Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

That is simply a bizarre strawman on your part.

Are you gonna stop with all this strawman rubbish or am I gonna have to compile another list of quotes?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmology and Science - Why Cosmology is not Woo.

The title of this thread is Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?. We are off on some tangent about plasma that really belongs in the other discussion on plasma cosmology, and off on some tangent about electricity and the sun that belongs off in a thread of its own. So I would like to take the opportunity to return to the title topic.

• Question: Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
• Answer: Certainly not

Just because one person, or even a few people think it is "woo" does not make it so. Just because some really smart person or a few really smart people think it is "woo" does not make it so. Even if at least one Nobel Prize winner though that it was "woo" does not make it so. Despite some feelings to the contrary, science actually is in part determined by consensus. But is is a moving consensus, not a fixed consensus. Opinions change, and indeed whole scientific disciplines change from time to time, sometimes significantly so.

I agree with everything you said to this point in the post.

I trust you realize that one of the "everything" that I said was ...

• Question: Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
• Answer: Certainly not

So you agree that Lambda-CDM theory is not "woo""?

I have yet to see you raise any scientifically significant objection to the standard, concordance cosmology. For instance ...

The whole thing has been a "curve fitting exercise" from the very start. ...

Far from being a reasonable "criticism" this is in fact a strength of standard cosmology and not a weakness. All theories of anything are always "curve fitting exercises". All theories, always. So if you are going to argue that this is some kind of "weakness", or that it makes standard cosmology in some way unscientific, then you must reject all theories of everything, including your own theories, all of which are equally "curve fitting exercises", bar none.

What other *physically demonstrated* force of nature is even remotely like "inflation", and can undergo multiple exponential increases in volume with little or no reduction in density? Light and the EM field certainly don't act that way.

So what? This is not a significant criticism, and certainly has nothing to do with an argument that standard cosmology is "unscientific". Since when are all explanations supposed to be based on things that have already been physically demonstrated? Don't you realize that the entire discipline of quantum physics came about by appealing to effects that had not previously been physically demonstrated? Neither had general relativity already been "physically demonstrated" before Einstein came up with it, so does that make Einstein wrong?

The whole point of learning about new physics is to abandon that which you already know, when you know it does not work, and reach out to new ideas. This is the critical lesson of 20th century physics, that ordinary, "common sense" physics does not work on scales of time and space far removed from the Newtonian scales. Your demand that everything always appeal only to the old things we already know would freeze all science right where it is and bring an end to discovery.

In this case however it's not only that this idea cannot be directly observed, it is also that you expect me to believe that it is inconveniently gone forever and can *never* be tested in any empirical context. That's pure "faith".

Inflation can be empirically tested, and I already made that point clear elsewhere, ...

Inflation is a testable hypothesis. Your assertion to the contrary, as an excuse for declaring it unscientific is a factually false statement. See, i.e., Mikheeva, 20008; Lesgourgues & Valkenburg, 2007; Alabidi & Lyth, 2006; Lidsey & Seery, 2006 ... Liddle, 1999.

But you just dismissed it with a wave of the hand. You have consistently rejected all observations, and/or controlled laboratory experiments, for no good reason at all, if and when they conflict with your pre-conceptions. So what good is it to even suggest the possibility of empirical verification, we all know you will ignore and/or simply reject it.

I'm sorry, but the notion that "dark energy" or "inflation" is "consistent" with "physics as we know it" is like claiming God is consistent with physics as we know it.

Not at all. Inflation and dark energy are entirely empirical in origin, quite the contrary to what you think. Both came about only after observation had revealed weaknesses in the standing theories. The whole point of the "curve fitting exercises" that you reject, but are in fact essential to science as we know it, is to improve theories by eliminating the parts that don't work, or add new features so it will work better.

So, yes, the theory is crafted to fit the observations, but is there a theory out there somewhere that is not crafted to fit observations? The fact that a theory is consistent with observations is by itself all that is needed to reject the "woo" label, and since we know, and even you admit, that the theory is consistent with observations, then we must all agree that is is not "woo".

Note that my purpose is not to assert that Lambda-CDM cosmology is correct, or even that it is not wrong. Rather, my point is that it is not "woo", which is clearly meant to mean something far worse than just plain wrong. Rather, the real science clearly shows that Lambda-CDM cosmology is clearly not "woo", and has good chances of being in fact "right".

