Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Like what the definition of pressure is?

How can I define "pressure" in a material that you fail to identify? How do I define pressure when you fail to specify how it holds "heat"? In a "vacuum" (as Guth requires), I gave you a perfectly valid definition of "pressure".

Well, no. At sufficiently high temperatures, field excitations (including electromagnetic radiation, but even weak and strong nuclear forces if you get hot enough) will dominate over the kinetic energy of any mass you have.

These all relate to objects of mass that have been identified as "matter". What is the "near singularity thingy" made of?

Yeah, math can be painful if you don't understand it.

It's not the math where you guys are being "vague", it's the actual "PHYSICS" part where you never come clean. What is the 'near singularity' made of? How does it hold heat? Is it "vibrating' like ordinary matter? Does it radiate heat in the form of photons like ordinary matter? How about explaining some 'physics' in terms of what actually holds heat? What caused this whole thing to take place one fine day as opposed to say a trillion years earlier?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where are these particles (photons) coming from that are transferring momentum to the plates and pushing them together?

They come from the EM fields that surround everything in this solar system. They vibrate inside the chamber and create "pressure" on both sides of the plates. The pressure on one side is simply 'greater than' the pressure on the other side, depending on the specific geometry in play.

 

[Dancing David]

The term "mostly" is correct, but then he was a curious sort of bloke who liked to conduct real "experiments". He changed the polarities of the sphere and the box. He used different sorts of cathode ray configurations. He used different sizes and shapes and textures and materials in his sphere. He changed the magnetic field strengths and tinkered around with all the variables. He wrote about all those configurations, not just his original models.



And if you had actually read his materials you would know exactly why that is the case.

yes but i have asked you, if Birkeland made his terrella a model of the sun, where doe he reference it as such.

You said that there are all these pages of math where he models the electric sun. And I am interested. What you linked to so far show the Terrella as an earth system, not as a model of an electric sun. Could you reference those parts? Or at least the parts I looked at.

Duh.



Oh, that does it. I must be wrong now......... Hoy.



EU theory works in a lab. Inflation is "hokum", as is "dark energy", "expanding space" and all thing things you guys cannot physically demonstrate here on Earth.



I often fail to convert creationists. Oh well. Defending empirical physics does get tiring when talking to creationists/astronomers, but someone has to do it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. That's what a photo of one of Birkeland's aurora borealis experiments looks like next to a filtered image of the Sun.

No, that is one of his "solar experiments" that he writes about next to a yohkoh x-ray image of the sun.

The aurora borealis is a phenomenon that occurs on Earth.

That is because the Earth is being bombarded *by* electrons and ions from the sun.

Coronal loops occur on the Sun. Apples and oranges.

AKA: Wiring configurations. Did you actually *READ* any of his experiments?

You see how miserably you fail when you try to apply that silly looks-like-a-bunny science?

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you ignore the variations in his experiments? Do you have any idea *HOW* he created the loops instead of the auroral patterns he also created in a lab? Just explain to us how Birkeland created the atmospsheric loops and how that was different from the auroral patterns he created in terms of polarity and magnetic field strengths?

 

[Ziggurat]

How can I define "pressure" in a material that you fail to identify?

Because the definition doesn't depend on the material. Deriving an equation to calculate it does, but you need to define pressure before you can do that.

How do I define pressure when you fail to specify how it holds "heat"?

Rather easily, actually. I did it. The textbooks I mentioned before did it. Unless you don't know the definition of "definition". Crack open an intro physics textbook, read it, and figure out how they define pressure without reference to any particular substance.

In a "vacuum" (as Guth requires), I gave you a perfectly valid definition of "pressure".

No, you did not. You gave me an equation of state which is used to calculate pressure based on a number of assumptions and approximations. The ideal gas law does not define pressure. A pre-existing definition is required both in order to derive it (you need to know what you're calculating) and to test it (you need to have a definition of pressure before you can measure it). In no case is the ideal gas law ever used to define pressure.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

I must admit that of all the folks I've met in cyberspace, you and edd and derek seem to be the folks that are willing to role up your sleeves and do some reading. That's encouraging to me. I also respect the fact that you level "specific" criticisms at the scientific ideas being presented, which I find refreshing.

[...]

(bold added)

As opposed to ... what, exactly?

