Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

Sounds a lot like the bib bang theory so I call woo

I've read a lot of MM's work or post's at least, and he's interpretation of Birkelands work is on the money!

pity some people here have trouble understanding Birkelands work! but that's not MM's fault.

Any theory that does not take into account plasma/electrical effects as the dominant force are bound to wind up like the BB or Lambda-CDM in serious trouble!

In your speed reading, you may have missed some key posts.

#1651, by Tim T, for example.

Here are some highlights:

"As far as I can tell, Birkeland thinks of the "solar wind" (he never uses that phrase, of course, nor calls it anything but 'gas' so far as I have noticed) is composed entirely of electrons. And he clearly thinks that the electrons are concentrated in beams, and not flowing unconstrained as we know it does. And, of course, look at the language: " ... possible to imagine ..." and "presupposed". These don't look like bold predictions to me."

"But the ideas [Birkeland's and his contemporaries'][/b] were eventually discarded when it became evident that they just don't work. So as far as electricity being an important component in stellar physics, it was explored and discarded, for good reasons, long ago.[/B]"

"Why should we in 2009 care what Birkeland had to say about electricity and the sun 100 years ago, when we know that much of what he had to say is simply wrong?"

You see Sol88, several people here took the opportunity to do just what MM asked; namely, go read the 994-page Birkeland document.

And when those people did that, they found that MM's claims - concerning what Birkeland did, what he predicted, etc - were almost all wrong.

Yes, you read that correctly ... if you actually read what Birkeland wrote, you find that MM mis-stated, misunderstood, mis-represented, (etc) Birkeland's own work!

And you can tell that MM has recognised and accepted this; for example, in his most recent posts he has changed his claims (about Birkeland's work) in some rather key ways.

But maybe you did read everything, and you simply disagree; maybe you yourself have gone through all 994 pages, and can show what MM couldn't?

 

[Ziggurat]

Any theory that does not take into account plasma/electrical effects as the dominant force are bound to wind up like the BB or Lambda-CDM in serious trouble!

Don't be silly. Sure, electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravitational forces, but nuclear forces are much stronger than electromagnetic forces. So clearly EU theories are wrong since they do not take into account nuclear forces as the dominant force acting on plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In your speed reading, you may have missed some key posts.

#1651, by Tim T, for example.

Here are some highlights:

"As far as I can tell, Birkeland thinks of the "solar wind" (he never uses that phrase, of course, nor calls it anything but 'gas' so far as I have noticed) is composed entirely of electrons. And he clearly thinks that the electrons are concentrated in beams, and not flowing unconstrained as we know it does. And, of course, look at the language: " ... possible to imagine ..." and "presupposed". These don't look like bold predictions to me."

I guess in Tim's "speed reading" he missed all the mathematical presentations Birkeland produced, all the dialog related to positively charged metallic ions ending up in the grease inside his chamber experiments, etc. I guess you guys really never intend to actually *READ HIS WORK*, you instead seem intent on criticizing it based on a "readers digest" presentation. Typical.

"But the ideas [Birkeland's and his contemporaries'][/b] were eventually discarded when it became evident that they just don't work. So as far as electricity being an important component in stellar physics, it was explored and discarded, for good reasons, long ago.[/B]"

Er, that is the part that is still in dispute.

"Why should we in 2009 care what Birkeland had to say about electricity and the sun 100 years ago, when we know that much of what he had to say is simply wrong?"

And of course much of it was simply "right" too, which you simply ignored entirely. Birkeland put forth *a lot* of different options. The fact that some of them were not correct should hardly be surprising. The notion that *all of it* was necessarily wrong based on a few "misses" seems highly dubious, especially since your industry seems to have overlooked Guth's early "misses".

You see Sol88, several people here took the opportunity to do just what MM asked; namely, go read the 994-page Birkeland document.

And when those people did that, they found that MM's claims - concerning what Birkeland did, what he predicted, etc - were almost all wrong.

You see sol88, they can't be bothered to read anything "properly", or to read it in it's *entirety* before they write it off as meaningless. That's why they still can't explain solar wind and simple stuff that Birkeland simulated and wrote about in his work. One wonders how they figure Birkeland "explained" the pieces of the cathode appearing in the grease along the sides of the walls of his experiments. He wrote about them extensively, but evidently the only read "a little" of what he wrote and never bothered reading *all of it*.

