The differences between the LCDM model and GR theory.

[Michael Mozina]

I recently watched a couple of older Youtube videos by an EU/PC proponent which inspired me to start this thread on the topic of the differences between general relativity theory and the LCDM cosmology model. Admittedly the video looks to be older, and some of the criticisms about GR theory had merit, but other arguments which were directed at GR theory really should have been directed at the LCMD cosmology model rather than GR theory. The author did not seem to clearly distinguish (if at all) between the GR theory and LCMD theory. At times the author was blaming Einstein and GR theory for the sins of mainstream LCMD cosmology proponents.

I want to stress again that EU/PC theory is entirely compatible with GR theory, Newton's formulas for gravity, and any other QM type definition of gravity. LCDM proponents have no right to be riding the coattails of GR theory, nor do they have the right to try to claim GR exclusively for themselves.

After reviewing the youtube video I think it's worth a chat about the differences between GR theory and the LCDM model so that Einstein isn't getting a bad rap for sins that he didn't personally commit.

It's true that GR can be misused, and it's certainly true that GR theory has been misused by LCDM proponents. That really isn't Einstein's fault anymore than it's Alfven's fault in 2017 that the mainstream continues to abuse MHD theory on the topic of "magnetic reconnection". Einstein tended to reject the concept of black holes just as vehemently as Alfven rejected reconnection theory.

While the LCDM cosmology model is entirely dependent upon the scientific legitimacy of the general relativity theory of gravity, the reverse is not true. LCMD includes at least four concepts and constructs (five when you include black holes) which are entirely optional elements of GR theory and which have no bearing whatsoever on the scientific legitimacy of GR theory.

While GR theory allows for mathematical modeling of "space expansion" and it allows for the existence and mathematical modeling of of exotic forms of matter, it doesn't require space expansion, nor does it require the existence of exotic forms of invisible matter. GR theory doesn't require the existence of inflation, exotic invisible matter, exotic invisible energy, magic fairies, invisible unicorns or anything else that one might try to stuff into a GR formula.

One of the arguments made in the video is that GR theory 'predicts' the existence of "dark matter", but that's not correct. LCDM "predicts" (postdicts) dark matter, but GR theory does not. Another of the arguments used to build a case against GR theory was data related to WMAP observations which really should have been directed at the LCDM cosmology model, and not directed at any specific mathematical model of gravity. GR theory doesn't necessarily require the existence of black holes, or 'singularities' as such either.

The hole/cold spot which was found in WMAP/Planck, as well as the hemispheric variations observed in Planck does tend to undermine/refute the inflation model, and the LCDM cosmology model, but it's not a valid argument against GR theory as the video suggested.

I think that GR sometimes gets a bit of a "bum rap" within the EU community because we too frequently fail to distinguish between a pure gravity theory like GR theory or Newton's definition of gravity, and a full blown cosmology theory like LCMD. I think we need to be very careful that we differentiate between the two, and be careful not to give LCMD proponents the scientific high ground with respect to ownership of GR theory. While LCDM proponents desperately try to ride the scientific coattails of GR theory, they're stuffing all sorts of nonsense into those formulas which are entirely optional in GR. The fact that GR can include a non-zero constant doesn't mean that "dark energy did it", or "magic did it" either. There's no one to one correlation between GR theory and "dark matter", nor any correlation between inflation and GR. The fact that we could choose to stuff magic into a GR formula isn't really Einstein's fault, nor is "dark energy" his fault.

GR theory is admittedly more easily misused than Newton's formulas and therefore GR math formulas have been misused more frequently, but that's really not Einstein's fault, or the fault of GR theory.

Let's be careful to distinguish between a theory of "gravity" and a full blown cosmology model. Alfven wasn't opposed to GR theory and we in the EU/PC community today should not be opposed to GR theory either. Cosmology theories and gravity theories are separate animals.

I posted this earlier on Reddit, but I think it's important enough to post here as well.

[Zyxzevn]

A lot of science is based on Neonologic,
which is a neologism within nomology for
"Explaining something with a word that seems to exist, but has no physical reality".

[Webbman]

based off of even the most fundamental aspects of matter itself and how it combines and behaves any theory that doesnt at least take into account electrical forces is extremely flawed in my view.

[neilwilkes]

A lot of science is based on Neonologic,
which is a neologism within nomology for
"Explaining something with a word that seems to exist, but has no physical reality".

