Off-topic (Split from "The beginning and end of the universe?")

[shmengie]

You have to be very careful here not to argue from ignorance. You need to have some real knowledge of science today before you can argue that it is wrong.

 

Lambda-CDM doesn't answer a lot of questions. You can point out what doesn't fit the model as not according to Lambda...

 

Science isn't based on Lambda-CDM. While Lambada-CDM is based on scientific principles. Seems there's a hidden argument in that, for the mentality.

 

Some scientific developments have come from Lambda-CDM. But on the whole, not many, if any.

 

I've suggested Lambda isn't right and told I don't know what I'm talking about. That doesn't leave much room to support a logical argument. I find it frustrating, as I suspect others do.

 

Lambda-cdm is basically the science behind supporting inflation theory. It matches a lot of theory to observations and works out the difference. There are lot of differences that don't make sense, ie Dark Energy.

[Mordred]

If you don't like LCDM fine pick up a textbook on LQC. However at least learn the rudimentary physics first. Which from your previous posts you definitely lack on.

 

Those rudimentary physics are not specific to LCDM. A good example is the physics behind redshift.

 

Redshift is not specific to LCDM or any other model.

Your biggest mistake is assuming that every formula LCDM uses is only used by LCDM. Its not that case at all.

 

For example the FLRW metric is used by other models such as MOND.

 

Or Poplowskii universe in the event horizon of a BH.

The impression I've gotten is your more interested in ranting how you don't agree with something rather than the study. Or learning

 

( there isn't a single formula used by LCDM that anyone can point to and state this is an LCDM only formula)

Edited April 4, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

You're missing the point.

 

None of the theories answer the whole story. While that might be what we want, a complete story, we don't have a thesis that completely matches everything.

 

To say one thing is wrong because nobody works on it, doesn't make it wrong.

 

To say one thing is right because most ppl work on it, doesn't make it right.

 

100 things that can't complete the story, are 100 things that are incomplete, none of which are wrong or right (yet!).

 

But when ppl suggest Lambda be brought to question, one should ask why, not stfu you don't know what you're talking about. Go read abook and learn why 1+1=1 ( OMG ). I've seen ppl post like that. They know Lambda so its the only right. Its not complete. Its the most worked on, but it doesn't add up to the observations. Hmmmm.... Still right!

Inflation started by thinking the way things work on Earth could possibly be how stars work.

 

We have little experience in a vacuum of space. We have a lot of good work in progress. I applaud the work toward Lambda/inflation, there's a lot of thought in that body of work. But in the end, it asserts a number of sequences that cannot ever be witnessed. If any one of them are wrong we'll never know. We aren't going to look because we simply cannot. Its basically defined that way. We need CMBR to be right and every observation that doesn't fit gets corrected with a new postulation to make everything alright.

 

Problem is Dark Energy doesn't fit, after doing the math. It's close. But it doesn't fit the expansion model, unless the universe is non-flat.

 

Pop-Sci only points it out because its the truth. Not because they're trying to be misleading, we simply don't know the whole story.

 

Inflation is a good model. But has a lot of premises that can never be tested. That's a flaw IMO. DE is another flaw... Call it what you want. It doesn't fit.

Einstein was one of the best at figuring stuff out. He never bought into inflation.

 

Fred Hoyle didn't like it, tho he called it "Big Bang" because its what the model looked like to him. I don't know the whole conversation, but it was an attempt to deflate what he refused to believe. Didn't work tho. It exploded. In your face Fred, he played it down in the interview tho, because it gained traction.

 

inflation started with the idea of space expanding from a point. I don't buy it. but that's my opinion. Not right / wrong, just my personal fact.

Edited April 4, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

No your missing the point. Pop ScI articles states far too many wrong statements to even go into listing them all.

 

I rarely EVER see a pop ScI article properly describe any cosmology related topic.

 

They all make oversimplifications that mislead the reader into the wrong impressions.