Yes, you read that correctly ... if you actually read what Birkeland wrote, you find that MM mis-stated, misunderstood, mis-represented, (etc) Birkeland's own work!

Bull!

And you can tell that MM has recognised and accepted this; for example, in his most recent posts he has changed his claims (about Birkeland's work) in some rather key ways.

I did? Quote me.

But maybe you did read everything, and you simply disagree; maybe you yourself have gone through all 994 pages, and can show what MM couldn't?

What exactly have you shown us DRD other than the fact you have not actually read his whole volume yet? How did he explain those pieces of the cathode that were "caught" by the grease along the sides of the walls of his experiments?

 

[Reality Check]

I guess in Tim's "speed reading" he missed all the mathematical presentations Birkeland produced, all the dialog related to positively charged metallic ions ending up in the grease inside his chamber experiments, etc. I guess you guys really never intend to actually *READ HIS WORK*, you instead seem intent on criticizing it based on a "readers digest" presentation. Typical.

You are correct: Birkeland has a lot of mathematical calculations later in the book than his experimental analogy descriptions. These are all about the paths that electrons take under the influence of electromagnetism and gravity.

This just happens to be a valid (if outdated) model for the motion of electrons in planetary magnetospheres.

It is not a valid model for the solar wind or any other solar process that I know about - there just happen to be pesky things called protons involved there.

And one more time: Nothing to do with this thread which is about cosmology not solar or planetary physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are correct: Birkeland has a lot of mathematical calculations later in the book than his experimental analogy descriptions. These are all about the paths that electrons take under the influence of electromagnetism and gravity.

His comments and physical descriptions were not just about electrons. Did you miss his whole series of experiments with cathodes and the material they emit into a greased plate?

And one more time: Nothing to do with this thread which is about cosmology not solar or planetary physics.

It has to do with the *electrical nature* of the whole universe. That electrical activity manifests itself in all sorts of obvious ways, both inside our solar system, and out outside of it as well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually its balanced upon general relativity

That's like claiming invisible elves are balanced upon general relativity just because I stuffed some math related to elves into a constant in GR. Sheesh.

and some of the most advanced observations of space made my mankind.

At best, you *observe* "acceleration", not "dark energy"!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I guess in Tim's "speed reading" he missed all the mathematical presentations Birkeland produced, all the dialog related to positively charged metallic ions ending up in the grease inside his chamber experiments, etc. I guess you guys really never intend to actually *READ HIS WORK*, you instead seem intent on criticizing it based on a "readers digest" presentation. Typical.



Er, that is the part that is still in dispute.



And of course much of it was simply "right" too, which you simply ignored entirely. Birkeland put forth *a lot* of different options. The fact that some of them were not correct should hardly be surprising. The notion that *all of it* was necessarily wrong based on a few "misses" seems highly dubious, especially since your industry seems to have overlooked Guth's early "misses".



You see sol88, they can't be bothered to read anything "properly", or to read it in it's *entirety* before they write it off as meaningless. That's why they still can't explain solar wind and simple stuff that Birkeland simulated and wrote about in his work. One wonders how they figure Birkeland "explained" the pieces of the cathode appearing in the grease along the sides of the walls of his experiments. He wrote about them extensively, but evidently the only read "a little" of what he wrote and never bothered reading *all of it*.



Bull!


I did? Quote me.



What exactly have you shown us DRD other than the fact you have not actually read his whole volume yet? How did he explain those pieces of the cathode that were "caught" by the grease along the sides of the walls of his experiments?

Ah, you're back; good.

In post #1672 I asked you about your oft-repeated claims concerning "jets" (Birkeland predicting them, providing a correct explanation of them, etc).

As you seem to have missed it, I'll copy it, in its entirety, here (sans the links):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Question to MM about "jets"

In quite a few posts you have claimed that Birkeland predicted and/or simulated "coronal loops and jets", and that the 994-page Birkeland document presents both these, together with the relevant math explaining them.

I am trying to make sure I have found the right place(s); can you help please?

First, is there anywhere other than "Chapter IV" that contains predictions, simulations, etc directly relevant to this topic? If so, where?