Otherwise known as a reification, such as Death with his Scythe and the other 3 horsemen.
Exactly the same thing as a naked singularity.....impossible in reality.

[Michael Mozina]

A lot of science is based on Neonologic,
which is a neologism within nomology for
"Explaining something with a word that seems to exist, but has no physical reality".

Otherwise known as a reification, such as Death with his Scythe and the other 3 horsemen.
Exactly the same thing as a naked singularity.....impossible in reality.

I'd have to say that GR theory is *by far* the most mathematically abused theory on the planet, followed closely by MHD theory. The abuse of GR and MHD theory by the mainstream isn't the fault of the authors of those theories.

[Zyxzevn]

I'd have to say that GR theory is *by far* the most mathematically abused theory on the planet, followed closely by MHD theory. The abuse of GR and MHD theory by the mainstream isn't the fault of the authors of those theories.

Good point.
It would be nice to have some concrete examples too.

Steven Crothers lists some points, which I list in the way I understand them:
1) The Schwartz-shield radius is not in real-world coordinates, and may not have any physical meaning.
2) The Tensor equations are not used properly, quoting the creator of Tensors himself.
3) The equations can not describe a expanding and contracting space simultaneously.
4) There is large degree of freedom in the equations. You can derive gravity by adding the equation
M=0. But that also removes the mass (and gravity).

The usage of Lambda has a lot of opponents.
It is already against the basic laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.
I think the most important problem is that we can measure redshifts in plasma the laboratory,
and this removes the main reason for an expansion.

[Higgsy]

I'd have to say that GR theory is *by far* the most mathematically abused theory on the planet, followed closely by MHD theory. The abuse of GR and MHD theory by the mainstream isn't the fault of the authors of those theories.

Do you think you could give us a specific example of the mathematical abuse of MHD theory, and explain, in detail, why you consider it to be an abuse?

[Bob_Ham]

Do you think you could give us a specific example of the mathematical abuse of MHD theory, and explain, in detail, why you consider it to be an abuse?

I would also like to see a specific example.

[Michael Mozina]

Most of the abuse of MHD theory relates to the concept of "magnetic reconnection". Aflven's double layer paper made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete decades ago. Rather than explaining it myself, I'll let Alfven do the talking from his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper:

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

[Bob_Ham]

Most of the abuse of MHD theory relates to the concept of "magnetic reconnection". Aflven's double layer paper made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete decades ago. Rather than explaining it myself, I'll let Alfven do the talking from his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper:

This is not showing a specific example of how you think MHD theory has been "mathematically abused." Is there a specific equation that you can point to that you think has been improperly derived? Could you show us which step in that derivation is incorrect? What specific thing about MHD theory do you think is wrong, and what "mathematical abuse" do you believe led to that?

[Michael Mozina]

Most of the abuse of MHD theory relates to the concept of "magnetic reconnection". Aflven's double layer paper made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete decades ago. Rather than explaining it myself, I'll let Alfven do the talking from his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper:

This is not showing a specific example of how you think MHD theory has been "mathematically abused." Is there a specific equation that you can point to that you think has been improperly derived? Could you show us which step in that derivation is incorrect? What specific thing about MHD theory do you think is wrong, and what "mathematical abuse" do you believe led to that?

Alfven's double layer paper makes the entire concept of 'magnetic reconnection" mathematically irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments, and spacetime is one gigantic current carrying environment according to Alfven. The concept has been abused in light, current carrying plasma by the mainstream for *decades*, including during Alfven's own lifetime. That is what motivated him to write his double layer paper, which you all now simply ignore. Alfven warns again and again of the dangers of ignoring all the *circuit energy* that is actually responsible for these events.

We can even see that *most* experiments on so called "magnetic reconnection" begin and end with an electric field that drives the parade. Occasionally I've seen lasers used to generate current channels, but there are no lasers in the solar atmosphere or around our planet.

Most telling of all however was my conversation over at JREF where the whole EU/PC hater posse couldn't tell the difference between a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration and a magnetic flux in a vacuum. There are no "magnetic lines" that either 'disconnect from', nor "reconnect to' any other magnetic lines. At worst case we'd get *induction* from time variable magnetic fields in a plasma.

