Oh yeah?
Let me quote a gem from 'ben m' at IS, (from a recent response to Lerner ..
post#169):
ben m said:
Lerner said:
In no other field of physics would the introduction of three hypothetical entities, each unconfirmed by experimental evidence, be allowed to save a theory.
- First of all: this is epistemologically nonsense. To begin with, it is how physics works. Nature is out there using some complete set (call it Z) of laws of physics. A priori, we don't know what Z is. We construct hypotheses of the form "if the laws were X, the data would be Y". If X does not predict Y, then X != Z and we have to say "we don't know the laws of Nature Z" and we are supposed to keep guessing. All such guesses are extensions of X beyond what you guessed first.
Eric thinks that he knows Z already: the actual laws of Nature have to be (he thinks) the ones observed directly in pre-2016 labs. He thinks astronomers are only allowed to rearrange the "known" ingredients into different sorts of clouds and clusters and streams. This is bizarre. Every physicist since Fermi and Rabi has known that Nature might have huge catalogues of new particles up her sleeve, and that some such particles might be hard or impossible to detect. Everyone except you! You seem to have some inside information telling you that protons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos are the whole story. What information is that?
- Secondly: Eric remains (as of 2003 anyway) confused about whether dark matter and dark energy are overconstrained or not. He thinks we threw four crazy ideas into a Cosmic Microwave Background fit, saw a good chi^2, and started collecting Nobel prizes based on unusually little confirmation. Nonsense. It's terrifically overconstrained. Multiple independent cosmology observables provide cross-predictions for each other. I have said this five times and Eric seems deaf to it.
Thirdly: In this thread, Eric seems willing look at
one isolated cosmological data fit and invent new physics to make sense of it---even at the cost of that "new physics" being apparently Lorentz-violating nonlocal craziness in which otherwise-indistinguishable photons
need to remember how far they've traveled so far in order to decide how much they need to stretch in wavelength. (Presumably he holds out some hope that this will turn out to be a plasma-physics phenomenon. I don't know why he expects anyone else to hold out such a hope.)
So .. now let's just put to the test your statement:
"Er, no. I'm perfectly fine with how "science" in general works", given that I agree with ben m's above summation of the Lerner delusion, in his context of 'how science in general works'.
(This'll be a classic Michael response .. I'm sure)
Well, let's see..
First of all: this is epistemologically nonsense. To begin with, it is how physics works.
Let's see if that's actually true, shall we? Let me see you or ben actually demonstrate ben's first claim. Name one other area of physics or science that requires 4 unique and different "hypothetical entities" to work correctly, all of which defy any empirical cause/effect justification in the lab. Name just one other popular scientific theory that needs such a wide range of various fudge factors. Ben seems to believe that scientific theories *routinely* involved multiple hypothetical constructs, so let's see him name a few of them. I seriously doubt he can do that or you can do that.
Eric thinks that he knows Z already: the actual laws of Nature have to be (he thinks) the ones observed directly in pre-2016 labs. He thinks astronomers are only allowed to rearrange the "known" ingredients into different sorts of clouds and clusters and streams. This is bizarre. Every physicist since Fermi and Rabi has known that Nature might have huge catalogues of new particles up her sleeve, and that some such particles might be hard or impossible to detect. Everyone except you! You seem to have some inside information telling you that protons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos are the whole story. What information is that?
That's just a ridiculous strawman. Eric and I simply have no empirical evidence to suggest that other exotic long lived particles or exotic energy exists in nature based on all the evidence that has been collected from every test and experiment ever performed on matter. More importantly, we have no need for anything else to exist in order to explain events in space. Period. None of the rest of those comments are relevant or accurate. What information do we have to support the standard model of particle physics asks your hero ben? We have the combined data of 100 years of various particle physics "experiments" for starters! Ben has the whole chain of evidence thing *backwards* as it relates to science. What evidence does ben have to support "cold dark matter" after spending *billions* of dollars in the lab looking for such evidence? None! Even his 2006 baryonic galaxy mass estimates that were used to justify the lab experiments in the first place have since been shown to be utterly FUBAR.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850
You can also add CresstII results to the growing list of CDM *failures* in the lab.