By "right", do you mean *after* you physically identify what "dark matter" actually is?

It is not necessary to ever identify what dark matter, or dark energy, actually are. It is only necessary to distinguish between competing explanations by virtue of fidelity with observations. In the case of dark matter, this is the degenerate problem of either (a) extra mass (dark matter) or (b) a modified theory of gravity (i.e., MOND). Once we are able to reject modified forms of gravity by observation, then dark matter is the only idea left standing and the winner by default. There are laboratory exercises, and astronomical observations, working to identify what dark matter physically consists of. It would be nice to know, but we can confidently hold that the idea is delightfully scientific, even if we never find out.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux II

Here is the abstract from Tim's first link: ...

That would be Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008, the abstract for a talk given at an AGU meeting, so there is no paper to go along with it, only the abstract is published. The abstract includes this sentence: "J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents." So, Mozina responds ...

In other words "currents interact" between the two plasma threads. ...

One might be excused for coming to the conclusion that English is not your first language. No, in other words magnetic field reconnection is observed, between the currents, as they approach each other. Now I know that field reconnection between currents has already been explained to you by somebody else, but I can't recall where or by whom. The guilty party is welcome to step forward.

So is that it? Did you attempt to read any of the papers or review any of the laboratory experiments? I know you complained about one because they did not measure some electric field. I find such an argument without merit. There is a reason why it's called electromagnetism in one word. You can't measure one without getting the other.

In case you have lost track of things, see my earlier post Comments on Magnetic Reconnection for the references.

 

[Dancing David]

I see now that DRD has directly presented some of the issues to MM, heis changing goal posts, it is not "Birkeland presented the model of solar loops", but "BIrkeland did experiments that I think relate to solar loops".

So now MM admits that all the tens of posts stating "Birkeland did this, and Birkeland did that", come down to MM making false claims allegations and outright deception.

Still the same old drum beat still lacking models , data and predictions.


"Electrons" and not the sole part of the 'solar wind', but please MM, the fact that you won't answer direct questions shows you are a poseur, a wannabe and a charlatan.

TT put the issue to rest long ago. MM is so obsessed he doesn't even know it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I trust you realize that one of the "everything" that I said was ...

• Question: Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
• Answer: Certainly not

So you agree that Lambda-CDM theory is not "woo""?

No, I agree that my personal opinion, and even Alfven's person opinions on this topic do not constitute "evidence" that Lambda-CDM theory is "woo". What makes it "woo" is the fact you cannot empirically demonstrate any of the following things exist or are simply not "fudge factors" of literally "epic' proportions. Inflation, DE, DM, expanding space, etc.

"Belief" one way or the other is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you can empirically demonstrate these ideas. The answer is no, it cannot be done, starting with inflation. You just all agreed that Guth's inflation theory was falsified, but then there you go resurrecting a new one to take it's place rather than letting it die a natural death. The term "dark energy" isn't even physical defined. It's not "explained" in any empirical sense. "SUSY" oriented "dark matter" is about as physically credible (i.e. shows up in a lab) as Guth mythical monopole. Without these items, Lambda-CDM theory is useless at "predicting" anything, and these ad hoc ad-on's were never empirical "predictions" in the first place.

At least Birkeland could physically and experimentally recreate the effect he was trying to "explain", even if it was later replaced by a "better" understanding of some aspects over time.

Far from being a reasonable "criticism" this is in fact a strength of standard cosmology and not a weakness. All theories of anything are always "curve fitting exercises".

Not all of them are based upon dead/non existent entities. Inflation theory is in a class by itself in that sense.

All theories, always. So if you are going to argue that this is some kind of "weakness", or that it makes standard cosmology in some way unscientific, then you must reject all theories of everything, including your own theories, all of which are equally "curve fitting exercises", bar none.

I don't mind you "curve fitting" based on *demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature. When however the 'curve fit' is done with something that presumably no longer exists in nature, we've moved beyond "science" and straight to mythological dogma.

So what? This is not a significant criticism, and certainly has nothing to do with an argument that standard cosmology is "unscientific".

Sure it does. You created a new force of nature that is *supernatural* in origin and supernatural in capabilities. Light and EM fields not not retain constant density and know other *demonstrated* force of nature behaves this way. Come on. You've stepped outside of ordinary "science" and straight into "myth making with math". If there were other known and demonstrated forces of nature that behaved like this your story wouldn't sound so "made up". As it stands, Guth made it up. It was falsified, and resurrected from the dead again.

