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

[Skeptic Ginger]

I want to reemphasize that such a technique only works with specific branches of "science", specifically "metaphysical" (non empirical) forms of so called "science". ....

This is an oxymoron.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

New scientific theories often meet resistance. Sometimes, it has taken the passing of a generation for new theories to gain traction. Now, Alfven's stuff has been around for some time (at least twenty years) with no discernible trend for acceptance. How do you account for that?

It also takes actual evidence which Mozina does not have.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It also takes actual evidence which Mozina does not have.

You're right about the first part (which is in fact why acceptance takes time), but you're dead wrong on the last part:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657

It seems to me PS that skepticgirl is absolutely right about the need for additional evidence to verify his work and that has taken time. Technology and time however are on Alfven's side. The mainstream can continue to try to ignore these verified "predictions" of Alfven's beliefs, but sooner or later they will have to come to terms with the fact that we live inside an electric universe. All the footdragging in the universe can't stop technological progress and the revolution that is changing our understanding of the universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The boundary between religion & science moved as our understanding of lightning moved from the mysterious to the practical.

And that's exactly the problem with Lambda-religion theory. Inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of matter have never had a "practical" use outside of the "religion" they support.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dogma?

What else could we call "inflation" or even "magnetic reconnection"? Inflation is dead. I can't ever hope to see it move outside the realm of dogma and into the realm of empirical physics.

So you challenge General Relativity and Special Relativity and pretty much the whole of modern physics in preference to the single EU theory?

Not at all. I like GR the way Einstein taught it. It's the kludged 'dark energy' form of "blunder" theory I have no use for. EU theory is *NOT* at odds with GR theory. I have no idea where you folks get that idea. Nobody needs to abandon GR theory to embrace EU concepts.

I fail to see where the EU theory has a bearing on general relativity...

It doesn't. GR theory is not "blunder" theory however and most of you refuse to acknowledge the difference between them.

As for "E Field Orientated" I believe others have tried to explain that it is convenient for most scientists to look at the B field as from that you can easily derive what you need to know about the E field. You need to stop looking at them as separate entities, take on board what Maxwell explained to his, and treat them as two sides of the same coin.

You're preaching to the choir. It's your industry that keeps insisting it's a "magnetic" process, rather than an "electromagnetic" one. You need to stop teaching children what Alfven called "pseudoscience" and start embracing the E orientation of MHD theory as Alfven taught it.

An electrical discharge is not "magnetic reconnection". Gamma rays and x-rays occur in "discharges" in a given atmosphere. You've lost touch with physics. Magnetic lines do not disconnect or reconnect to other magnetic lines. They are physically incapable of doing so because they form as a full and complete continuum. Circuits however do in fact "reconnect" and "disconnect" from other circuits. These ideas at not 100% interchangeable at the level of physics and that's the part you keep ignoring in the terms your industry has created and the idea you keep ingoring. It's not just the energy that is stored in the magnetic field that *INDUCES* current flow in the other circuit, the circuit energy of both circuits has a direct impact on the events that occur at the point of "reconnection" (short circuit).

As long as you folks keep ignoring the E orientation of MHD theory, you'll never be able to explain something like solar wind, a process Birkeland "explained" and "predicted" from standard empirical experiments over 100 years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Perpetual Student]

New scientific theories often meet resistance. Sometimes, it has taken the passing of a generation for new theories to gain traction. Now, Alfven's stuff has been around for some time (at least twenty years) with no discernible trend for acceptance. How do you account for that?

MM, you have not responded to the above. So, do you see any movement towards acceptance of EU theories? If not, why not? Hasn't there been enough time for some movement towards acceptance? Two decades seems quite a bit of time. Do you see any tendency for younger astrophysicists to accept EU theories. Of all the new theories in astrophysics of the last 100 years, why would EU theories be singled out for this kind of treatment?

 

[DazzaD]

Not at all. I like GR the way Einstein taught it. It's the kludged 'dark energy' form of "blunder" theory I have no use for. EU theory is *NOT* at odds with GR theory. I have no idea where you folks get that idea. Nobody needs to abandon GR theory to embrace EU concepts.

