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

[Perpetual Student]

And as far as I can tell, well over 90% of the posts go over ground that has been covered before, often many times, on older JREF Forum threads ... with the same outcomes.

Question for DazzaD, Perpetual Student, RC, Tubbythin, and Tim Thompson (did I miss anyone?): in your exchanges with MM in this thread, have you learned anything new, in terms of the case MM seems to be trying to make?

If so, what (I'm really quite interested)?

That's an interesting question. After having studied some of the links MM has provided, I can say I understand the basis of his views a little better.
Two examples:
As a layman, when taken in their primitive form, a "primordial ion mist" is just as fantastic as an "inflationary era." It is only because I have justifiable reasons for trusting mainstream science (because of all its supporting observational evidence) that Alfven's conjectures remain fanciful speculations -- in contrast to current cosmological theories invlving inflation.
The case for dark matter also appears to be quite straightforward, whereas the support for any EU explanations for the large scale structure of the universe seem to be highly speculative. But MM does not see it that way.
I guess I have learned that MM has a double standard when he labels things as "not empirical science" when looking at mainstream cosmology vs. EU theories. Somehow, because a plasma exists in a lab but dark matter does not, plasmas are more credible than dark matter as cosmological objects.
The reality that so many scientific objects like particles, forces, planets, elements were "discovered" theoretically, well before then could be demonstrated in a concrete manner in a lab is somehow lost on him when it comes to dark matter and his two other villains, dark energy and inflation.
I have also come to believe he will go to his grave (or urn) clinging to his current opinions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Free electrons & ions is what we call plasma. The amount needed to account for the observed gravity would be very visible.



There could be thousands of planets around every star and it wouldn't come close to adding up to the missing mass.

It doesn't have to be distributed that way however. According to Birkeland based on his experiments:

We see from the above that it is not impossible that future investigations will show that without running into conflict with experience in any way here mentioned, we may reckon that there are more than ten thousand times greater masses gathered as flying corpuscles in "empty" space than the masses; the stars and nebulae.

Page 771 of THE NORWEGIAN AURORA POLARIS EXPEDITION 1902-1903

Astronomers today pay little or no attention at all to "current flows" in space. It's therefore no surprise to me that they underestimate the mass of "flying electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds" It's interesting to me that if anything Birkeland's model "overestimates" the amount of mass outside of stars by quite a large margin.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's an interesting question. After having studied some of the links MM has provided, I can say I understand the basis of his views a little better.
Two examples:
As a layman, when taken in their primitive form, a "primordial ion mist" is just as fantastic as an "inflationary era."

I'm extremely curious how you came to that conclusion? Ions are known to exist today in nature. There's nothing "fantastic" about their existence in the past. Inflation however is quite "fantastic" both in the fact it does density defying tricks that no other known force of nature can do today, and because it's now supposedly 'non existent' and will forever defy empirical support. I fail to see how you can even compare a non existent inflation favorably to a theory that only requires preexisting matter.

It is only because I have justifiable reasons for trusting mainstream science (because of all its supporting observational evidence) that Alfven's conjectures remain fanciful speculations -- in contrast to current cosmological theories invlving inflation.

Actually those four papers I provided earlier in the other plasma cosmology thread demonstrate the validity of his solar 'circuit' theories very convincingly via satellite data. I'll have to go back to the conversation soon and see how folks did at analyzing those papers. I'm expecially curious to see if Tim came up with a physical explanation for 'magnetic reconnection' that can be shown not to be a "short circuit" in two current carrying filaments and induction.

The case for dark matter also appears to be quite straightforward,

The demonstration of "missing mass" is straight forward even from my perspective. WIMPS and axions however are a pure "leap of faith in the unseen".

whereas the support for any EU explanations for the large scale structure of the universe seem to be highly speculative. But MM does not see it that way.

Well, actually I would admit that it's 'speculative' but then what idea isn't "speculative"? You mean to tell me that you don't think that inflation is "speculative"? Perratt was able to emulate galaxy formations in terms of rotation patterns without even resorting to extra mass. What large scale structures do you mean?