Since when are all explanations supposed to be based on things that have already been physically demonstrated? Don't you realize that the entire discipline of quantum physics came about by appealing to effects that had not previously been physically demonstrated?

Up, that's not quite true. It came about by appealing to things that came be observed in *active experimentation*, and could be 'duplicated' in controlled condition, over and over again.

Neither had general relativity already been "physically demonstrated" before Einstein came up with it, so does that make Einstein wrong?

His math might eventually be replace with a quantum field explanation for all I know. Will that make him "wrong"? I can at least hope to physically experiment and test some of his beliefs with multiple precision clocks in space, etc. Gravity is something I experience here and now. Whether his math is "right', or it is a "close and useful approximation" that will later give way to something else is irrelevant. I can have some hope of physically testing gravity theories. I can't physically observe inflation ever do anything to a single atom, but you expect me to believe it "inflated a whole universe"?

The whole point of learning about new physics is to abandon that which you already know, when you know it does not work, and reach out to new ideas.

How does does "inflation did it" separate itself from ordinary "religion"?

This is the critical lesson of 20th century physics, that ordinary, "common sense" physics does not work on scales of time and space far removed from the Newtonian scales. Your demand that everything always appeal only to the old things we already know would freeze all science right where it is and bring an end to discovery.

That's certainly not true. QM theories are "testable" in every physical sense. That was a terrible analogy IMO. Science did "freeze up', it got creative about ways to "test" ideas in a lab. The obvious contrast here is that there is no *hope* of *ever* empirically demonstrating that inflation actually 'inflates' anything here on Earth or anywhere else human might ever physically reach. It is for all intents and purposes a dead and useless idea that has been falsified over and over again. I guess we'll take a peek under the hood of the "current" version and see how it's fairing with recent observations.

Inflation can be empirically tested, and I already made that point clear elsewhere, ...
But you just dismissed it with a wave of the hand. You have consistently rejected all observations, and/or controlled laboratory experiments, for no good reason at all, if and when they conflict with your pre-conceptions. So what good is it to even suggest the possibility of empirical verification, we all know you will ignore and/or simply reject it.

You're essentially handing me a "curve fit" that utterly ignores those 'dark flows' we observe, that utterly ignores the fact that Guth's theory was already falsified, and that utterly ignores that no theory that keeps "morphing" by adding things like "dark energy' to the process when it otherwise "fails" can ever actual be "falsified' in any ordinary manner.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

Inflation never predicted that observation. Oooops?

Not at all. Inflation and dark energy are entirely empirical in origin,

Pffft. In that case even God is quite empirical in nature because people also believe in God in the absence of empirical evidence. Inflation was "made up" in Guth's head. It was "hacked" by Linde, and it still fails key "predictions".

quite the contrary to what you think. Both came about only after observation had revealed weaknesses in the standing theories. The whole point of the "curve fitting exercises" that you reject, but are in fact essential to science as we know it, is to improve theories by eliminating the parts that don't work, or add new features so it will work better.

When we can't actually "test" anything, it not "physics" anymore, it's "mythology". You're essentially saying, well, if Guth's purely "made up" "inflation" won't work correctly, let's "fix it" by adding some additional ad hoc properties! None of this can actually be physically "tested" in a controlled experiment to verify any of these ad hoc properties Linde might kludged into Guth's model. The beautiful part from the standpoint of pure mythology is that it can *never* actually be falsified in a conventional physics formula, so maybe someone can come up with a "hairy inflation" that leads to "dark flows". It can morph into a thousand different unfalsifiable variations.

So, yes, the theory is crafted to fit the observations, but is there a theory out there somewhere that is not crafted to fit observations?

There are many theories like Birkeland's theories that may be "curve fit" to fit observations, but he did so with *known and demonstrated* forces/curvatures of nature. Guth and Linde just patched together a collective imaginary friend and a new religion was reborn from the ashes of the old dead inflation theory. How could this idea *ever* be falsified if those "dark flows" won't do it?

The fact that a theory is consistent with observations is by itself all that is needed to reject the "woo" label, and since we know, and even you admit, that the theory is consistent with observations, then we must all agree that is is not "woo".