The folks who persist in asking you questions, and so reveal that well-formulated hypotheses

* that you are shockingly ignorant of even classical physics,

* that you do not understand the math taught in even senior high school,

* that you do not understand the published papers you cite,

* that applying your own, strongly advocated, approach to your own ideas shows they are inconsistent,

* that the (few, very few) definitions which you do state are useless, meaningless, nonsense, or worse,

* that ...

... are confirmed to a degree that amazes those who have tested these hypotheses?

Well, I can certainly understand why you would not consider the work of these folks "refreshing", even if it does involve just as much reading, and just as much time and effort!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know you will ignore this post but I am hopefull:

This one looks really fun to respond to. I couldn't resist.

God did it, what are the observable traits that match the model of god?

He did it, and then he "rested". That's why we don't find inflation anymore. That's also why it happened on one day. God did it because he wanted it to happen on that day. He's the 'cause' of the bang you see.

Infaltion did it, what are the observable traits that match the model of inflation?

Where do you think inflation (actually it's God energy) comes from silly?

Remember that inflation, just like elctrons is not a thing it is a set of ideas that try to explain something.

It's actually "God energy", and it is in fact a "thing", it just isn't around anymore because God is trying to trick us and confuse us for some unknown reason only he can explain.

IE an approximate model. There are no electrons, neutrons or protons. These are semantic idiomatic self refencing labels that refer to coherent theories and hypotheses.

All the models you mentioned are simply "postdictions" of God's great powers. They simply express the mathematical process that he set into motion.

They are not the behaviors they describe, they are attempts to describe the behavior.

You're tying to describe the "behaviors of God" you goofy dancer you. Ok, I'll stop playing with your words now.

Gravity does not exist,

It does exist. I can and do "experience" it here and now while sitting in my chair. I have no idea if any current mathematical model fully describes it properly, but I *experience* gravity on a daily basis. The same is true of particle physics theories. We can in fact release energy from the atom and study it. EM fields are also something I can 'experience'.

You keep getting hung up on the words, it is not the words that matter, it is the ability to model observations.

I'm actually hung up on the "physics", not the words. I'd like to see you do more than "computer modeling" as it relates to inflation and DE. I'd like to see that these things actually exist in nature. There is no 'dark energy' that moves plasma. The only thing I know of for sure that could accelerate a plasma universe is a gigantic EM field. EM fields are fact 39 OOMs more powerful than gravity so if I had to "choose" a force of nature to do something like that, I'd have to pick an EM field.

The cosmological expansion of space is one model to approximate the red shift phenomena. Edd says that you can use doppler shift if you want but it runs into some sort of difficulty.

That paper I presented demonstrates that it does *not* run into difficulty. It can be explained by special relativity and sub-luminal expansion.

So here you are saying
"EM forces didit."

But EM fields *can be shown to move plasma in controlled experiments*. Compare and contrast that now with "inflation or dark energy did it".

I'm pressed for time so I'll stop here for awhile.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

As opposed to ... what, exactly?

As opposed to what you do which is to smear the individual, smear their reputation on a personal level, and slit their virtual throat at the first opportunity you get.

The folks who persist in asking you questions, and so reveal that well-formulated hypotheses

* that you are shockingly ignorant of even classical physics,

Excuse me? You haven't got the first clue about "classical physics". I doubt you've even read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, or Birkeland's work.

* that you do not understand the math taught in even senior high school,

Pure BS. This is the kind of tactic that really irks me. I've personally barked up math at your command *one time* and *one time only* and all you did is hadwave at my spreadsheet and ignored the whole thing. What's the point of talking "math" with you when there is no problem with the math and your problem is at the level of "PHYSICS*?

* that you do not understand the published papers you cite,

More baloney. More personal smear tactics. Yawn. You're *so* predictable.

* that applying your own, strongly advocated, approach to your own ideas shows they are inconsistent,

No, my ideas are entirely consistent with *EMPIRICAL PHYSICS*, whereas you are peddling woo.

* that the (few, very few) definitions which you do state are useless, meaningless, nonsense, or worse,

Bull. Guth needs "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". I gave you a perfectly valid definition of "pressure" in a "vacuum". I gave you two of them in fact. What it demonstrated however is that the lower limit of "pressure" is zero, not "negative infinity".

Well, I can certainly understand why you would not consider the work of these folks "refreshing", even if it does involve just as much reading, and just as much time and effort!