I guess I have learned that MM has a double standard when he labels things as "not empirical science" when looking at mainstream cosmology vs. EU theories. Somehow, because a plasma exists in a lab but dark matter does not, plasmas are more credible than dark matter as cosmological objects.

So how exactly is that a "double standard" in your opinion? I really am curious because you seem to be pretty "fair" on most points, but position seems to be a bit 'out there' from my vantage point. Isn't it logical to favor any theory that doesn't require "make believe" forces of nature? Where do you subjectively draw the line if you aren't using empirical physics as the barometer of "better" theories vs "poorer" theories? What makes Axions or Wimps "better' than Birkeland's ideas about 'dark matter' that we are unlikely to see from Earth?

The reality that so many scientific objects like particles, forces, planets, elements were "discovered" theoretically, well before then could be demonstrated in a concrete manner in a lab is somehow lost on him when it comes to dark matter and his two other villains, dark energy and inflation.

Well, in the case of dark matter, I've tried intentionally to note the difference between something that 'might be' empirically verified like SUSY theory for instance, and something like non existent inflation that is a pure act of faith, now and forever. Whereas you could in theory get the pleasure of watching me eat empirical crow over the discovery of some exotic form of matter that exactly matches you needs, you'll never have the pleasure of demonstrating the empirical validity of inflation. It's non existent and always will be. It's as useless as a dead deity and it will always be exactly that useless as actually "predicting" any events here on Earth.

I have also come to believe he will go to his grave (or urn) clinging to his current opinions.

I don't believe that to be true. I've changed my views on cosmology a great deal over the past 20 years. I'd expect my views to keep changing over time as new information becomes available. I tend to keep an open mind, and in fact I had not even heard of PC/EU theory until about 6 years ago. My viewpoints can be changed, but it will require some real evidence to change them. Pointing at the sky and claiming Godflation did it won't cut it for me however, so you could be right and probably are right about my feelings towards inflation. Dark energy could eventually turn out to be something "useful' and potentially "real" think like an all pervasive EM field, but then it wouldn't be "dark energy" any longer and we would no longer be ignorant of the actual physical cause of acceleration.

I would say that my views toward SUSY theory could change and might change over the next ten years depending on the outcome of the LHC experiments. I believe it to be "unlikely' from my perspective, only because any particle found would have to match at least a 1/2 dozen different "properties" to actually fill in the current gaps of astronomical theory. Even if they find some new form of matter, there's no guarantee it will have the longevity, EM invisibility, or any of the other properties being assigned to "dark matter".

You're probably right on the subject on inflation, but then even DRD isn't much of a fan of inflation, and I can never be proven wrong on that point in the future, so am I really that far out on a limb as it relates to inflation?

 

[DazzaD]

I think a lot of the discussion hinges on MM perhaps misunderstanding the stance of your average "scientist" here.

For instance... the misunderstanding about what "control" means in experimentation (MM's definition seems at odds with what most scientists mean by the term)... the misunderstanding about negative pressure (again a term with several meanings depending on the context but one which does not inherently violate any known physical laws at all).

 

[DazzaD]

Well, I can "see" them for one thing:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20040415-00

And how long did it take for that experimental verification to occur after the early proposal of the existence of atoms?

Well, for starters we've got all kinds of imaging techniques that allow us to see them to the individual atom.

We do have in modern science.

Thats a good hundred years almost after the stage that I was interested in. The analogy is quite sound I believe.

My point was to make you question all that you hold dear (something I do to EVERY student of mine as well)...

Who asked you to "experiment" with the sun? It wasn't me.

I didnt say it was. I didnt realise I needed your permission either

I think it was a fair thing to ask given that your alternative theories on the composition of the Sun.. to bring it into line with what you are saying about Dark Matter/Inflation/Dark Energy.

And as far as I can tell, well over 90% of the posts go over ground that has been covered before, often many times, on older JREF Forum threads ... with the same outcomes.

Question for DazzaD, Perpetual Student, RC, Tubbythin, and Tim Thompson (did I miss anyone?): in your exchanges with MM in this thread, have you learned anything new, in terms of the case MM seems to be trying to make?