Birkeland's ideas might be right or wrong, but they can never be "woo", because they work in a lab, even if not in space. Inflation is woo because it never worked in a lab, only on paper, and only after 'revisions galore'. It will always be "woo" because it will forever have exactly the same empirical "predictive value" as numerology or astrology.

It is not necessary to ever identify what dark matter, or dark energy, actually are. It is only necessary to distinguish between competing explanations by virtue of fidelity with observations.

Here is where you and I definitely part company on the concept of "science". If you can't physically "explain' "dark energy' or dark matter, then your theory is meaningless IMO. It has no merit at all at the level of actual "physics", particularly and especially at the level "useful empirical physics". I have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics. What's the point? It's no better than religion IMO. At least EU theory has promise at being able to 'explain' real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. It has real "predictive' value in a lab.

 

[Tubbythin]

"Belief" one way or the other is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you can empirically demonstrate these ideas. The answer is no, it cannot be done, starting with inflation. You just all agreed that Guth's inflation theory was falsified, but then there you go resurrecting a new one to take it's place rather than letting it die a natural death. The term "dark energy" isn't even physical defined. It's not "explained" in any empirical sense. "SUSY" oriented "dark matter" is about as physically credible (i.e. shows up in a lab) as Guth mythical monopole. Without these items, Lambda-CDM theory is useless at "predicting" anything, and these ad hoc ad-on's were never empirical "predictions" in the first place.

Do you even know what "empirical" means?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I see now that DRD has directly presented some of the issues to MM, heis changing goal posts, it is not "Birkeland presented the model of solar loops", but "BIrkeland did experiments that I think relate to solar loops".

Um, no, these were things *Birkeland* and his friends believed were related to solar activity. Birkeland even included a number of drawings and observations that he attempted to address with this experimental observations, but alas you'd actually have to do some real reading.

So now MM admits that all the tens of posts stating "Birkeland did this, and Birkeland did that", come down to MM making false claims allegations and outright deception.

Huh? Where did MM "admit" anything of the sort? Have you totally lost your mind? Better yet, have you actually read any of his work for yourself yet, or do you typically just follow the herd and never educate yourself directly?

"Electrons" and not the sole part of the 'solar wind', but please MM, the fact that you won't answer direct questions shows you are a poseur, a wannabe and a charlatan.

Excuse me? I've answered *hundreds* of questions now, and I will continue to do so. The fact I take a day or two off once in a while demonstrates that I have a real life even if you do not. Get over yourself.

TT put the issue to rest long ago. MM is so obsessed he doesn't even know it.

If I am "obsessed", I am obsessed with empirical physics. I am also interested in keeping religion out of the classroom under the guise of "science".

Electrons show up in a lab. They can be shown to influence the movement of positive ions of plasma too.

Inflation is a dead entity and has no influence on nature today, and never did have any influence on nature. It was an idea that had some influence on Guth, Linde and their subsequent followers. I guess we'll have to look at what Linde did to 'fix' Guth's theory. Why don't you show us your superior understanding on this topic and explain for us *exactly* what Linde did to fix Guth's non-reheating inflation theory?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you even know what "empirical" means?

Yes, do you? Electricity is empirical science. It shows up in a lab with real control mechanisms and everything. Besides cooler math models, do you have any idea what *empirically* separates inflation from numerology as it relates to experimental science?

 

[Tubbythin]

Inflation is a dead entity and has no influence on nature today, and never did have any influence on nature.

So why is the Universe flat, and how is the horizon problem solved in a consistent manner with other cosmological observations?

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, do you? Electricity is empirical science. It shows up in a lab with real control mechanisms and everything. Besides cooler math models, do you have any idea what *empirically* separates inflation from numerology as it relates to experimental science?

The fact that empirical observations match the predictions associated with a Universe that underwent inflation.

 

[Tubbythin]

Here is where you and I definitely part company on the concept of "science". If you can't physically "explain' "dark energy' or dark matter, then your theory is meaningless IMO.

Define "physically "explain'".


It has no merit at all at the level of actual "physics", particularly and especially at the level "useful empirical physics". I have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics. What's the point? It's no better than religion IMO. At least EU theory has promise at being able to 'explain' real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. It has real "predictive' value in a lab.[/QUOTE]

EU can be used to make predictions about the cosmos. Unfortunately for EU, these predictions have a nasty habit of being completely and utterly inconsistent with empirical observations.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Far from being a reasonable "criticism" this is in fact a strength of standard cosmology and not a weakness. All theories of anything are always "curve fitting exercises".