It doesn't. GR theory is not "blunder" theory however and most of you refuse to acknowledge the difference between them.

My post was very specific to the question about whether a singularity existed or was predicated by GR (with reference to say the 'origin' of the universe).

In that context it was quite valid (in my opinion) to explain that it was a limitation of the GR model and had nothing whatsoever to do with EU theories.

Thats all I was pointing out in that post, no more, no less.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My post was very specific to the question about whether a singularity existed or was predicated by GR (with reference to say the 'origin' of the universe).

In that context it was quite valid (in my opinion) to explain that it was a limitation of the GR model and had nothing whatsoever to do with EU theories.

Thats all I was pointing out in that post, no more, no less.

In that case you're just wrong. Klein's "bang" model clearly demonstrates that a singularity (or a singular "lump" if you prefer) is not a necessary component in a bang theory. If your "bang" theory includes one, it's your own choice to do so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, you have not responded to the above. So, do you see any movement towards acceptance of EU theories?

I'm certainly seeing an improvement in the quality of published papers on that topic. That would suggest to me that it's gaining momentum, yes.

If not, why not? Hasn't there been enough time for some movement towards acceptance? Two decades seems quite a bit of time.

It may "seem" that way to you, but that isn't very long in the historical context of cosmology theories or astronomy theories in general. A couple of decades is nothing. Birkeland wrote about his auroral theories in 1908. It wasn't until the early 70's that even this part of his work was "accepted" by the mainstream. It took them 50 years to take even the first 'baby step" in accepting any of the tenets of EU theory. They can't even recognize a "discharge" when they see one heat plasma to millions of degrees, so it could be another 50 years before they figure out solar physics.

Do you see any tendency for younger astrophysicists to accept EU theories.

Most of the EU proponents I meet tend to be older like myself and are "burned out" on the metaphysics. I seem to have a more "receptive audience" in the younger generation when I discuss the ideas at parties and such, but adults of all ages do tend to listen. It's hard to say whether the idea is "accepted" or the listener was just being polite.

Of all the new theories in astrophysics of the last 100 years, why would EU theories be singled out for this kind of treatment?

Well, if you have any doubts, you can go over to BAUT and you'll see that EU theory is in fact "singled out" by the mainstream as something they treat very differently than other "mainstream" cosmology theories. I suspect that "burn the heretic" mentality is mostly driven by fear, fear that their metaphysical beliefs will be laid to waste by empirical science if they don't "snuff it out" right now.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science?

And that's exactly the problem with Lambda-religion theory. Inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of matter have never had a "practical" use outside of the "religion" they support.

If you are suggesting that dark matter & dark energy are "religious" in nature, you are quite mistaken. Of course, we have had this discussion before, and will no doubt have it once again. Both dark matter & dark energy are 100% pure and unadulterated empirical concepts. If you intend to argue that they are not, then it is necessary to deny the validity of science altogether, which then clearly makes yours the 100% pure & unadulterated religious position.

I responded to your incredible claims by starting a discussion which did not run for very long, and to which you never contributed: Fundamental Question on the Nature of Science, which was active 10-19 April 2009. Here is a major portion of my initial post to that discussion, which I think is relevant both to the OP of this discussion, as well as to your own extremely crippled understanding of what constitutes "science".

So what we have here is a contest between "observation" and "controlled observation", which is really what a "controlled experiment" is. Now, Mozina's opinion is explicit enough; he says "Observations are not 'empirical experiments' ". It is not much of a stretch to read this as "observations are not empirical" period.

This impacts a wide range of fields of science where "controlled experiments" are usually impossible. Astronomy is one example, where the full complexity of a major astronomical object (planet, star, molecular cloud, galaxy & etc.) cannot be reproduced in any laboratory, ever. But so are zoology, anthropology, and a host of natural sciences affected by the crucial difference between "observations" and "controlled experiments". Are naturalists in the field, observing chimpanzees in the wild, for instance, doing science? Are they doing something "empirical"? If you observe your favorite chimps long enough to predict their behavior, and then observe them to verify the prediction (i.e., to validate the hypothesis), is that not science because it is not "controlled"? Is that not an "empirical experiment" because it is not controlled?

