Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

[Michael Mozina]

Same old statements; however, I noticed that you avoided responding to this:

You just avoided my point yet again, while accusing *ME* of evasive tactics? How cute.

Is evolution "testable on earth"?

Yes. Microevolution has been demonstrated in controlled conditions and experiments with the HOX gene demonstrate that even macroevelutionary processes can occur in a single generation.

Evolution is a theory to explain the variety and origins of life on earth and inflation is a theory to explain astronomical observations and the evolution of the universe, nothing more.

And we have lots of examples of living things on Earth today, so it's hardly a leap of faith to believe they existed in the past.

Observational evidence support both theories. Just like modern genetics has provided corroborative evidence for evolution, modern measurements of the CMB have provided corroborative evidence for inflation.

No, it show corroborative evidence for "Godflation" you silly goose. God energy and God matter too are also clearly corroborated by the measurements of the universe.

I do agree that our ability to examine biological mechanisms in great detail far exceeds our ability to examine the origins and history of the universe, which makes inflation a weaker theory. Nevertheless, without a convincing alternative, inflation remains our best theory.

By that logic Godflation is also remains our "best theory". Baloney. Guth simply *made up* the "properties" of his inflation deity in a totally ad hoc manner to "postdict" a curve fit. It's no more "real", past present or future, than any other dead religious deity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

GR doesn't gcare less whether the mass is baryonic or non-baryonic.

GR doesn't care about your hypothetical forms of matter. You're simply trying to associate your hypothetical, mythological forms of matter with GR to give it/them some kind of feeling of respectability. There are only so many known forms of matter in the universe, and your ad hoc brands don't exist, or at least have never shown up on Earth.

the cosmological constant is in GR and has been since the early days.

"Dark energy" is a recent metaphysical "add-on".

How many times have we been through this?

How many times have you failed to present some actual empirical evidence to support your claim?

Non-exotic forms of matter radiate and are thus not dark.

So what? We can't even "see" individual stars in distant galaxies. What makes you think you're going to see a rock the size of my hand in a galaxy "far, far away"?

I'm going to need a beer before I deal with the rest of your monstrous post.

 

[Tubbythin]

GR doesn't care about your hypothetical forms of matter.

I know. That's what I just said.

You're simply trying to associate your hypothetical, mythological forms of matter with GR to give it/them some kind of feeling of respectability.

No. GR demands that there is more matter in the Universe than is observed. Our knowledge of the electromagnetic force tells us that it is not ordinary matter.

There are only so many known forms of matter in the universe, and your ad hoc brands don't exist, or at least have never shown up on Earth.

There are probably only so many forms of matter in the universe. I don't have an ad hoc brand. I have a list of properties that the matter must have in order that it match with the countless independent observations showing exactly the same thing. None of these properties are met by ordinary known matter. The only conclusions are
a) it is not "ordinary matter"
or
b) our theory of gravity is wrong.

"Dark energy" is a recent metaphysical "add-on".

Dark energy is not metaphysical. It is a place-holder name for whatever it is that is causing the experimentally observed acceleration of the Universe.

How many times have you failed to present some actual empirical evidence to support your claim?

Which bit: "Non-exotic forms of matter radiate and are thus not dark". Or "Machos are ruled out by weak-lensing experiments". I dare say I can find papers corresponding to both but the former is blindingly obvious and Im pretty sure papers on the latter have been brought up by others. Are you incapable of looking for these things yourself?

So what? We can't even "see" individual stars in distant galaxies. What makes you think you're going to see a rock the size of my hand in a galaxy "far, far away"?

I don't think we will see an individual rock. We have no need to see an individual rock. For rocks to make up a significant fraction of the missing mass there must be a significant number of rocks. If there are a significant number of rocks they will absorb startlight - leading to extinction in the visible range and emit EM radiation at longer wavelengths. Neither of these things are seen. Moreover, rocks are collisional, hence they wouldn't form a halo. It is thus absolutely trivial to rule out rocks as a dark matter candidate.

