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

[GeeMack]

The mainstream is still confused by something that Birkeland "explained" and simulated 100 years ago in a lab! How much confidence should I have in their collective ability to tell me what happened in the distant past if they can't even "explain" what goes on right now inside of our own solar system?

And you're still spitting on Birkeland's grave. Why don't you take the blame for your own failures in life and stop passing it off on a dead guy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And you're still spitting on Birkeland's grave.

Not me. You folks do that every time you publish a paper on your favorite pseudoscientific topic: 'magnetic reconnection.'

 

[Paradox74]

I'm not too sure if anyone suggested this but...show them a dictionary definition of the two words.

This is what I got from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Science

Science:
"3. a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena "


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Religion:
"the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Sorry, I missed this reply. FYI, I'll skip the irrelevant stuff and cut to the chase:

Yes I would say that some form of "matter" is necessary to explain the lensing data. That does not mean it is made of an exotic type of matter.

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?)

I won't debate the state of particle physics technologies of science with you, since even I find them to be "advanced", but how exactly do you define a level of space technology that is incapable of picking out individual stars in distant galaxies if not "primitive"?

We note conclusively what its not made of.

I don't believe you can accurately do that. There is dust in distant galaxies that blocks light from distant objects. We aren't even sure how much dust is out there in space or how much light is absorbed by that dust. You're taking "oversimplified models" and trying to apply them to everything you see in space. I see no evidence that this method you've come up with comes anywhere near the correct amount of mass in a galaxy and therefore it's time to come up with a better galaxy mass estimation technique.

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.

Great. Demonstrate these nifty things in a lab, demonstrate their *actual physical properties* and then I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim SUSY stuff did it. Until I can see these so called "properties" work on real things in a real lab, in real controlled experiments, I really have no evidence they exist. The fact that standard particle physics theory has "unanswered questions" does not mean SUSY particles get to be instantly stuffed into those gaps.

These properties (which are deduced exclusively from the copious data from particle physics experiments

SUSY particles did not show up in such experiments.

and from invoking supersymmetry) happen to agree with what we can deduce about dark matter properties from observation.

You mean you can't account for distant mass, but you could make a giant leap of faith and stuff the gaps of our ignorance of space with such particles, is that it?

Now it could be that this is a complete coincidence.

I don't know. I haven't seen any SUSY particle show up in a lab. I've never seen any actual 'properties' demonstrated in real life. I simply have to have "faith" in what you "think" they will probably do based on what we have never seen in a real experiment?

This is a distinct possibility. Or SUSY could provide an answer which kills 2 (more like 3 or 4 actually) birds with one stone.

In the sense that it is possible that collider experiments might one day demonstrate such things do exist, sure it's a 'statistical probability' even based upon pure empirical physics. On the other hand, it could just be that you're letting your "faith in the unseen" get the better of you.

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.

I know something heats those coronal loops to millions of degrees and it sure as hell isn't "dark energy" or "dark matter". If you can't account for even those electrons, what faith should I have that you can find electrons in distant objects outside of our solar system?

Correction: Mass model estimates made independently and using completely different techniques are in excellent agreement.

All the measurementsl agree that there is more mass in a galaxy than your galaxy mass estimates come up with. Don't you think it's time to toss your galaxy mass estimates out the window?

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.

The idea you can't distinguish between 'missing mass' and "non baryonic matter" is simply astonishing to me as well. The only thing that these measurements demonstrate is that your galaxy mass estimates of the amount of normal mass in a galaxy aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Period.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religion:
"the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

Redundant. And again they don't say WHICH god.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Redundant. And again they don't say WHICH god.

Not necessarily.

I could say 'God is the physical universe" and the universe is electric and therefore the structures of the universe give rise to awareness just like the structures of our brains. In that case my 'religion' would require nothing "supernatural" at all. Compare and contrast that notion of God vs. Lambda-CDM theory that requires faith in three forms of metaphysical invisible "supernatural" friends.

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

I've always just found it comical when religious people try to insult scientists and/or atheists by comparing us, incorrectly no less, to the most basic tenants of their own beliefs as something negative. They never seem to get the irony. There's really no need for a response other than to point and laugh.

 

[Perpetual Student]

As far as I know it has always been homogeneous and isotropic. I have no evidence it was ever not that way. You seem to want to have a "creation event" where everything begins at a single "clump", but you never demonstrated any need for such a thing in the first place.
...

The mainstream is still confused by something that Birkeland "explained" and simulated 100 years ago in a lab! How much confidence should I have in their collective ability to tell me what happened in the distant past if they can't even "explain" what goes on right now inside of our own solar system?

You seem to repeat the same stuff over and over -- like repeating holy scripture or reading from a prayer book. You mention Alfven and Berkeland as a missionary might mention Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You talk of Guth as a fearful zealot might talk about Satan.
I and many others have provided you with explanations regarding the rational of inflation -- it's a theory (subject to change) to explain observations -- not dogma. You provide no explanations; we get nothing but the same loony mantra repeated over and again. How can you expect anyone to take you and your EU evangelism seriously?

 

[pnerd]

You provide no explanations; we get nothing but the same loony mantra repeated over and again.

.
Yeah, it sounds just like "there are no transitional fossils", "show me your intermediates", "irreducible complexity", "nobody has ever observed macro-evolution" etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You seem to repeat the same stuff over and over -- like repeating holy scripture or reading from a prayer book.

Ya, "Empirical physics works, empirical physics works, empirical physics works."