Second, to what extent are you referring to two (quite) different phenomena ("coronal loops" and "jets")? As opposed to two things one can observe that are intimately linked (e.g. no coronal loops without jets, or no jets without coronal loops)?

As a refresher, here are some references, in your recent posts, to this:

#1572: "Sure, but his basic concept is completely sound, even to this day. You folks can't 'explain' solar wind acceleration, but in his own words, he expected it to reach speeds near the speed of light. We have seen CME's eject particles at a significant portion of the speed of light. The idea in his day is that "gas" might be drifting by at low speed, but Birkeland's "experimental predictions" suggested otherwise. That's what a real "prediction" is all about. He also drew correlations between the electrical nature of the corona and it's higher temperatures, and all the core tenets of what is "EU/PC theory" today. Guess what? It works in a lab, and it has provided real "predictions", including coronal loops, "jets" from the poles, things we now see in Hinode images of the sun."

#1507: "[Birkeland] actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations."

#1433: "Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago and you *still* can't figure them out."

#1305: "I'm not "surprised" by a multimillion degree coronal loop. I understand "jets" that stream off the sun. These were all real "predictions" that came from adding EM fields to GR as demonstrated in Birkeland's experiments."

#903: "Birkeland's theories empirically (the old fashion way) "predicted" (actual prediction) coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc, things the mainstream *still* can't explain."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Would you be kind enough to help me understand Birkeland?

Now back to the substance.

In post #1658 we read this (bold added to MM):

TT: So while it is fair to say that Birkeland did think that there was a flow of material from the sun to the earth, it is clear that his conception of the flow is both qualitatively & quantitatively different from what we now call the "solar wind".

MM: Er, no. It was "quantitatively different" to be sure, but the "qualitative" part is still right on the money. We know from his experiments that the key observations we're seeking to explain in solar phenomenon are in fact relate to electrical discharges. The numbers have changed to be sure, but the basic idea is sound and it works in a lab. You're confusing the notion of "quantitative differences" for "qualitative failure". There is no one to one correlation between these two ideas. Quantitatively things are different than he imagined, and even some of the physical parameters are a bit different, but the basic concept works in the lab.

And later in that same post (bold added):

MM: While it may be true that *some* of his ideas were "wrong", or at least "incomplete", his core theories are empirically sound (even if wrong), they still explain things that the mainstream cannot, including solar wind and high speed jets and coronal loops.

In post #1707 we have this:

MM: I can certainly explain how electrons cause protons to be carried away from the sun.

DRD: You can?

If so, then you admit that you can do much more than Birkeland could do?

And that you can, by building on what he wrote - in that 994-page document - provide a complete explanation for all the observed properties of the solar wind, coronal loops, and (solar) polar jets? An explanation that you have asserted, many times, continues to elude space scientists today?

And the reason you have not written a paper on this, much less got one published, is because ...?

Here's the only part of what you have written that is logical to me:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Birkeland's experiments (simulations) and (some of) his math are about 'electrical discharges'.

Wrt what we today call the solar wind, and what is called (by MM? Birkeland?) "coronal loops" and "(polar) jets", 'electrical discharges' can explain all the key aspects of the observed phenomena.

By 'explain' I (MM) mean 'qualitatively'; I acknowledge that there has been no quantitative explanation developed (other than that of Birkeland, which is wrong).

[Not sure about this last part, still working on it]: The objective basis for my (MM's) assertions about (qualitatively) explain is "looks-like-a-bunny science"; I (MM) am quite candid about the complete lack of any quantitative treatment of this idea.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Which opens up the question of what - objectively and independently verifiably - is this mysterious 'electrical discharge'?

The change in language? Here's one example:

old MM: [Birkeland] "actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab."

new MM: "He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis."

It's somewhat subtle, but the old MM was quite dogmatic (Birkeland made a 100% certain, no-room-for-doubt "prediction"), whereas the new is not quite as sure ("*could*", rather than "does" for example).

Another example.

An even older MM: "Birkeland's theories empirically (the old fashion way) "predicted" (actual prediction) coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc, things the mainstream *still* can't explain." - i.e. quantitatively, with 100% accuracy, etc.