If so, what (I'm really quite interested)?

Oh quite a lot.

I find it interesting to get involved in such discussions (when I have the spare time) as not only does it serve to educate the large amount of lurkers but I genuinely am interested in what makes MM and his ideas tick.

I also like to try to tear apart my dearly held ideas whenever possible.

The fact they keep stitching themselves back together always amazes me.

 

[DazzaD]

I'm extremely curious how you came to that conclusion? Ions are known to exist today in nature. There's nothing "fantastic" about their existence in the past. Inflation however is quite "fantastic" both in the fact it does density defying tricks that no other known force of nature can do today, and because it's now supposedly 'non existent' and will forever defy empirical support. I fail to see how you can even compare a non existent inflation favorably to a theory that only requires preexisting matter.

Ok.. I will change tack.

Can you put yourself in the position of a top scientist in, say, 1920.

Why on Earth, back then, should I believe some crazy crank who comes up with the concept of a Strong Nuclear Force when there is no evidence for its existence or any way of checking it experimentally or known to exist 'today'?

This might help me understand where you are coming from because you increasingly seem to deny the evidence laid before you which I find strange for someone who holds experimentation so dear.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."

First asked 7 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"?
When was this?

This is from the following post that you have missed:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
True, but Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars was orders of magnitude "greater than" what we actually observe, even with all that "dark matter".

Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"?

When was this?

Modern calcuations put an upper limit on the baryonic mass of the universe, i.e. the matter that is in stars, plasma, electrons, ions (electric current) and any other normal matter (the baryonic density parameter):

Originally Posted by Reality Check
A little more on this.
I believe that you pointed out this preprint:
Dark Matter: The evidence from astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology


You may want to read sections 9 and 10. These give methods of determining the density of matter in the universe (no calculation of galactic mass need apply ).

• Analysis of the WMAP data tells us that
  • the total mass density parameter is ~0.26
  • baryonic density parameter is ~0.04. This agrees with the amount of visible matter that astronomers calculate in other techniques.
  • thus the density of dark matter in the universe is ~0.22.
• Baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) tell us that
  • the total mass density parameter is ~0.26.
  • the ratio between the baryonic and total density parameters at very large scales is 0.18 +/- 0.04. So the baryonic density parameter is ~0.05 +/- 0.01.

The BAO results mean that astronomers have found about 80% of the baryonic matter in the universe (at least 66% if we use the pessimistic limit of the result).

However that is moot because the above results give a limit on the density of baryonic matter in the universe of < 6%. That means that ~94% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy.

(added what the baryonic density parameter includes)

 

[DazzaD]

I don't believe that to be true. I've changed my views on cosmology a great deal over the past 20 years. I'd expect my views to keep changing over time as new information becomes available. I tend to keep an open mind, and in fact I had not even heard of PC/EU theory until about 6 years ago. My viewpoints can be changed, but it will require some real evidence to change them. Pointing at the sky and claiming Godflation did it won't cut it for me however, so you could be right and probably are right about my feelings towards inflation. Dark energy could eventually turn out to be something "useful' and potentially "real" think like an all pervasive EM field, but then it wouldn't be "dark energy" any longer and we would no longer be ignorant of the actual physical cause of acceleration.

I am not exactly a spring chicken but then again I am not quite to my "old fart" stage either... but I can clearly recall reading a few books on plasma cosmology when I was at University (which would be a good 14-17 years ago now) and it certainly was well out of its infancy then (if such a thing could be said for a theory that didnt get very far).

Just to point out that although time in and of itself doesnt validate or invalidate a theory it is fair to say that PC/EU has had enough time to have a good run at things and develop but from what I have read recently it has not advanced one bit from what I read back then.

Compare that with say, string theory, at least in that case there has been serious advances mathematically (if not in terms of actual physics)... but then I may be biased as I am a mathematician as well so perhaps I am unfairly giving kudos to string theory which some may put in the same box as PC/EU.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Do you understand that is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%

First asked 7 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
Do you understand that the WMAP and BAO analysis place an upper limit on all of the baryonic mass of 6% (a pesimistic number) or 4% (the scientific number)?