Tim, Derek, edd and most other people I meet in cyberspace are primarily interested in picking apart the *ideas* that are being presented. Compare and contrast that now with your efforts which have all been entirely aimed at the *individual*. You "cheat" at debate, you lie about my abilities and you attack people, not ideas. I have no respect for folks like you, whereas folks like Tim that level their criticisms at the issues and who are willing to read and respond to the materials I have presented are real "scientists" in my book, even if I never agree with their position. I can appreciate them as *people* and I can respect their *style* and admire their efforts.

 

[Tubbythin]

There is no such thing as "negative energy".

<Shakes head in despair>

 

[Ziggurat]

I gave you a perfectly valid definition of "pressure" in a "vacuum". I gave you two of them in fact.

No. You gave one definition which you didn't even understand, and one equation of state which is not a definition.

What it demonstrated however is that the lower limit of "pressure" is zero, not "negative infinity".

You demonstrated nothing of the sort. The one definition you did give depends upon using relativistic mass, ie, energy. And a vacuum can have energy, which means it can have relativistic mass. You showed nothing about the volume dependence of this vacuum energy, so you can say nothing about the resultant pressure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

<Shakes head in despair>

Notice how you selectively edited my post to *not* include the the part about the fact that forces can act in opposition to one another? Why did you do that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. You gave one definition which you didn't even understand,

This statement is silly IMO. I understood it well enough to bust your show with the idea of negative pressure in a vacuum. No matter, no "pressure".

and one equation of state which is not a definition.

It is a valid definition of 'pressure' in a vacuum. You just don't like that one for the same reason you didn't like the first one because it implies that the lack of matter equates to a *ZERO* pressure, not "negative infinity".

You demonstrated nothing of the sort. The one definition you did give depends upon using relativistic mass, ie, energy.

Until you have some "relativistic mass", what is there to discuss in terms of "physics" and "kinetic energy"? According to edd, there is no "outside" of Guth's near singularity thingy to begin with, so you aren't going to get energy from anything "outside" Guth's near singularity. You might end up with 'positive pressure' in the form of kinetic energy of "moving hot stuff", but that would evidently all be part of the energy of the near singularity, and it is unrelated to the pressure in a vacuum.

And a vacuum can have energy,

Sure, it's full of *kinetic energy*. It's not mysterious stuff.

which means it can have relativistic mass.

Giving it "positive energy".

You showed nothing about the volume dependence of this vacuum energy, so you can say nothing about the resultant pressure.

IMO you and edd and Guth are not all on the same page now. If there is no "outside" of the near singularity, then any expansion energy *must come from the stuff in the near singularity. If this "stuff" holds heat, how does this heat manifest itself in the stuff if not via kinetic energy? How does it "cool" if not via the release of photons into "space"? When we look at the "physics" parts of your theory it is entirely undefined.

 

[Ziggurat]

This statement is silly IMO. I understood it well enough to bust your show with the idea of negative pressure in a vacuum. No matter, no "pressure".

Nonsense. If there is energy, there is relativistic mass. No matter is required. Which is why you get radiation pressure inside a blackbody cavity.

It is a valid definition of 'pressure' in a vacuum.

It's not a definition of pressure under any circumstance. Not even for an ideal gas. Not even in cases where it's 100% accurate.

You just don't like that one for the same reason you didn't like the first one because it implies that the lack of matter equates to a *ZERO* pressure, not "negative infinity".

There are lots of things it implies which are simply not true. For example, it implies that there's no such thing as radiation pressure. It implies that relativistic particles will have the same pressure as nonrelativistic particles. Both of those things are false. So I don't really care about what it implies. I care about what's actually true. And to figure that out, we need to start with a defintion of pressure, not with an equation of state derived from such a definition by making approximations.

Until you have some "relativistic mass"

Anything with energy has relativistic mass. Matter is not needed. A magnetic field, for example, will suffice.

Sure, it's full of *kinetic energy*. It's not mysterious stuff.

A static magnetic field is not kinetic energy. But it most certainly is energy.

Giving it "positive energy".

The sign on the energy doesn't tell you the sign on the pressure. Hell, even your version of my pressure definition should make that abundantly clear. Which you'd know if you understood calculus at all: the sign of a function does not have to be the same as the sign of the derivative. You need to know something about the form of your energy function's volume dependence, but we're not even up to that point. I'm afraid you're still stuck on not understanding what pressure is. That's why you can't understand the one definition you did give, and why you can't figure out why your other equation isn't a definition at all.

 

[Dancing David]

But EM fields *can be shown to move plasma in controlled experiments*. Compare and contrast that now with "inflation or dark energy did it".

I'm pressed for time so I'll stop here for awhile.