Not all of them are based upon dead/non existent entities. Inflation theory is in a class by itself in that sense.

All theories, always. So if you are going to argue that this is some kind of "weakness", or that it makes standard cosmology in some way unscientific, then you must reject all theories of everything, including your own theories, all of which are equally "curve fitting exercises", bar none.

I don't mind you "curve fitting" based on *demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature. When however the 'curve fit' is done with something that presumably no longer exists in nature, we've moved beyond "science" and straight to mythological dogma.

[...]

I'm not sure it was intended, but this part of your post, MM, is richly ironic.

Especially in light of the posts you and I have exchanged re the Birkeland photograph and Yohkoh image.

For starters, the Yohkoh image is, itself, heavily processed data (as I discovered when I finally tracked down the source - more later), and its representation as an image is - at heart - nothing more and nothing less than curve fitting!

But more critically, the turn of the 19th century was about the last time any serious physics could be done without curve fitting^, in the sense that "*demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" do so only through the mediation of "curve fitting".

And I must say I'm a little surprised to read what you wrote (the parts I'm quoting) ... after all, your name, as author, is on a published paper whose key content includes nuclear physics!

I'm intrigued ... would you care to describe how any particular nuclear transition that I may choose to specify (i.e. a 'physical entity') can be "*demonstrated*" (in the lab, in controlled experiments) without curve fitting? Ditto, wrt *demonstrating* that such a nuclear transition has "*physical* effects in nature"?

^ and, if you you want to be strict about this, it's hard to make a case that any serious physics was done since the time of Galileo, without 'curve fitting'

 

[Reality Check]

A long posting from MM so I will make a few points:

"Belief" one way or the other is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you can empirically demonstrate these ideas. The answer is no, it cannot be done, starting with inflation. You just all agreed that Guth's inflation theory was falsified, but then there you go resurrecting a new one to take it's place rather than letting it die a natural death.

No one here that I noticed said that Guth's "old inflation" theory was falsified. It had a problem with reheating for a period of about a year until Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt solved it, thus creating the actual inflation theory that is used in the Lambda-CDM theory.
For some reason you have been obsessed with Guth's old inflation theory rather than addressing the theory that is actually used.

How does does "inflation did it" separate itself from ordinary "religion"?

A little thing called the scientific method.

You're essentially handing me a "curve fit" that utterly ignores those 'dark flows' we observe, that utterly ignores the fact that Guth's theory was already falsified, and that utterly ignores that no theory that keeps "morphing" by adding things like "dark energy' to the process when it otherwise "fails" can ever actual be "falsified' in any ordinary manner.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

Inflation never predicted that observation. Oooops?

That is right: Oooops - science does actually make new observations of the universe.
As already stated: Inflation theory has not been falsified.
As already stated: Dark flows are a single unconfirmed analysis using statistical methods (I would call this extreme "curve fitting"). Even if they were confirmed they would just put upper limits on inflation. Inflation would be falsified if these limits were too low.

As for the Lambda-CDM theory "morphing" - that is the scientific method. As an example there was a certain theory that morphed from using flat space and time to using a curved spacetime (perhaps you can name it ).

Pffft. In that case even God is quite empirical in nature because people also believe in God in the absence of empirical evidence. Inflation was "made up" in Guth's head. It was "hacked" by Linde, and it still fails key "predictions".

Please list the failed key predictions and tell us how you distinguished between these and the non-key predictions?

How can a theory that you have stated is all "postdictions" have any predictions?

Here is where you and I definitely part company on the concept of "science". If you can't physically "explain' "dark energy' or dark matter, then your theory is meaningless IMO. It has no merit at all at the level of actual "physics", particularly and especially at the level "useful empirical physics". I have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics. What's the point? It's no better than religion IMO. At least EU theory has promise at being able to 'explain' real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. It has real "predictive' value in a lab.

You seem to be forgetting about a key part of science: It is a process by which things that are unknown are explained physically.

Dark matter and dark energy are at the same point that cathode rays were in the 1870's. They have been observed. Their properties are being explored. But no one knows what they are. It took 30 years before cathode rays were determined to be electrons.

Ordinary, everyday physics has the promise of being able to explain real observations that occur in space in areas where humans can reach and take in-situ measurements. No "EU theory" non-science is needed.