Maxwell's equations solve for E or B, but trying to ignore the circuit energy entirely just leads to bad results which authors as far back as Heikkila in 1973 explained.

Magnetic lines have no source and no sink. Even the concept of "lines" is misleading. It's like a topology map. The lines don't have physical substance, they simply represent the contours of the field. Without a monopole, it's physically impossible for magnetic fields to "disconnect" or "reconnect".

You guys keep trying to ignore the circuit energy.

[Higgsy]

Most of the abuse of MHD theory relates to the concept of "magnetic reconnection". Aflven's double layer paper made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete decades ago. Rather than explaining it myself, I'll let Alfven do the talking from his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper:

This is not showing a specific example of how you think MHD theory has been "mathematically abused." Is there a specific equation that you can point to that you think has been improperly derived? Could you show us which step in that derivation is incorrect? What specific thing about MHD theory do you think is wrong, and what "mathematical abuse" do you believe led to that?

Alfven's double layer paper makes the entire concept of 'magnetic reconnection" mathematically irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments, and spacetime is one gigantic current carrying environment according to Alfven. The concept has been abused in light, current carrying plasma by the mainstream for *decades*, including during Alfven's own lifetime. That is what motivated him to write his double layer paper, which you all now simply ignore. Alfven warns again and again of the dangers of ignoring all the *circuit energy* that is actually responsible for these events.

We can even see that *most* experiments on so called "magnetic reconnection" begin and end with an electric field that drives the parade. Occasionally I've seen lasers used to generate current channels, but there are no lasers in the solar atmosphere or around our planet.

Most telling of all however was my conversation over at JREF where the whole EU/PC hater posse couldn't tell the difference between a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration and a magnetic flux in a vacuum. There are no "magnetic lines" that either 'disconnect from', nor "reconnect to' any other magnetic lines. At worst case we'd get *induction* from time variable magnetic fields in a plasma.

Maxwell's equations solve for E or B, but trying to ignore the circuit energy entirely just leads to bad results which authors as far back as Heikkila in 1973 explained.

Magnetic lines have no source and no sink. Even the concept of "lines" is misleading. It's like a topology map. The lines don't have physical substance, they simply represent the contours of the field. Without a monopole, it's physically impossible for magnetic fields to "disconnect" or "reconnect".

You guys keep trying to ignore the circuit energy.

So you don't have an example of MHD theory being mathematically abused, other than a handwaving conceptual argument which treats Alfven as some sort of infallible author of a holy book. I want to see a specific example of a case where the mainstream mathematically abuses MHD theory. That would involve showing where the mathematical abuse lies. On the evidence so far, I'd say you haven't got an example.

[Bob_Ham]

I want to see a specific example of a case where the mainstream mathematically abuses MHD theory. That would involve showing where the mathematical abuse lies. On the evidence so far, I'd say you haven't got an example.

Michael doesn't have a specific example of "mathematical abuse." The best he can do is post several paragraphs of text making new claims, hoping we'll drop this so he doesn't have to admit he doesn't have an example.

[Michael Mozina]

So you don't have an example of MHD theory being mathematically abused, other than a handwaving conceptual argument which treats Alfven as some sort of infallible author of a holy book. I want to see a specific example of a case where the mainstream mathematically abuses MHD theory. That would involve showing where the mathematical abuse lies. On the evidence so far, I'd say you haven't got an example.

It's not just *one* author that rejects your nonsense. Here's at least three different papers by three different authors criticizing the mainstream's misuse of the concept of "magnetic reconnection"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Ap%26SS..23..261H
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfve ... 0Lines.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976JGR....81.4019A

The dead give way that your claims are irrational is the fact that you can't even cite an experiment that sustains high temperature plasma for hours on end based on "magnetic reconnection" without the whole thing being driven by an *electric* field!

FYI, it's laughable that you're trying to dismiss my use of Alfven as an "authority" on this topic when he wrote MHD theory and has a Nobel Prize for it. Meanwhile, in another thread, you both act like your physics degree makes you some sort of physics demigod compared to anyone else on planet Earth. LOL!

[Bob_Ham]

Oh, look, several paragraphs of text and no specific example of mathematical abuse, just like I said would happen. If you want to provide someone else's work, then that's fine, but reference the equation number and what you think is wrong with it. It is pretty clear that you're just hoping we'll let you off the hook here.