You mention Alfven and Berkeland as a missionary might mention Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Wouldn't any scientific theory have it's proponents? Don't you think it would be a lot more "fishy' if I personally invented the idea? Alfven did win the Nobel Prize and even the mainstream recognizes some of Birkeland's work and continues to kludge Alfven's work to this very day. We seem to have many of the same disciples. I can just imagine you folks trying to live without Alfven's work.

You talk of Guth as a fearful zealot might talk about Satan.

He is talking metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that is dead, that never shows up in a lab today, and he sugar coated he metaphysics with mathematical sweeteners that have been shown to cause metaphysical cancer in the brains of some scientists.

I and many others have provided you with explanations regarding the rational of inflation

But that same rational can be applied to "Godflation". There is no way for you to distinguish that rational from any religious rationale with the same trumped up, post-dicted math.

-- it's a theory (subject to change) to explain observations -- not dogma.

It's "dogma" because it requires an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer" and it's dead now so it's on par scientifically with any dead deistic entity you might come up with in terms of usefulness in today's world.

You provide no explanations; we get nothing but the same loony mantra repeated over and again.

That is pure baloney. I have provided you with ample links to Birkeland's work and Alfven's work and Bruce's work and I'll bet you haven't read any of it. I can only lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. Likewise I can provide you with ample physical evidence to support my viewpoints, but I can't make you read Birkland's work, or Alfven's books.

How can you expect anyone to take you and your EU evangelism seriously?

How seriously have you treated the material I've provided you? Have you read Cosmic Plasma where the creator of MHD theory applies that theory to space? Yes, no, maybe?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Show me one source where Birkeland and/or Alfven discuss the basis of EU theory's explanation for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe we observe, which is what you claimed earlier -- and you have managed to dodge again and again. Or provide me with your own explanation -- I promise I will read it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not necessarily.

I could say 'God is the physical universe" and the universe is electric and therefore the structures of the universe give rise to awareness just like the structures of our brains. In that case my 'religion' would require nothing "supernatural" at all. Compare and contrast that notion of God vs. Lambda-CDM theory that requires faith in three forms of metaphysical invisible "supernatural" friends.

The Four Horsemen were talking one time, and it came up that some really nice work was being done by the Salvation Army and that they were not "in your face" about religion. Dawkins pointed out that this just proved that the less religious they were, the better it was for everyone.

If "God" is the physical universe, do you think it wants to be worshiped? That it thinks of us at all? That it grants prayers? If not, then how is it "God" and why would it be considered something religious?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Show me one source where Birkeland and/or Alfven discuss the basis of EU theory's explanation for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe we observe, which is what you claimed earlier -- and you have managed to dodge again and again. Or provide me with your own explanation -- I promise I will read it.

One "big bang" oriented paper is called:

MATTER-ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION AND COSMOLOGY

It was written by Oskar Klein and Hannes Alfven in 1962. I'm looking for an online link to the paper but I don't see one so far. I'll keep you posted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The Four Horsemen were talking one time, and it came up that some really nice work was being done by the Salvation Army and that they were not "in your face" about religion. Dawkins pointed out that this just proved that the less religious they were, the better it was for everyone.

If "God" is the physical universe, do you think it wants to be worshiped? That it thinks of us at all? That it grants prayers? If not, then how is it "God" and why would it be considered something religious?

Woah. I really wasn't trying to sell you on a specific religion, I was simply noting that there are religions that do not require "supernatural" entities, and there are also branches of "science" that require and rely on "supernatural" entities. I simply noted it wasn't necessarily "redundant" to use the term "supernatural" as well as the term "God" when calling it a "religion".

 

[GeeMack]

How can you expect anyone to take you and your EU evangelism seriously?

Nobody does. There are no professionals in the sciences of physics, astronomy, or astrophysics, no researchers or educators, not a single professional in any related field anywhere on Earth who takes Michael Mozina seriously.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Woah. I really wasn't trying to sell you on a specific religion, I was simply noting that there are religions that do not require "supernatural" entities, and there are also branches of "science" that require and rely on "supernatural" entities. I simply noted it wasn't necessarily "redundant" to use the term "supernatural" as well as the term "God" when calling it a "religion".

I never said you were, I was just asking the follow on questions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody does. There are no professionals in the sciences of physics, astronomy, or astrophysics, no researchers or educators, not a single professional in any related field anywhere on Earth who takes Michael Mozina seriously.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

"Lies, lies, lies, ya...."

 

[Perpetual Student]

One "big bang" oriented paper is called:

MATTER-ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION AND COSMOLOGY

It was written by Oskar Klein and Hannes Alfven in 1962. I'm looking for an online link to the paper but I don't see one so far. I'll keep you posted.

You are so adamant that inflation is wrong and EU theory has a better answer. Given that, I'm surprised, since you write so prolifically on this forum and have studied EU theory so extensively, that you are unable to give me a simple explanation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are so adamant that inflation is wrong and EU theory has a better answer. Given that, I'm surprised, since you write so prolifically on this forum and have studied EU theory so extensively, that you are unable to give me a simple explanation.

Here's the "simple" explanation in Alfven's own words:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

 

[ben m]

One "big bang" oriented paper is called:

MATTER-ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION AND COSMOLOGY

It was written by Oskar Klein and Hannes Alfven in 1962. I'm looking for an online link to the paper but I don't see one so far. I'll keep you posted.

Nothing new since then, eh? I heard a rumor somewhere that there has been new cosmology data since 1962.