Last point:
If you (in your humble opinion) "have no need of a myth that is forever "unexplained" at the level of physics" then why did you start this thread? Why are you wasting your time posting in it?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Is Astronomy Empirical?

Do you even know what "empirical" means?

Yes, do you? Electricity is empirical science. It shows up in a lab with real control mechanisms and everything. ...

From the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism
​

There is nothing about this definition which implies the the word "empirical" should refer only to controlled laboratory experiments. Meanwhile, the legendary Wikipedia says: "The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to theoretical", but also gives a "variation" which reads: "In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. ... "

So this leads to the obvious question. Are astronomical data "empirical", or are they not? The Merriam-Webster definition clearly says that astronomical observations as empirical. The Wikipedia use of the word "experimental", in "" marks, is ambiguous and one could interpret astronomical observations as "experimental", I think. In any case, the answer to this question is crucial, and here is why.

What makes it "woo" is the fact you cannot empirically demonstrate any of the following things exist or are simply not "fudge factors" of literally "epic' proportions. Inflation, DE, DM, expanding space, etc.

If astronomical data are empirical, then we can demonstrate, and have in fact already demonstrated all of the above empirically. If astronomical data are not empirical, then we have indeed not demonstrated any of the above empirically. But if astronomical data are not empirical, can we continue to accept astronomy as a science at all?

It all boils down to this. If you accept that astronomical data are empirical, then all of your arguments are dead. You can only deny the empiricism of inflation, dark energy, dark matter, and expanding space, if you deny the empiricism of astronomy altogether. And if you do that, then you really do stand in the shadow of your own personal definition of "science" and "empirical", and probably a lot of other words as well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So why is the Universe flat, and how is the horizon problem solved in a consistent manner with other cosmological observations?

An honest "I don't know" is "better than" "inflationdidit" IMO. The universe is simply "flat" because it has always been flat for all I know know. I don't see the "big deal" in a "postdiction" of a flat universe. You can begin with the notion the universe is simply flat and go from there. So what? Birkeland actually "predicted" a host of various possible solar observation via good old "trial and error' by changing the control variables of his experiments as recording their effects on his terella experiments. That's an actual "empirical prediction". Saying "the universe is flat" is not a "prediction", it's an observed fact as far as we can tell. Guth didn't "predict" this, he "postdicted" this as a requirement of his creation mythos.

How big was Guth's "near singularity" thingy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not sure it was intended, but this part of your post, MM, is richly ironic.

Especially in light of the posts you and I have exchanged re the Birkeland photograph and Yohkoh image.

For starters, the Yohkoh image is, itself, heavily processed data (as I discovered when I finally tracked down the source - more later), and its representation as an image is - at heart - nothing more and nothing less than curve fitting!

It's more of a "photon observation" process actually, but sure there are "processing routines" involved.

But more critically, the turn of the 19th century was about the last time any serious physics could be done without curve fitting^, in the sense that "*demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" do so only through the mediation of "curve fitting".

And I must say I'm a little surprised to read what you wrote (the parts I'm quoting) ... after all, your name, as author, is on a published paper whose key content includes nuclear physics!

I'm intrigued ... would you care to describe how any particular nuclear transition that I may choose to specify (i.e. a 'physical entity') can be "*demonstrated*" (in the lab, in controlled experiments) without curve fitting? Ditto, wrt *demonstrating* that such a nuclear transition has "*physical* effects in nature"?

^ and, if you you want to be strict about this, it's hard to make a case that any serious physics was done since the time of Galileo, without 'curve fitting'

You still seem to be overlooking the one obvious difference between a curve fitting exercise based on known forces of nature, vs. curve fitting exercises with inflation elves. I don't mind you "scaling' something to size, or using mathematical models based on controlled known forces of nature. When you start slapping math to invisible made up stuff, then I'm no longer interested. A good example of how far your industry takes this idea is the notion that Dark Matter has various "properties", like "invisibility" as it relates to photon interaction and it's ability to "decay" or emit gamma rays. You're industry is making this stuff up as it goes without any empirical support of concept. It's purely a point at the sky exercise devoid of any actual physics or physical control mechanisms.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Empirical physics

You still seem to be overlooking the one obvious difference between a curve fitting exercise based on known forces of nature, vs. curve fitting exercises with inflation elves.