Thus you are making yourself look ridiculous by claiming dark matter is made up of baryonic matter, e.g. rocks, planets, "free electrons & ions", etc.

As in the posts you are ignoring or cannot understand:
Modern calcuations put an upper limit on the baryonic mass of the universe, i.e. the matter that is in stars, plasma, electrons, ions (electric current) and any other normal matter (the baryonic density parameter):

I believe that you pointed out this preprint:
Dark Matter: The evidence from astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology

You may want to read sections 9 and 10. These give methods of determining the density of matter in the universe (no calculation of galactic mass need apply ).

• Analysis of the WMAP data tells us that
  • the total mass density parameter is ~0.26
  • baryonic density parameter is ~0.04. This agrees with the amount of visible matter that astronomers calculate in other techniques.
  • thus the density of dark matter in the universe is ~0.22.
• Baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) tell us that
  • the total mass density parameter is ~0.26.
  • the ratio between the baryonic and total density parameters at very large scales is 0.18 +/- 0.04. So the baryonic density parameter is ~0.05 +/- 0.01.

The BAO results mean that astronomers have found about 80% of the baryonic matter in the universe (at least 66% if we use the pessimistic limit of the result).

However that is moot because the above results give a limit on the density of baryonic matter in the universe of < 6%. That means that ~94% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually those four papers I provided earlier in the other plasma cosmology thread demonstrate the validity of his solar 'circuit' theories very convincingly via satellite data. I'll have to go back to the conversation soon and see how folks did at analyzing those papers. I'm expecially curious to see if Tim came up with a physical explanation for 'magnetic reconnection' that can be shown not to be a "short circuit" in two current carrying filaments and induction.

Wrong as usual MM!

The second paper contains a physical explanation for magnetic reconnection between the twisted magnetic ropes. Their model is built on the empirical measurments of the 2 flares.

• Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
  This is an model about large scale electric fields in the flares produced by coronal loops. See Fig 2 for the loop (FYI: all the B's are magnetic fields!) and flare.
• Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare
  This is a twisted magnetic rope model for these 2 solar flares. It bascially states that solar flares vary (big surprise!), the standard magnetic reconnection model explains most of them but there are some flares that fit their magnetic reconnection between twisted magnetic flux rope model. See section 3.3 (page 16) of the paper "Flare, Ejecta, and a Cusp-like Feature".
• Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops
  This paper is about a model for the acceleration of electrons in solar flares. FYI: It says nothing about the coronal loops and nothing about causes the acceleration.
  

  Results: The standard thin-thick target solar flare model cannot explain the observations of all events. In the events presented here, propagation effects in the form of non-collisional energy loss are of importance to explain the observations. We demonstrate that those energy losses can be interpreted in terms of an electric field in the flare loop. One event seems consistent with particle propagation or acceleration in lower than average density in the coronal source.
  Conclusions: We find observational evidence for an electric field in flare loops caused by return currents.

  
  And on page 4:

  In the above analysis, we assumed that the electrons experienced a constant energy loss while streaming down the loop. We now demonstrate that this energy loss could be caused by an electric potential in the loop that drives a return current.

• A fresh look on the heating mechanisms of the Solar corona
  This is a letter rather than the full paper that was published but the abstract and text is clear. It is about modeling the acceleration of electrons by electric fields to explain the coronal heating problem. It is nothing to do with electrical discharges. It is standard solar physics.

In conclusion:
None of these papers support your physically impossible coronal loops are elecrical discharges idea. All of these papers are standard solar physics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm extremely curious how you came to that conclusion? Ions are known to exist today in nature. There's nothing "fantastic" about their existence in the past. Inflation however is quite "fantastic" both in the fact it does density defying tricks that no other known force of nature can do today, and because it's now supposedly 'non existent' and will forever defy empirical support. I fail to see how you can even compare a non existent inflation favorably to a theory that only requires preexisting matter.

Well, the theory begins with an unexplained (eternal?) highly dispersed ion mist. That is quite fantastic in itself, wouldn't you say?

