, which allows one to calculate the damping of a charged oscillator by plugging in the energy in the *oscillation* (which, in Ari's own work, is a tiny number.) He mistakenly plugs the *total thermal* energy (a large number) into this term, which is wrong.

Remember? Of course not. I do. Here's what you said last time:

FYI, IMO these are valid "rebuttals" to his work.

Never mind that, let's just go around again. Here's the script: I will ask you for a non-LCDM hypothesis that has been competently compared to the data. You will post this for the Nth time. I'll remind you about the last N-1 times.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. I understand his theory.

You do understand his theory better than most, and perhaps better than I do as it relates to this specific issue. I'll admit it, I don't know. It seems to me that the next logical step would be for me to email Ari about your objections and see what he has to say about it.

To calculate the damping (of, yes, a large number of particles) he tries to use the Larmor formula, which allows one to calculate the damping of a charged oscillator by plugging in the energy in the *oscillation* (which, in Ari's own work, is a tiny number.) He mistakenly plugs the *total thermal* energy (a large number) into this term, which is wrong.

Maybe, but I assumed after our last conversation that Ari did that intentionally due to his use of a "stream" of charged particles.

Remember? Of course not. I do.

I do too. I'm just not sure of his intent (or lack thereof). I think as I said that the next logical step would be for me to email Ari and see what he has to say about it. I have no idea how to even go about contacting him at the moment, but I'll do that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://plasmaredshift.org/Menu.html

It turns out that finding and contacting him shouldn't be too difficult.

Ben....
Would you mind citing your original objection for me again, and/or would you mind putting your objection into a single paragraph that sites the formula? I'll be happy to forward along your objection, but I want to make sure that I accurately convey your concern and that I word your criticisms to your satisfaction.

 

[ben m]

Would you mind citing your original objection for me again, and/or would you mind putting your objection into a single paragraph that sites the formula? I'll be happy to forward along your objection, but I want to make sure that I accurately convey your concern and that I word your criticisms to your satisfaction.

I thought I was blowing it off with a handwave.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I thought I was blowing it off with a handwave.

Alright, I rescind that particular statement.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI ben...

FYI ben,

I used the contact page of Ari's website today to send him a link to your original complaint (post), and a nice message that was intended to solicit his feedback about your criticism.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7393481&postcount=4593

Does that post sufficiently explain your criticism or is the something else I should add?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Stars and Baryonic Dark Matter VIII

The galaxies are in fact twice as bright over virtually the ENTIRE SPECTRUM, not a couple of wavelengths.

Oh, yeah? Let's just look at figure 4 again, shall we? This figure shows us the galaxy's spectrum over the wavelength range 0.08 to 1000 µm, that's just a hair grater than 4 orders of magnitude. On the left we see the grey area where the authors claim that starlight is absorbed by dust. It runs over the wavelength range 0.08 to 2.1 µm. That leaves us with nearly 3 orders of magnitude of wavelength range where the galaxies are not expected to be twice as bright, or in fact any brighter at all, by any amount. On a linear scale, that's about 1/500th of the entire spectrum.

In light of this objective evidence, I submit that "The galaxies are in fact twice as bright over virtually the ENTIRE SPECTRUM" is an assertion that is woefully unjustified by the facts.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Thompson's Position on Dark Matter II

I said this (#4803 22 Sep 2011 10:11 AM) ...

Here is my official stance.

It is a fact that the motion of matter in the universe is observed to be significantly inconsistent with the standard physical assumptions. Therefore, the standard physical assumptions need to be either modified, or simply replaced with new assumptions. There are in essence only two real candidates for new or modified assumptions: (1) There is more matter in the universe than we see, providing an unseen source for more gravity than we would have expected, or (2) The standard laws of gravity need to be modified to conform with observation. Of course, both (1) & (2) could be simultaneously true. The first assumption comes in two parts: (1a) There is more ordinary (i.e., baryonic) matter than we see, and (1b) There is additional, as yet undetected nonbaryonic matter. And, of course, Both (1a) & (1b) could be simultaneously true.

In my opinion, and in the consensus opinion of the main stream science community, both (1a) & (1b) are true. It is known that there is more baryonic matter in the universe than previously thought, although Mozina has thus far done a poor job of finding the correct sources to justify this already mainstream conclusion. However, it is also known that all of this previously undetected baryonic dark matter combined falls far short of the mark required to avoid the necessity of more exotic nonbaryonic dark matter (so long as we simultaneously assume that (2) is incorrect and that the law of gravity does not need to be modified). Hence, the bulk of mainstream research is concentrated on figuring out ways to directly or indirectly detect the nonbaryonic dark matter which has thus far remained undetected. However, it should also be noted that there is significant research, exemplified by numerous journal papers, devoted to (2) above, attempting to eliminate the need for any dark matter at all by modifying the laws of gravity. As far as I know, being outside my own area of expertise, these attempts have failed to find a universal solution; e.g., one form of modified gravity might work to solve "this problem" but not "that problem", and so forth, while the assumption of both baryonic, but predominately nonbaryonic dark matter produces universal solutions that simultaneously solve all of the problems (at least in principle), limited of course by observational uncertainty.

If Mozina thinks I am trying to "protect the status quo", or that I "insist" that some form of exotic matter must exist, then he is quite wrong, for neither of these positions he suggests are of any interest to me at all. I do insist that the current state of observation strongly suggests the presence of nonbaryonic dark matter, and I do insist that this is in fact the simplest, most empirical, best scientific solution to the problem of conforming theory with observation, given the current state of knowledge.

I am definitely not arguing here that the status quo must be protected from new ideas. I am simply arguing that Mozina has yet to come up with anything particularly reasonable to say about anything relating to the physical sciences in general, or the more specific sciences of cosmology & astrophysics.

And Mozina responded with this (#4804 22 Sep 2011 10:48 AM) ....

IMO it is simply your ASSUMPTIONS that are wrong Tim. Just as you and I can subjectively chose to increase the NUMBER of point sources or increase the MASS of existing point sources, every 'solution' we might search for can be MAXIMIZED or MINIMIZED in favor of normal matter. The fact you're choosing one path over another simply demonstrates a "bias" in the final analysis, one that favors your existing belief system. No surprise there, but then it should also be no surprise that you're having trouble identifying that "missing mass" either.

Specifically, which of my assumptions in #4803 do you disagree with and why?

 

[sol invictus]

Of course it is. The natural units of measurement here to demonstrate his claim is "Higg Bosons per meter cubed." If he tries to do this, he falls flat on his face because he's created a magic "condensate" that spits out an infinite number of Higgs particles with no change in density. Bull.

This is exactly analogous to me taking a Bose-Einstein condensate, expanding the volume by a factor of ten and then counting the actual particles per cubic meter. In both cases the number of particles per cubic meter will be significantly less than when the condensate was more "condensed". You've created a magic "condensate".

Umm... what are you responding to?

It sounds like you don't think a scalar field condensate in an expanding space can maintain a constant energy density. Is that right?

If so, you're wrong - but before explaining why, maybe it's best to see if that in fact is what you're talking about.

 

[Reality Check]

I suspect that Tylervo is a sock puppet for DeathDart. DeathDart is currently suspended. Tylervo posted an identical message to DeathDart's previous messages on another thread. This message is similar to DeathDart's usual inchoerent posts.