 

[GeeMack]

Hell, I could simply blatently pilfer your math, call it Godflation, God energy, and God matter and do a better job explaining all the observational evidence in the world, including the observation of a planet full of people that are predominantly theistic throughout recorded human history.

No, Michael, you couldn't. There is no evidence that you have the math skills needed to balance your own checkbook and much evidence to the contrary. And since math is required as a critical foundation to science, your opinion on the science vs religion issue comes from a position of ignorance.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael, you couldn't. There is no evidence that you have the math skills needed to balance your own checkbook and much evidence to the contrary. And since math is required as a critical foundation to science, your opinion on the science vs religion issue comes from a position of ignorance.

Personal attacks? How "original" of you. Math is not a substitute for empirical physics, and personal attacks are meaningless to me. Get over it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know. That's what I just said.

You're trying to gain credibility for your mythical material by attempting to associate it with "GR theory". GR theory and your mythical matter are unrelated because you mythical matter doesn't exist.

No. GR demands that there is more matter in the Universe than is observed.

Ok. So?

Our knowledge of the electromagnetic force tells us that it is not ordinary matter.

No, your extremely "primitive" and according to Alfven"pseudoscientific" understanding of the electromagnetic force makes you utterly clueless when it comes to events in space. You can't explain even rudimentary things close to home like million mile per hour solar wind. You don't have a clue what that material is made of because our technologies are not that sophisticated, and our models stink to high heaven.

There are probably only so many forms of matter in the universe.

Not to hear you guys write papers. You folks write about a menagerie of SUSY particles. That's not even the only non standard particle physics theory out there either.

I don't have an ad hoc brand. I have a list of properties that the matter must have in order that it match with the countless independent observations showing exactly the same thing.

Translation: You think your mass estimate models are correct, so you fudged the difference with magic matter.

I need another beer.

 

[GeeMack]

Personal attacks? How "original" of you. Math is not a substitute for empirical physics, and personal attacks are meaningless to me. Get over it.

No personal attack there, Michael. I'm just stating a very well evidenced fact. Math is how you make and compare measurements for empirical physics. Without it you can't communicate the science of physics. Since you don't understand math, and math is foundational to science, your opinion on the topic of science vs religion comes from a position of ignorance. It's not like you don't already know this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't have an ad hoc brand.

Any brand that hasn't been seen in a lab and has already been assigned several "properties" is an ad hoc brand.

I have a list of properties that the matter must have in order that it match with the countless independent observations showing exactly the same thing.

No you don't. You made these up based upon a host of preconceived ideas, starting with your belief you can accurately tell how much baryonic matter exists in a given galaxy.

None of these properties are met by ordinary known matter. The only conclusions are
a) it is not "ordinary matter"
or
b) our theory of gravity is wrong.

It's not your theory of "gravity" that is wrong it is your "mass estimation technique" that sucks big time.

Dark energy is not metaphysical.

Yes it is. It certainly isn't "physical" because it has no physical effect on even a single atom in a lab.

It is a place-holder name for whatever it is that is causing the experimentally observed acceleration of the Universe.

It's a placeholder term for human ignorance then, nothing more. Of course you also reject out of hand the most obvious way to explain an accelerating body of plasma.

Which bit: "Non-exotic forms of matter radiate and are thus not dark". Or "Machos are ruled out by weak-lensing experiments". I dare say I can find papers corresponding to both but the former is blindingly obvious and Im pretty sure papers on the latter have been brought up by others. Are you incapable of looking for these things yourself?

Oh, I've looked them up, I simply don't find them particularly convincing, especially when we discover you folks have been grossly underestimating the amount of dust in the IGM and underestimating the amount of ordinary stars in a distant galaxy.

I don't think we will see an individual rock.

Then you can't rule out ordinary matter.

We have no need to see an individual rock. For rocks to make up a significant fraction of the missing mass there must be a significant number of rocks. If there are a significant number of rocks they will absorb startlight - leading to extinction in the visible range and emit EM radiation at longer wavelengths. Neither of these things are seen.