Actually those four papers I provided earlier in the other plasma cosmology thread demonstrate the validity of his solar 'circuit' theories very convincingly via satellite data. I'll have to go back to the conversation soon and see how folks did at analyzing those papers. I'm expecially curious to see if Tim came up with a physical explanation for 'magnetic reconnection' that can be shown not to be a "short circuit" in two current carrying filaments and induction.

I have not seen those. In any case, it seems to this layman that plasmas, electric circuits and magnetic fields in and around the sun are not evidence of EU effects on a cosmological scale. This point has been made by others quite convincingly over the last several months.

The demonstration of "missing mass" is straight forward even from my perspective. WIMPS and axions however are a pure "leap of faith in the unseen".

OK, but are not WIMPS and axions speculations in the same spirit that hydrogen was a speculation based on solar spectra?

Well, actually I would admit that it's 'speculative' but then what idea isn't "speculative"? You mean to tell me that you don't think that inflation is "speculative"? Perratt was able to emulate galaxy formations in terms of rotation patterns without even resorting to extra mass. What large scale structures do you mean?

OK.

So how exactly is that a "double standard" in your opinion? I really am curious because you seem to be pretty "fair" on most points, but position seems to be a bit 'out there' from my vantage point. Isn't it logical to favor any theory that doesn't require "make believe" forces of nature? Where do you subjectively draw the line if you aren't using empirical physics as the barometer of "better" theories vs "poorer" theories? What makes Axions or Wimps "better' than Birkeland's ideas about 'dark matter' that we are unlikely to see from Earth?

Would you not have considered hydrogen a make believe element before it was demonstrated to exist on earth? Was not Neptune a make believe planet before it was actually seen? If not, there is your double standard!

Well, in the case of dark matter, I've tried intentionally to note the difference between something that 'might be' empirically verified like SUSY theory for instance, and something like non existent inflation that is a pure act of faith, now and forever. Whereas you could in theory get the pleasure of watching me eat empirical crow over the discovery of some exotic form of matter that exactly matches you needs, you'll never have the pleasure of demonstrating the empirical validity of inflation. It's non existent and always will be. It's as useless as a dead deity and it will always be exactly that useless as actually "predicting" any events here on Earth.

Inflation is a theory that fits observations. It does seem to me to be quite fantastic -- but as a layman I have no better alternative. I don't see how Alfven's ion mist is any better. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this?

I don't believe that to be true. I've changed my views on cosmology a great deal over the past 20 years. I'd expect my views to keep changing over time as new information becomes available. I tend to keep an open mind, and in fact I had not even heard of PC/EU theory until about 6 years ago. My viewpoints can be changed, but it will require some real evidence to change them. Pointing at the sky and claiming Godflation did it won't cut it for me however, so you could be right and probably are right about my feelings towards inflation. Dark energy could eventually turn out to be something "useful' and potentially "real" think like an all pervasive EM field, but then it wouldn't be "dark energy" any longer and we would no longer be ignorant of the actual physical cause of acceleration.

I would say that my views toward SUSY theory could change and might change over the next ten years depending on the outcome of the LHC experiments. I believe it to be "unlikely' from my perspective, only because any particle found would have to match at least a 1/2 dozen different "properties" to actually fill in the current gaps of astronomical theory. Even if they find some new form of matter, there's no guarantee it will have the longevity, EM invisibility, or any of the other properties being assigned to "dark matter".

You're probably right on the subject on inflation, but then even DRD isn't much of a fan of inflation, and I can never be proven wrong on that point in the future, so am I really that far out on a limb as it relates to inflation?

OK.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think a lot of the discussion hinges on MM perhaps misunderstanding the stance of your average "scientist" here.

For instance... the misunderstanding about what "control" means in experimentation (MM's definition seems at odds with what most scientists mean by the term)...

That's absurd IMO. The scientific method has always included them. It's only astronomers that seem to have a tough time with the concept of a "control mechanism". It's not my fault you chose to put your faith in things you can't physically do anything with. If I asked you to "control" current flow you could install something like a simple switch to do so. It's only because you can't demonstrate DE or inflation exists, let alone "control" it, that you seem to think *MY* definition of control is "unreasonable". No other branch of science would whine about it.

the misunderstanding about negative pressure (again a term with several meanings depending on the context but one which does not inherently violate any known physical laws at all).