- Secondly: Eric remains (as of 2003 anyway) confused about whether dark matter and dark energy are overconstrained or not.
Apparently the mainstream is getting worried about that issue too, particularly after all the "constraining" that has gone on over the past few years as it relates to "dark matter":
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160114213454.htm
However, the weaker the dark matter interactions, that is, the less efficient the annihilation, the higher the final abundance of dark matter particles would be. As experiments place ever more stringent constraints on the strength of dark matter interactions, there are some current theories that end up overestimating the quantity of dark matter in the universe. To bring theory into alignment with observations, Davoudiasl and his colleagues suggest that another inflationary period took place, powered by interactions in a "hidden sector" of physics.
Translation: Our own DM experiments broke all our DM mass estimates, so we're inventing a second "virgin birth" of inflation. Who says miracles cannot happen twice in a row?
Give me a break! The Lambda-CDM model is *over constrained* to the point of absurdity. All those mass estimate problems in their 2006 "dark matter" paper have to simply be *ignored/denied*, only because they are incapable of modifying the percentages without messing up all their claims related to nucleosynthesis. It's like one gigantic house of supernatural cards. If you remove one piece, the whole thing crashes to the ground.
Thirdly: In this thread, Eric seems willing look at one isolated cosmological data fit and invent new physics to make sense of it---
What pure hypocrisy. Astronomers looked at that 2006 lensing study and they instantly decided that their mass estimates were "perfect", so they *invented* a "fix" to their broken mass estimate problems by inventing an entirely new form of matter! Give me a break! They did the same thing with dark energy based on SN1A observations after *assuming* that they l were all the same "standard candles". We have since found out that they are *not* as standard as first advertised, but we're stuck with dark energy anyway. In every case the mainstream took an isolated observation from space and simply "made up" a "new form of physics" to explain it, starting with Guth and his invisible inflation deity. Ben has *absolutely* no right to complain about that issue *at all*!
Nah .. I'm not going to be drawn into your little fantasy about mainstreamers criticising "an absence of mathematical models supporting" what has never been clearly articulated and objectively documented in the first place .. (Ie the so-called: 'EU/PC theory').
Translation: You're between a mathematical rock and a physics hard spot because you can't find any mathematical error in that last paper I handed you, nor can you find any mathematical or physics error in the entire body of Alfven's published works. We both know why you won't deal with the math.
The issue is not about mathematical errors in something like Alfven's work ... the issue is about how work like his, has been cherry-picked and jammed into some Thunderbolted delusion which is the real 'EU/PC 'theory'!
Holy Cow! Edwin Hubble would be rolling over in his grave listening to the mainstream claiming on TV that "Hubble proved the universe is expanding". He personally *rejected* that "subjective interpretation" of the the photon redshift phenomenon. Hubble promoted a static universe concept and a tired light concept.
Einstein would be *utterly horrified* to have you folks stuffing magical "dark energy" into his a "blunder" theory and then trying to ride his GR coattails anyway.
Alfven personally called the mainstream's misuse of his MHD formulas to support "magnetic reconnection" theory a form of pure "pseudoscience". You folks have no right at all to complain about anyone in the EU/PC community latching onto Alfven's work! Talk about irony overload.
There may be different solar models to choose from within the overall umbrella of EU/PC theory, but Alfven's work on the application of circuit theory to plasma in space is universally accepted by all EU/PC proponents, and we typically heed Alfven's advice about the "pseudoscience' of reconnection theory.
The mainstream claim that EU/PC theory isn't mathematically supported is pure nonsense. I handed you a paper from 2014 that demonstrates that tired light and static universe theories explain various observations from space *as well as* anything that the mainstream has put together to date, even *with their four supernatural sidekicks*! A simple application of Occam's razor destroys Lambda-CDM.