Why would an ordinary meteorite emit light at longer wavelengths?

Moreover, rocks are collisional, hence they wouldn't form a halo. It is thus absolutely trivial to rule out rocks as a dark matter candidate.

It depends on the way the rocks are arranged. They don't have to be collisional in all instances. They do form a "halo" around our own solar system. You trivially rule out something you can't actually rule out in favor of a pure fairytale with a little math slapped on like a pointless numerology gig.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You just avoided my point yet again, while accusing *ME* of evasive tactics? How cute.

Have you ever made a point?

Yes. Microevolution has been demonstrated in controlled conditions and experiments with the HOX gene demonstrate that even macroevelutionary processes can occur in a single generation.


And we have lots of examples of living things on Earth today, so it's hardly a leap of faith to believe they existed in the past.

So? Don't we have the observations we make (ON EARTH) that lead to the hypothesis of inflation?

No, it show corroborative evidence for "Godflation" you silly goose. God energy and God matter too are also clearly corroborated by the measurements of the universe.



By that logic Godflation is also remains our "best theory". Baloney. Guth simply *made up* the "properties" of his inflation deity in a totally ad hoc manner to "postdict" a curve fit. It's no more "real", past present or future, than any other dead religious deity.

What is it with you? Would you be happier if we called it godflation instead of inflation? Is that it?
Or -- have you developed a superior theory that you have kept secret from the world? If so, please, it's time to publish -- your devoted public is waiting.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No personal attack there, Michael. I'm just stating a very well evidenced fact.

The fact I won't bark math for you on command is not evidence I can't do math. Get a life. I write software for a living and it happens to be an accounting program that does in fact balance the checkbook.

Math is how you make and compare measurements for empirical physics.

That's fine if you apply it to "empirical physics". When you start slapping math onto "godflation" or "inflation", you create a religion, not a field of science.

Without it you can't communicate the science of physics.

What *physics* are you talking about? You can't do physics without a physical thing and inflation isn't real, and neither is "dark energy". You have trumped up magic math, nothing more.

Since you don't understand math, and math is foundational to science, your opinion on the topic of science vs religion comes from a position of ignorance. It's not like you don't already know this.

There is no empirical or fundamental difference between your brand of "science" and any "religion" based on "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". The math is pointless when you apply it to these meaningless labels. All you end up with is a religion trying to pass itself off as a science, and a bunch of ignorant folks like you hurling petty personal insults at everyone who doesn't buy your dogma, hook line and mathematical sinker.

Yawn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Have you ever made a point?

Yes. Lambda-CDM theory is empirically indistinguishable from Lambda-Goddidit theory, and math is no substitute for empirical physics.

So? Don't we have the observations we make (ON EARTH) that lead to the hypothesis of inflation?

No. Not anymore evidence than we have that "Godflation" did it using exactly the same mathematical formula.

What is it with you? Would you be happier if we called it godflation instead of inflation? Is that it?

Er, no. If that were the case I'd adopt Lambda-CDM theory, pilfer your math and start my own religion.

Or -- have you developed a superior theory that you have kept secret from the world? If so, please, it's time to publish -- your devoted public is waiting.

EU theory has already been "published" by folks like Alfven and Bruce and Birkeland and I'll bet you haven't read any of it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

EU theory has already been "published" by folks like Alfven and Bruce and Birkeland and I'll bet you haven't read any of it.

So EU theory can account for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we observe. I must admit that I have been totally unaware of that. Can you explain how?

 

[Tubbythin]

You're trying to gain credibility for your mythical material by attempting to associate it with "GR theory".

Nope. "I'm" drawing conclusions about the nature of matter in the universe based on our well-tested theories of gravity. That's what science does - uses well-tested theories to draw conclusions.

GR theory and your mythical matter are unrelated because you mythical matter doesn't exist.

Blind assertion based on complete ignorance of what you're discussing.

Ok. So?

SO dark matter is absolutely necessary if GR is an accurate theory.

No, your extremely "primitive" and according to Alfven"pseudoscientific" understanding of the electromagnetic force makes you utterly clueless when it comes to events in space.