That particular debate/disagreement came from Guth's slight of hand where he tried to claim that space had a 'negative pressure". What did you folks propose to add to a "perfect/pure" vacuum to achieve a "negative pressure"?

 

[Tubbythin]

That's absurd IMO. The scientific method has always included them. It's only astronomers that seem to have a tough time with the concept of a "control mechanism".

You have yet to post a single piece of evidence that astronomers ignore control mechanisms.

It's not my fault you chose to put your faith in things you can't physically do anything with. If I asked you to "control" current flow you could install something like a simple switch to do so. It's only because you can't demonstrate DE or inflation exists, let alone "control" it, that you seem to think *MY* definition of control is "unreasonable". No other branch of science would whine about it.

Your definition is not only unreasonable but utterly absurd. If every "legitimate" experiment had to have an off switch we'd have no law of gravity.

That particular debate/disagreement came from Guth's slight of hand where he tried to claim that space had a 'negative pressure". What did you folks propose to add to a "perfect/pure" vacuum to achieve a "negative pressure"?

Quantum mechanics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have yet to post a single piece of evidence that astronomers ignore control mechanisms.

Please describe the control mechanisms for "inflation" and dark energy? 70+ percent of your theory is based on dark energy and without inflation your lump of stuff isn't going anywhere.

Your definition is not only unreasonable but utterly absurd.

Oh boloney. An electrical engineer doesn't complain when you ask them for a control mechanism for "current flow". It's only because your forces/energies/matter is "mythical" that you find my request "unreasonable". You wouldn't bitch if we were arguing about any other empirical form of physics.

If every "legitimate" experiment had to have an off switch we'd have no law of gravity.

That's not true. I explained that a "control mechanism" can be anything, including something as simple as a release mechanism. Gravity isn't shy around the lab. We can argue about what "causes" gravity, but there's no doubt that it is "real' in every empirical way and it has a direct effect on things "here and now", not in some mythical distant past.

Quantum mechanics.

Sorry but QM is on my side of that debate. QM insists that the carrier particle of the EM field is responsible for the Casimir effect and the "pressure" on the outside of the plates is simply "greater than" than pressure between them. You folks simply ignored every reference and pretty picture I provided. We know it's the carrier particle of the EM field is the particle that is doing the work because the type of material in the plates has a direct effect on the 'experiment'. In that case the change/modification of material is a valid "control mechanism".

It's only because your stuff is "mythical" that you whine about needing a control mechanism. If we were discussing any other physical process, you could easily come up with a legitimate control mechanism.

 

[GeeMack]

You folks simply ignored every reference and pretty picture I provided.

Because everybody knows that passing around pretty pictures is how real scientists go about the business of doing real science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, the theory begins with an unexplained (eternal?) highly dispersed ion mist. That is quite fantastic in itself, wouldn't you say?

Compared to "inflation"? Not really. It's "unusual" to be sure that matter would be highly dispersed, but any theory is going to have 'unexplainable' aspects to it. It's certainly not a violation of any laws of physics.

Compare to inflation a "mysterious mist" seems like an acceptable beginning. Inflation literally was invented in the head of a single individual. It has not scientific history before it's "invention". It was created in a purely "ad hoc" manner to "postict" a whole host of observations. It's non existent. I can never even *hope* to empirically verify the concept, not now, not tomorrow, not ever. Compared to that bad boy, a "mysterious mist" is entirely acceptable from my perspective.

I have not seen those. In any case, it seems to this layman that plasmas, electric circuits and magnetic fields in and around the sun are not evidence of EU effects on a cosmological scale.

That depends on what part of 'cosmology' we decide to fixate on doesn't it? Why would you think it unusual that a "theory" that is 96% "made up", can 'explain' anything and everything?

Why would you expect a form of empirical physics to compete with that on "cosmological scales"? I can certainly show you "large structures" in space that are easily associated with plasma processes, including galaxy formations, "Birkeland currents" on massive scales, etc.