My own opinion is made clear in the exchange above as well, I hope. I think both controlled and uncontrolled observations & experiments are on equal standing when it comes to considering them as "empirical" or "scientific". obviously they are not the same thing, and a "controlled experiment" might well allow the experimenter to more stringently qualify their results than is done with an uncontrolled observation in the field. But that does not detract from the empirical, and experimental nature of an uncontrolled observation.

This seems to me to be a fundamental issue of importance across the scientific spectrum. So I thought it would be worthwhile to make it a topic of its own and solicit the opinions of other scientists (or anyone else who cares to join in) who might not be reading a thread with "Lambda-CDM" in the title. What do you all think? Are "uncontrolled" observations equally empirical, equally scientific, compared to controlled experiments? Do those of you working in areas where field observations are common consider yourselves to be scientists, and that you are doing science?

You consistently, but wrongly, assume that only controlled laboratory experiments constitute "empirical" science. So how do you respond? Do you or do you not accept the empirical validity of uncontrolled field observations in science?

 

[Michael Mozina]

An utter derail of this thread.

Er, no. Anyone that claims to get energy from a null point in the magnetic field and claims that magnetic lines release energy by "disconnecting" and "reconnecting" to other magnetic lines is definitely selling you a "religion" that has nothing to do with "science". In the physical world only "circuits" can disconnect and reconnect. Magnetic lines do nothing of the sort, and you can't get something from nothing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you are suggesting that dark matter & dark energy are "religious" in nature, you are quite mistaken.

No Tim, I'm quite right. You are physically incapable of getting dark energy to do anything here on Earth. At least 70% of your religion is utterly useless in the real world.

Of course, we have had this discussion before, and will no doubt have it once again. Both dark matter & dark energy are 100% pure and unadulterated empirical concepts.

Pure baloney! You're in danger of becoming the Foxnews of physics Tim. Dark energy is nothing but a fudge factor of *EPIC* proportions. Your dark energy goddess is completely and utterly impotent on Earth. You can't even tell us where it comes from. Dark energy did it is no better than God did it as it relates to empirical physics.

You consistently, but wrongly, assume that only controlled laboratory experiments constitute "empirical" science.

No, I rightfully say that empirical physics shows up in real experiments.

Do you or do you not accept the empirical validity of uncontrolled field observations in science?

That depends. I accept that some things are physically verified to exist and have an effect on real physical objects. I accept observational evidence of known physical things. I don't accept a circular feedback loop that attempts to use an uncontrolled observation to "verify" their pet theory about what caused that same uncontrolled observation. Godflation did not have any influence on the "bang", with or without some trumped up math.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? II

Do you or do you not accept the empirical validity of uncontrolled field observations in science?

I accept observational evidence of known physical things. I don't accept a circular feedback loop that attempts to use an uncontrolled observation to "verify" their pet theory about what caused that same uncontrolled observation.

So, if an uncontrolled observation of nature confirms your pre-observational bias, then you accept it as scientifically valid. On the other hand, if an uncontrolled observation does not confirm your pre-observational bias, you reject it as unscientific for that sole reason. But the principle criterion for determining whether or not an observation is scientific is the method, not the result. Your argument is therefore a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

One of the essential points of science vs religion is the empirical verification of an hypothesis through observation. Dark energy & dark matter are in fact 100% empirical because their existence, as well as all of the physical properties of both, are derived entirely from observation. If you are going to claim that dark matter & dark energy are "religious", then you have no choice but to reject the validity of observation as a method for the verification of an hypothesis. This too is clearly a religious, rather than a scientific point of view.

 

[DazzaD]

In that case you're just wrong. Klein's "bang" model clearly demonstrates that a singularity (or a singular "lump" if you prefer) is not a necessary component in a bang theory. If your "bang" theory includes one, it's your own choice to do so.

I have no singularity in "my" theory and I never said as much. I was just pointing out the limitations of ANY mathematical model to real life.