I understand them a lot better than you do. And QED is certainly not primitive. Its probably the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics. (Have I mentioned that before?)

You can't explain even rudimentary things close to home like million mile per hour solar wind.

Even if we assume this to be true. So what? What relevance does this have on cosmology? Your scale is off by a factor in excess of a hundred million million.

You don't have a clue what that material is made of because our technologies are not that sophisticated, and our models stink to high heaven.

We note conclusively what its not made of.

Not to hear you guys write papers. You folks write about a menagerie of SUSY particles. That's not even the only non standard particle physics theory out there either.

The Standard model comes up short in several areas (stick "the hierarchy problem" in your favourite search engine). The simplest extension to solve these shortcomings is by invoking supersymmetry. This leads to new particles. In many (including the simplest one) supersymmetric standard models the lightest boson superpartner is stable and uncharged meaning it only interacts weakly. These properties (which are deduced exclusively from the copious data from particle physics experiments and from invoking supersymmetry) happen to agree with what we can deduce about dark matter properties from observation. Now it could be that this is a complete coincidence. This is a distinct possibility. Or SUSY could provide an answer which kills 2 (more like 3 or 4 actually) birds with one stone.
Alternatively it could be that dark matter is largely comprised of electrons and physics most precisely tested theory of all time happens to be completely totally and utterly wrong.
I know which horse I won't be backing.

Translation: You think your mass estimate models are correct, so you fudged the difference with magic matter.

Correction: Mass model estimates made independently and using completely different techniques are in excellent agreement. The idea that they could all be completely wrong and yet somehow give exactly the same answer I have ruled out because it would be a coincidence of absolutely astonishingly extreme proportions.

 

[Tubbythin]

Any brand that hasn't been seen in a lab and has already been assigned several "properties" is an ad hoc brand.

By that definition I can conclusively say that the top quark was an ad hoc brand of matter prior to 1994, the W and Z bosons were ad hoc particles prior to 1983 and the neutrino was an add particle prior to 1956. Given that all these particles have since been observed (and numerous others I haven't mentioned which have had properties assigned to them prior to discovery), I can conclusively conclude that saying dark matter is ad hoc isn't a bad thing in the slightest going exclusively by your definition.

No you don't.

Yes I do. The particles must be
1) Stable or extremely long-lived.
2) Uncharged
3) Massive.
That conclusively rules all particles of the Standard Model.

You made these up based upon a host of preconceived ideas, starting with your belief you can accurately tell how much baryonic matter exists in a given galaxy.

That's not a preconceived idea. Thats a deduction based on overwhelming evidence.

It's not your theory of "gravity" that is wrong it is your "mass estimation technique" that sucks big time.

So why then do completely different techniques give exactly the same answer? Do you know how unfeasibly improbable this is?

Yes it is. It certainly isn't "physical" because it has no physical effect on even a single atom in a lab.

It seems to be causing the accelerated expansion of the entire Universe. It doesn't get much more physical than that.

It's a placeholder term for human ignorance then, nothing more.

Very well. But choosing to reject its existence is a call for continued human ignorance - the antithesis of science.

Of course you also reject out of hand the most obvious way to explain an accelerating body of plasma.

The Universe is not an accelerating body of plasma.

Oh, I've looked them up, I simply don't find them particularly convincing, especially when we discover you folks have been grossly underestimating the amount of dust in the IGM and underestimating the amount of ordinary stars in a distant galaxy.

Even if that is the case, these factors cannot possibly explain the data. The rortation curves (for example) tell us the distribution of the unseen matter. It is not concentrated in the Galactic plane like visible matter. This conclusively rules out the missing mass just being extra dust and stars.

Then you can't rule out ordinary matter.

Of course we can. We don't have to see an individual grain of dust to detect dust. We don't have to detect an individual star to know fo the existence of a galaxy.

Why would an ordinary meteorite emit light at longer wavelengths?

Planck's law.

It depends on the way the rocks are arranged. They don't have to be collisional in all instances.