The newer MM: "It was "quantitatively different" to be sure, but the "qualitative" part is still right on the money. [...] The numbers have changed to be sure, but the basic idea is sound and it works in a lab. [...] There is no one to one correlation between these two ideas. Quantitatively things are different than he imagined, and even some of the physical parameters are a bit different, but the basic concept works in the lab." - i.e. "prediction" turns out to be rather less powerful (it's a "qualitative" prediction, whatever that means).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I guess in Tim's "speed reading" he missed all the mathematical presentations Birkeland produced, all the dialog related to positively charged metallic ions ending up in the grease inside his chamber experiments, etc. I guess you guys really never intend to actually *READ HIS WORK*, you instead seem intent on criticizing it based on a "readers digest" presentation. Typical.

You are correct: Birkeland has a lot of mathematical calculations later in the book than his experimental analogy descriptions. These are all about the paths that electrons take under the influence of electromagnetism and gravity.

[...]

And to add one thing:

That part - with the math about the paths that electrons take - also contains the classical physics ideas of negative energy ... yes, the same concept that MM was so, er, vocal about earlier (as in it cannot exist, etc).

So on the one hand we have MM castigating folk for not reading the 994-page tome in its entirety, yet on the other we have MM being blind to his hero using a concept - over many pages of calculation - he is on record as saying is akin to faeries!

The irony is rich indeed.

 

[Reality Check]

About this post by MM refered to by DRD:

#1572: "Sure, but his basic concept is completely sound, even to this day. You folks can't 'explain' solar wind acceleration, but in his own words, he expected it to reach speeds near the speed of light. We have seen CME's eject particles at a significant portion of the speed of light. The idea in his day is that "gas" might be drifting by at low speed, but Birkeland's "experimental predictions" suggested otherwise. That's what a real "prediction" is all about. He also drew correlations between the electrical nature of the corona and it's higher temperatures, and all the core tenets of what is "EU/PC theory" today. Guess what? It works in a lab, and it has provided real "predictions", including coronal loops, "jets" from the poles, things we now see in Hinode images of the sun."

Scientists ("we folks"?) can explain the solar wind acceleration.
Also have a look at the recent evidence for Alfven waves in the lower solar atmosphere and their heating of the corona (the source of the fast solar wind), e.g. in this thread.

MM: Please continue to point out Birkeland's predictions that have been found to be wrong. The speed of the fast solar wind is 750 km/s (0.025%) which is not "near the speed of light" and not even considered to be a "significant portion of the speed of light". Even CMEs have speeds of 20 km/s to 2,700 km/s, i.e. a maximum of ~0.1% of the speed of light.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And to add one thing:

That part - with the math about the paths that electrons take - also contains the classical physics ideas of negative energy ... yes, the same concept that MM was so, er, vocal about earlier (as in it cannot exist, etc).

Er, no. One is directly related to "current flow" in and around a sphere, and the other is directly related to "negative pressure in a vacuum". Are you suggesting these are the very ideas Guth was trying to lamely explain when he described "negative pressure in a vacuum"?

So on the one hand we have MM castigating folk for not reading the 994-page tome in its entirety, yet on the other we have MM being blind to his hero using a concept - over many pages of calculation - he is on record as saying is akin to faeries!

The irony is rich indeed.

The irony here is you not recognizing a calculation based on a known entity like an electron, and a made up one like "inflation faeries". I can understand that electrons "flow" around a sphere due to "electrical discharges through plasma", but I have no way to physically comprehend a "negative pressure in a vacuum".

The debate was about "negative pressure in a vacuum", not whether or not electrons create movement in plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah, what to discuss next, solar wind, jets, dark faeries in math formulas?

I think we better start with solar wind before moving on to "jets" and let DRD read about those grease lined wall, and cathode discharge experiments where Birkeland collected particles from inside the experiment, both on the front and back of several plates. You evidently are missing the whole part about "flying electric ions *of all kinds*" and seem to believe he was only talking about flying electrons.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's like claiming invisible elves are balanced upon general relativity just because I stuffed some math related to elves into a constant in GR. Sheesh.

Do you have an elvish fantasy or something? The frequency with which you talk about them borders on the obsessive.

At best, you *observe* "acceleration", not "dark energy"!