 

If you wish to place your faith in them you will always get the wrong understanding.

 

I showed you a plausible and mathematically accurate possibility where Inflation and dark energy can fit with the standard model particles and thermodynamic processes.

 

Yet you refused to even consider the possibility based on your Blind faith in your uninformed personal philosophy.

 

Then when we pints out the math you accused us of having blind faith in LCDM. When we were pointing out basic physics principles.

[shmengie]

If you don't like LCDM fine pick up a textbook on LQC. However at least learn the rudimentary physics first. Which from your previous posts you definitely lack on.

 

I don't know Quantum Mechanics that well. Why would I ever go there?

 

Do you know what QM describes? The Atom. Sounds like a curiously similar place to start looking for something different than inflation, try a bounce instead.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

schmengie, stop. You don't get to hijack someone's else thread with your own nonsensical ideas. You have your own thread(s). Stick to them. Splitting OT posts to the trash.

[shmengie]

OMG. I found the link... My [latex]\lambda[/latex]pot cracked when I hit the QM & GR missing link.

 

I derived it trying to argue a point w/u guys.

 

Been thinking I couldn't prove my point. I already did. I linked QM & GR. I don't need to prove the other point, will follow when the world realizes my discovery.

 

In about 5 days, I'll be in the news.

 

Been fun!!!!

Edited April 5, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

In about 5 days, I'll be in the news.

 

Been fun!!!!

 

Delusion is only entertaining to the deluded.

[Mordred]

OMG. I found the link... My [latex]\lambda[/latex]pot cracked when I hit the QM & GR missing link.

 

I derived it trying to argue a point w/u guys.

 

Been thinking I couldn't prove my point. I already did. I linked QM & GR. I don't need to prove the other point, will follow when the world realizes my discovery.

 

In about 5 days, I'll be in the news.

 

Been fun!!!!

Roflmao, you admit zero knowledge of the math involved in both relativity and QM yet believe you found a link ?

 

Delusion is only entertaining to the deluded.

Very appropriate response

[shmengie]

Roflmao, you admit zero knowledge of the math involved in both relativity and QM yet believe you found a link ?

 

Very appropriate response

I have plenty of mathematical knowledge. I never discovered a phenomena that was easy to describe in math.

 

However, I have learned enough about QM & GR to realize what hasn't been described by the master himself with his formulas.

 

Hard to know what others don't when you can't read their minds. Physics is complicatedly simple. New formulas will be written once I show the links.

[Mordred]

I have plenty of mathematical knowledge. New formulas will be written once I show the links.

So which is it.

 

A) you will do the work and show the math presenting your idea.?

 

B) you will present the idea without understanding the needed math and expect others to do the math for you.?

 

Quite frankly I probably know the answer.

 

Neither here nor there, you have difficulty accepting an expanding universe. Where as I can't see how a universe will neither expand nor contract.

 

Which breaks down to a beginning and ending.

 

It's virtually impossible for a thermodynamic system as complex and diverse as our universe standard model has in the sheer number of degrees of freedom to be stable over the course of 13 billion years.

I've spent a lot of years studying the particle physics aspects including the QM aspects in Cosmology. Over the years I've come to realize a steady state is highly unrealistic

 

 

This is strictly an analogy....

 

Take several thousand magnets in the shape of metal balls.

-assume you manage to place these magnets in a perfect stable placement so that you have a stable grid. Currently no movement.

 

this system can be defined as having strictly potential energy.

 

Move 1 of those magnets the entire system becomes unbalanced. You will get random movements with every magnet. The system converts potential energy to kinetic energy.

 

That's just due to a miniscule change in an electromagnetic field analogy.

( You can apply that to a homogeneous and isotropic beginning to gravity. All it takes is a miniscule overdensity to start a change in the overall distribution) this is accounted for in LCDM.

 

Lots of cosmology models use potential and kinetic energy metrics.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Mordred