Klein or no Klein.

I never advocated the need for such a thing, (in fact, personally, I suspect I actually abhor it!).

I just wanted to help as it seems you may have become overly defensive.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Quote: (Perpetual Student)
Of all the new theories in astrophysics of the last 100 years, why would EU theories be singled out for this kind of treatment?

Quote: (M Mozina)
Well, if you have any doubts, you can go over to BAUT and you'll see that EU theory is in fact "singled out" by the mainstream as something they treat very differently than other "mainstream" cosmology theories. I suspect that "burn the heretic" mentality is mostly driven by fear, fear that their metaphysical beliefs will be laid to waste by empirical science if they don't "snuff it out" right now.

Do you have any idea how paranoid your response sounds?
Historically, older theories have been "snuffed out" countless times by newer theories. Why is this one (EU) so different, if it is a better theory?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I responded to your incredible claims by starting a discussion which did not run for very long, and to which you never contributed: ...

For what it's worth, I'm with Tim here.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

On its own it doesn't mean much. But backed up by a a century of progress in physics the inevitable conclusion (if we're preserving our law of gravity) its that the matter MUST be exotic.

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"?

Why would I define it as primitive? Our space telescopes contain some of the most precise and hi-tech technology man has ever created!

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.

We know that most stars are in the bulges and the disks of galaxies. We know this is completely inconsistent with what is observed from rotation curves. You can stuff as much dust in there as you want, you're never going to rectify that situation.

You're taking "oversimplified models" and trying to apply them to everything you see in space.

No, I'm not. I'm using multiple observations to draw conclusions.

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.

What method are we talking about?
No amount of you talking nonsense is going to stop the fact that the visible mass distribution and that derived from rotation curves are completely different.

Great. Demonstrate these nifty things in a lab,

I'd love to. I'd probably get a Nobel.

demonstrate their *actual physical properties* and then I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim SUSY stuff did it.

Their properties are those derived from the theory. If they don't have properties consistent with the theory they're not SUSY particles.

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.

I never said it did. Its just the simplest, most elegant solution which (possibly) could solve another unanswered question in physics.

SUSY particles did not show up in such experiments.

They have not shown up yet. So what? They may exist. They may not. But there non-existence wouldn't mean dark matter is not exotic. It would mean it is not SUSY particle. The incontrevertible evidence for DM will not go away.

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?

No. You couldn't much further off in fact. If we accept GR then the evidence DM is way way way beyond compelling. We can observe its effect in the Milky Way or Andromeda. Its not that we can't account for distant mass. We can't account for the mass distribution in our own galaxy or our nearest neighbour.
The evidence for SUSY bares no relation to the evidence for DM. That the existence of one could be the solution to the other may be complete coincidence (I've already clearly stated this), or it may not. We don't know. I'm not trying to stuff any gaps.

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?

No. What they think they will do based on what we HAVE seen in experiment. Most of the properties of SUSY particles, if they exist, are already known. Just like most of the properties of neutrinos and the top quark were already known before they're discovery.

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.

Its nothing to do with statistics. They either exist or they don't. We could assign odds to whether we think they exist or not (eg what odds we'd be prepared to wager at) but their actual existence or otherwise is not a matter of probability.

On the other hand, it could just be that you're letting your "faith in the unseen" get the better of you.

Its very much not my faith in the unseen. I've measured rotation curves for myself. I've seen visible matter distributions of galaxies with my own eyes. They're completely different.

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?

What are you talking about?

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?

All the measurements agree that the total mass distribution is completely different to the visible mass distribution given our law of gravity. No amount of dust or rocks or electrons is ever going to correct this.

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.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. These measurements unequivocally demonstrate that the total mass distribution is completely different to the visible mass distribution given our law of gravity. No amount of dust or rocks or electrons is ever going to correct this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you have any idea how paranoid your response sounds?

Well, yes, actually I do. You would need to walk a mile in my shoes to truly appreciate the irrational bias I've experienced toward an E field orientation of MHD theory over the past 6 years, not so much here on this website, but on many astronomy oriented websites and many mainstream publications.