This is not a serious criticism. As I have already said, when that which is known fails, then you appeal to new ideas. All you can do is resort to insulting references to "Elves" simply because you actually have no argument with substance, and we all know it. Assuming that the unknown "inflation" is responsible is absolutely valid science in every sense, except perhaps in your own private version of science.

A good example of how far your industry takes this idea is the notion that Dark Matter has various "properties", like "invisibility" as it relates to photon interaction and it's ability to "decay" or emit gamma rays. You're industry is making this stuff up as it goes without any empirical support of concept.

Nonsense. Neutrinos are "invisible" as it relates to photon interaction, so that is not being "made up". And it is not just common, but almost mandatory that all massive particles decay; high energy physics is full of decaying particles. So why should "dark matter" particles be any different? In fact, quite the contrary to what you think, "invisibility" as relates to photon interaction, and decay, are both standard particle physics, very much typical of controlled laboratory experiments, and are chosen specifically to avoid going any farther into the realm of new ideas than the empirical data require. They are both not made up, but chosen to force dark matter particles to act like any other particle would. Every property alleged of dark matter particles is already found in empirical particle physics, nothing made up anywhere.

It's purely a point at the sky exercise devoid of any actual physics or physical control mechanisms.

On the contrary, it is all actual physics involving previously established control mechanisms from well known particle physics. On this argument you are not just wrong, but extremely so.

 

[Tubbythin]

An honest "I don't know" is "better than" "inflationdidit" IMO. The universe is simply "flat" because it has always been flat for all I know know. I don't see the "big deal" in a "postdiction" of a flat universe. You can begin with the notion the universe is simply flat and go from there. So what? Birkeland actually "predicted" a host of various possible solar observation via good old "trial and error' by changing the control variables of his experiments as recording their effects on his terella experiments. That's an actual "empirical prediction". Saying "the universe is flat" is not a "prediction", it's an observed fact as far as we can tell.

Right... so we can either take the observation that the Universe is flat, use to construct a theory that makes predictions and then test those predictions against empirical observations. Or we can say "I don't know, I don't want to know and I'm gonna hurl abuse at anybody who does". Now... which is the more scientific.

Guth didn't "predict" this, he "postdicted" this as a requirement of his creation mythos.

The fact that you have to resort to phrases like "creation mythos", "elves" "deities" etc is a clear sign to everybody that you are not arguing with science. You're arguing against the little strawmen you made up in your head. This is a particularly pathetic form of debate.

 

[Tubbythin]

A good example of how far your industry takes this idea is the notion that Dark Matter has various "properties", like "invisibility" as it relates to photon interaction and it's ability to "decay" or emit gamma rays. You're industry is making this stuff up as it goes without any empirical support of concept. It's purely a point at the sky exercise devoid of any actual physics or physical control mechanisms.

This is hilarious. You're now objecting to the fact that "dark matter" has a "property" of being dark. The mind boggles as to how someone could possibly think this is a legitimate objection.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, no, these were things *Birkeland* and his friends believed were related to solar activity. Birkeland even included a number of drawings and observations that he attempted to address with this experimental observations, but alas you'd actually have to do some real reading.



Huh? Where did MM "admit" anything of the sort? Have you totally lost your mind? Better yet, have you actually read any of his work for yourself yet, or do you typically just follow the herd and never educate yourself directly?



Excuse me? I've answered *hundreds* of questions now, and I will continue to do so. The fact I take a day or two off once in a while demonstrates that I have a real life even if you do not. Get over yourself.


If I am "obsessed", I am obsessed with empirical physics. I am also interested in keeping religion out of the classroom under the guise of "science".

Electrons show up in a lab. They can be shown to influence the movement of positive ions of plasma too.

Inflation is a dead entity and has no influence on nature today, and never did have any influence on nature. It was an idea that had some influence on Guth, Linde and their subsequent followers. I guess we'll have to look at what Linde did to 'fix' Guth's theory. Why don't you show us your superior understanding on this topic and explain for us *exactly* what Linde did to fix Guth's non-reheating inflation theory?

Uh, sure , right Michael, you don't answer direct questions, that is well established.

So you can explain the 'solar wind' being composed of all three kinds of partciles, sure you can!

That is why you have avoided answering it.

Whatever.

There is no conspiracy to supress your ideas, they just don't work.

Still want to explain how your theory of the solar wind defies known physics, come to the PC thread.

Now you have another chance to avoid explaining your model.