They don't all have to collide in a short period of time. But collisions will occur.

They do form a "halo" around our own solar system.

No, they don't.

You trivially rule out something you can't actually rule out in favor of a pure fairytale with a little math slapped on like a pointless numerology gig.

Completely wrong. I've ruled out something that can be easily ruled out by someone with even the most limited understanding of physics. I prefer something that is consistent with our theories of gravity, thermodynamics, basic mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and countless independent observations.

 

[GeeMack]

Obviously Michael's derail of this thread into another lame rant about his crackpot EU faith is acceptable to the mods, so since it's a free-for-all, how about this:

Michael, why do you suppose it is that you are unable to convince a single professional physicist that your inane conjecture is correct? Is it because your position is valid but unsupportable? Is it because you're the smartest person on Earth and no professional physicist has the brainpower to understand your babbling? Is it because your communication skills are crap and you simply can't express your position in a cogent, understandable way? Do you believe there actually is some kind of conspiracy among the thousands of professional physicists on Earth to prevent you and the other, what, eight or so EU crackpots from getting your position accepted into the mainstream? Maybe it's because you're just plain wrong? Why do you suppose it is, Michael, that there are thousands of professionals in the fields of physics and not a single one buys into your faith?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So EU theory can account for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we observe. I must admit that I have been totally unaware of that. Can you explain how?

Sure! The universe has *always* been that way!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sure! The universe has *always* been that way!

Really? Can you explain how EU theory accounts for an eternally flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously Michael's derail of this thread into another lame rant about his crackpot EU faith is acceptable to the mods, so since it's a free-for-all, how about this:

This is no "derail" of the posters question in any way. I too was kinda curious how you folks would collectively handle the situation described in the opening post, so I chose the role of "devils advocate" to see how you'd do. To be honest, you didn't do so well, even collectively. I can even tell you why you aren't doing so well. Lambda-CDM theory is religion, not physical science.

There is very fine line, but a very clear line between "empirical physics" (that typically produce tangible useful products) and "pseudoscience" passed off as "science". Some brands of "science" are in fact "pseudoscience", particularly Lambda-CDM theory. This is readily demonstrated by simply looking at this same comparison to a different (empirical/real) form of "science".

Had I tried to suggest that electrical engineering as a branch of "science" was just like "religion", I would have had my butt handed to me on a silver platter in about 1 post, and 2 minutes flat. Why? Because electrical engineering produces tangible goods. We find them on the shelves of our stores. Our computers come from that field of "science". "Science" (the empirical kind) is not like "religion" in the sense that it produces "real" consumer products that have a "real"/empirical effect on real human beings. No valid comparison between electrical engineering and religion would survive any serious skeptical review.

On the other hand, if we compare "religion" to a pseudoscience passed off as "science", like say "creation science", the comparison between religion and science become indistinguishable.

Likewise when we compare the "creation science" called "Lambda-CDM" theory to "religion", the lines between religion become blurred to the point of absurdity. Godflation isn't "real" only because I slapped some math to the label and point at the sky and claim "Godflation did it".

Inflation doesn't exist. Even based on Lambda-CDM theory it no no longer exists. It's not a "science", it is a form of "pseudoscience" that becomes indistinguishable from religion. We even know who personally invented the religion, Alan Guth. The idea came straight out of his wild imagination.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really? Can you explain how EU theory accounts for an eternally flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe?

Just out of curiosity, why must I do so? An "inflation/Godflation did it" point at the sky and add math claim isn't scientifically valid to begin with, so it can't be "better than" an honest "I don't know".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, why do you suppose it is that you are unable to convince a single professional physicist that your inane conjecture is correct?

Which inane conjecture are your talking about exactly? Solar wind acceleration being a product of electrical discharges, or the solar theory as a whole?

EU theory in a general sense predates my introduction to the theory by 100 years dude, get a grip. There have always been "professional physicists" interested and promoting the idea, including the guy that won the Nobel prize for MHD theory. Got any Nobel prizes on your shelves by the way?