It's really bizarre behavior and it seems to be motivated by fear, fear of change. Change will happen of course, but change takes time (and typically technology) when talking about the field of astronomy.

Historically, older theories have been "snuffed out" countless times by newer theories. Why is this one (EU) so different, if it is a better theory?

It's not different, and I am very confident that it will eventually win out over time. IMO you're simply trying to judge it *before* PC/EU has had time to be fully appreciated. EU theory may have been around for awhile, but it's certainly not part of a typical astronomy curriculum or something that most individuals are exposed to in school or in the media. I consider myself to be pretty well versed in different astronomy theories, but I had never even heard of PC/EU theory prior to about 6 years ago. The internet and technologies will bring change, but this sort of drastic change typically doesn't happen overnight. The real challenge for the mainstream will occur over the next decade as new technologies come online and new papers continue to support Alfven's views on solar physics. They will have a devil of a time trying to keep the electric genie inside the magnetic bottle.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, if an uncontrolled observation of nature confirms your pre-observational bias,

What kind of "bias" are we talking about? If my "bias" is "electricity did it", I can at least demonstrate that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate and do things on Earth. If my "bias" is "magic elves did it", pointing at the sky, creating a circular feedback loop about how my magic elves did it, and slapping on a little math isn't going to be very convincing to the average skeptic. Should the *TYPE* of one's "bias" matter here too Tim?

then you accept it as scientifically valid. On the other hand, if an uncontrolled observation does not confirm your pre-observational bias, you reject it as unscientific for that sole reason.

No, not at all. I can reject "magic elves did it", even with pretty math because magic elves never show up in empirical experiments. It's not a "personal bias", it's an "empirical bias" and a "scientific bias" when the same observation can be explained without inventing new and mythical forces of nature.

But the principle criterion for determining whether or not an observation is scientific is the method, not the result.

The "result" has always been "postdicted" since Guth first made up inflation in his head to "explain" an already recognized homogeneous layout of matter. At no time was the "result" ever in doubt Tim. The "method" he used however was completely bogus IMO, because it began with the "assumption" that all matter and energy was contained in a single clump, and that his invented/fabricated/made up force of nature was therefore necessary to explain how it got from a singular clump to a homogenous layout of matter. There was no "method" other than "I'll fudge it till it fits what I'm trying to make it fit", and then he uses the same observation (homogeneity) to then try to demonstrate the validity of his made up force of nature. The whole thing is one giant circular argument based on make believe entities and fabricated, postdicted math.

Your argument is therefore a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

Boloney. Guth's argument is a religious argument based on faith, it is not a scientific entity because his make-believe friend is dead. Belief in inflation necessarily requires an act of faith on the part of the "believer" because it no longer exists in nature. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

One of the essential points of science vs religion is the empirical verification of an hypothesis through observation. Dark energy & dark matter are in fact 100% empirical because their existence, as well as all of the physical properties of both, are derived entirely from observation.

I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter" and would that be a religion?

If you are going to claim that dark matter & dark energy are "religious", then you have no choice but to reject the validity of observation as a method for the verification of an hypothesis. This too is clearly a religious, rather than a scientific point of view.

Sorry Tim, but any bias I have is "empirical" by nature and not personal in any way. Pointing at the sky and claiming "gravity did it" is acceptable to me because I can experience and experiment with gravity here on Earth. Even if your theory is 'wrong', it's still a viable scientific theory. If however you point at the sky and claim your invisible friends are responsible, I'll want to see some empirical evidence that your invisible friends are not a figment of your overactive imagination. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Science while pure in theory has one main problem. The only entities available to do it are humans and humans are the problem. Because of this human problem Science is sloppy and moves forward (and backward) in fits and starts. Over time (sometimes lots of it) Science does reject things that do not 'work'.

But then when did you ever see inflation or dark energy do any work in a real science experiment on Earth?

Religion on the other had never get's it in fact the more absurd and impossible a belief is the more a religious person is admired.

That "absurd and impossible" feeling sunk in when they stuffed their falsified theory with 70+ "mythical energy" that never shows up here on Earth.