So come up with an alternative theory that is internally consistent and explains this observation and all the other major cosmological observations consistently without dark energy.

 

[Tubbythin]

The irony here is you not recognizing a calculation based on a known entity like an electron, and a made up one like "inflation faeries". I can understand that electrons "flow" around a sphere due to "electrical discharges through plasma", but I have no way to physically comprehend a "negative pressure in a vacuum".

I think we can add "irony" to the list of words which MM doesn't understand the meaning of.

 

[Ziggurat]

Er, no.

Er, yes. Either potential energies can be negative, or they cannot. You insisted that they cannot. Birkeland disagrees with you.

One is directly related to "current flow" in and around a sphere, and the other is directly related to "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Well, no. Both are related to attractive potentials.

The irony here is you not recognizing a calculation based on a known entity like an electron, and a made up one like "inflation faeries".

Except negative potential energy comes straight out of Newtonian gravity. That's some pretty well-known entities there.

I can understand that electrons "flow" around a sphere due to "electrical discharges through plasma", but I have no way to physically comprehend a "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Apparently you can't comprehend falling apples either, because Den is talking about negative potential energy, not negative vacuum pressure (the latter comes from a positive energy term, BTW).

The debate was about "negative pressure in a vacuum", not whether or not electrons create movement in plasma.

Many things were under debate. One of them was whether or not gravitational energy is negative. You insisted it was not, because energy was never negative. Birkeland disagrees with you.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think we can add "irony" to the list of words which MM doesn't understand the meaning of.

Well, what can you expect of someone who doesn't know the definition of "definition"?

The irony, it is layered.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From the Wiki link on solar wind.

The slow solar wind appears to originate from a region around the Sun's equatorial belt that is known as the "streamer belt".

First of all, the WIKI article is wrong in the very first sentence. Solar wind of all types originates from the *whole sphere*, not just the equator. Didn't any of these guys look at a LASCO image? Not a great start IMO......

Coronal streamers extend outward from this region, carrying plasma from the interior along closed magnetic loops.[21][22]

If they are "closed magnetic loops", why isn't the plasma flowing *back into the sun* where it closes, and why does look more like a cathode discharge rather than singular individual magnetic line flow?

Observations of the Sun between 1996 and 2001 showed that emission of the slow solar wind occurred between latitudes of 30–35° around the equator during the solar minimum (the period of lowest solar activity), then expanded toward the poles as the minimum waned. By the time of the solar maximum, the poles were also emitting a slow solar wind. The fast solar wind is thought to originate from coronal holes, which are funnel-like regions of open field lines in the Sun's magnetic field.[24] Such open lines are particularly prevalent around the Sun's magnetic poles.

What are "open magnetic field lines"?

Are you seriously claiming this is a scientific "explanation" of solar wind?

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, what can you expect of someone who doesn't know the definition of "definition"?

Lots of nonsensical ranting about elves and faeries and similar mythical beings apparently.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Er, yes. Either potential energies can be negative, or they cannot. You insisted that they cannot. Birkeland disagrees with you.

No. Our disagreement was whether or not there was "negative pressure in a vacuum". You folks have a way of digressing with every post, but if you go back and actually reread the conversation, I assure you it was related to "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Apparently you can't comprehend falling apples either, because Den is talking about negative potential energy, not negative vacuum pressure (the latter comes from a positive energy term, BTW).

Apparently you can't tell a strawman when you read one because Den *intentionally* misrepresented the nature of our disagreement which was related to the existence of 'negative pressure in a vacuum", not "negative potential energy".

Many things were under debate. One of them was whether or not gravitational energy is negative.

Oh for crying out loud! No. Our debate was whether or not there was "negative pressure in a vacuum" as Guth claimed You guys can't keep your own strawmen straight anymore.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lots of nonsensical ranting about elves and faeries and similar mythical beings apparently.

Apparently all one needs to create elves and fairies and make them "real" is to stuff them into a GR constant and make up a math myth about how they saved the universe from the evil monopole clan.

 

[Ziggurat]

What are "open magnetic field lines"?

One would have thought that someone so invested in electric models of the sun would understand basic terminology used to describe its magnetic properties. "Open magnetic field lines" basically mean field lines that extend far away from the sun. Here's a paper dealing with them.