Sure but how do you go from there to recessional redshift?

Awaiting an answer patiently.


Gosh you stopped right where the explanation comes in.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually MM, I will stop discussing things with you, you are not here to engage in a discussion and rather than point out the obvious flaws and contradictions of your thoughts ,
I will stop.

I would recommend you seek out knowledge-able people to learn from so that you stop trying to force your notions into science, but that request is fultile.

The fact that you keep referencing atmospheric pressure in reference to negative pressure involving VP shows you have ideas of reference and some sort of concrete thought disorder. Your lack of ability to defend your ridiculous positions is amazing.

I will not risk censure for making further statements.

MM if you wish to defend the silly electric sun model on the PC thread that would be great, otherwise I bid you farewell.

Off to lurk...

 

[GeeMack]

The term "mostly" is correct, but then he was a curious sort of bloke who liked to conduct real "experiments". He changed the polarities of the sphere and the box. He used different sorts of cathode ray configurations. He used different sizes and shapes and textures and materials in his sphere. He changed the magnetic field strengths and tinkered around with all the variables. He wrote about all those configurations, not just his original models.

And I bet he had a grand old time doing it, too. But for all the times you've been asked to show that his experiments were specifically aimed at supporting an electric Sun, plasma cosmology, or an electric universe, you have failed. You can't reference a particular experiment, a quote, a page number in any documentation, nothing. You simply believe it because you are desperate to support your faith in an otherwise unsupportable conjecture. That's F, A, I, L, E, and a D, Michael. You are a failure.

And if you had actually read his materials you would know exactly why that is the case. Duh.

Read it. Know what you're missing. Tried to explain it to you several times, but you won't have any of that reality stuff. And I keep asking you to show that you're right. But you've failed to do that.

Oh, that does it. I must be wrong now......... Hoy.

Yes. Wrong. Way more wrong about way more things than you'll possibly ever understand.

EU theory works in a lab.

No, it doesn't, certainly not that you've been able to demonstrate.

Inflation is "hokum", as is "dark energy", "expanding space" and all thing things you guys cannot physically demonstrate here on Earth.

And once more I'll ask you why you think that virtually all the research scientists and college professors and even students of cosmology, astrophysics, and physics in general think you're wrong. Are you simply incapable of communicating your "truth"? Is everyone else an idiot and you're not? Is it the other way around? Come on, Michael, there must be a reason why you continue to fail so completely and so miserably at the task of educating the masses.

I often fail to convert creationists. Oh well. Defending empirical physics does get tiring when talking to creationists/astronomers, but someone has to do it.

You've failed to convert anyone who holds a professional position in any of the fields of science that relate to any of the crap you spew. Anyone. Nobody. You haven't converted a soul. I'm being redundant here I know, but there's really only one succinct way to express what's going on here. You have failed.

 

[Tubbythin]

Notice how you selectively edited my post to *not* include the the part about the fact that forces can act in opposition to one another? Why did you do that?

I was just highlighting a bit that showed that in these 39 pages you really haven't learnt anything.

 

[Tubbythin]

I love how you folks "nitpick" on sloppy verbiage to the utter exclusion of the point I was making. There is always a positive amount of kinetic energy inside the vacuum at all times. There are kinetic energy transfer via atoms. There are kinetic energy transfers via photons, there are even kinetic energy transfers from neutrinos. No "vacuum" is devoid of "kinetic energy". It's a "positive energy" state, even in the very best "vacuums".

Maybe we get bored on nitpicking on the fact that the vast majority of the things you type are completely and utterly wrong?

 

[Tubbythin]

This statement is silly IMO. I understood it well enough to bust your show with the idea of negative pressure in a vacuum. No matter, no "pressure".

Epic epic epic fail. Have you seriously never heard of radiation pressure? Not to mention the fact that you've just illustrated to everyone yet again that you don't even have the faintest understanding of the Casimir effect.

 

[Reality Check]

Correction. It's fully of *hot* stuff. In other words your "stuff" has "energy' in it in the form of "heat". Am I to assume it "vibrates" in some way as a result of this heat?

True.

There is no such thing as "negative energy". It is possible that various forces can work in opposition to one another, but there is no "negative energy". Antimatter in motion is "kinetic energy". Matter in motion is "kinetic energy". Even if you combine "antimatter" with matter, you get "kinetic energy". There is no such thing as "negative energy".

MM: Your ignorance is showing yet again.
There is negative potential energy. All gravitational energy is negative potential energy.