The point with the solar debate is that *if* a theory is "useful' in an empirical world, it should be able to 'predict' not only the structures of the universe, but the processes that occur inside our own solar system. It should be a "complete" theory from here to eternity.

Standard theory can't even explain something as simple as solar wind, something Birkeland "predicted" over 100 years ago using EU theory.

This point has been made by others quite convincingly over the last several months.

Considering 96% of their theory is "metaphysical", it's not particularly convincing to a skeptic. Once you lose your faith in a religion you can't go backwards again. Likewise with you lose your faith in Guth's religion, it's not easy to turn off the skepticism.

I don't personally even care if EU theory can or does compete with "magic".

OK, but are not WIMPS and axions speculations in the same spirit that hydrogen was a speculation based on solar spectra?

No. Photons are "real'. They exist in nature. Something "caused" that specific wavelength of light to be emitted from the sun. Elements emit light in specific wavelengths that are determined the valence shell configurations of the atom. Wimps and axions have never been shown to emit anything.

Would you not have considered hydrogen a make believe element before it was demonstrated to exist on earth?

No, not really. I accept that there may in fact be elements in space that simply do not exist here on Earth. As long as they fit somewhere on the periodic table, I'm open to just about anything.

Was not Neptune a make believe planet before it was actually seen? If not, there is your double standard!

There's a *very* important issue here that you keep missing from my perspective. I personally live on a planet. I know they exist. Proposing a new planet when 5 or 6 or more of them are already known to exist, is not an "extraordinary" claim of any sort. While it may have been "speculative' at worst case, no new force of nature was being proposed in any way. There is no double standard because proposing a new planet is not an extraordinary claim. Proposing a new force of nature *is* an extraordinary claim.

Inflation is a theory that fits observations.

It's numerology on a stick from the perspective of a skeptic. Of course it fits those observations because it was "made up" to fit those very same observations! It's been modified continuously since it's introduction to continue to make it fit whatever we want it to fit. How could it not fit?

It does seem to me to be quite fantastic -- but as a layman I have no better alternative.

Why exactly do you feel the need to offer a "better alternative" to reject metaphysical numerology theory?

I don't see how Alfven's ion mist is any better. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this?

It's "better" because it relies upon nothing new, just a specific arrangement of known things. It does have a unique set of physical circumstances at the "beginning' but then so does Lambda-CMD theory. Every theory must have a beginning set of conditions, and no theory can justify *WHY* those conditions exist. It's "mysterious" at worst case, a little 'too convenient' if you're skeptical of the idea. Compared to simply 'making up' a new force of nature and custom fitting it with all the properties Guth gave it, Alfven's initial conditions seem like minor points.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because everybody knows that passing around pretty pictures is how real scientists go about the business of doing real science.

You also ignored every reference I provided, ignore the fact that *ALL VACUUMS ON EARTH HAVE POSITIVE PRESSURE IN THEM* and you ignored the fact that the *EM* field did the work. You don't even have pretty pictures to work with, just a *RELATIVE* math formula that you obviously don't understand.

 

[Tubbythin]

Please describe the control mechanisms for "inflation" and dark energy?

These are not experiments. These are interpretations of results. Pick a specific paper and I'll tell you.

70+ percent of your theory is based on dark energy and without inflation your lump of stuff isn't going anywhere.

Wrong and wrong.

Oh boloney. An electrical engineer doesn't complain when you ask them for a control mechanism for "current flow". It's only because your forces/energies/matter is "mythical" that you find my request "unreasonable". You wouldn't bitch if we were arguing about any other empirical form of physics.

I'm not complaining because you're asking about control mechanisms. I'm saying how clearly wrong you when you say that dark matter detection experiments don't include control mechanisms. I've given you three clear examples of these already. Now either:
1) You admit these are control mechanisms and retract your earlier statement.
or
2) You continue to talk about experiments requiring on/off switches in which case I will continue to laugh at the absurdity of your definition.
Which is it to be.

That's not true. I explained that a "control mechanism" can be anything, including something as simple as a release mechanism.

You have repeatedly asked for the source of dark matter and stated that without an off switch it is not a controlled experiment. Therefore, by this standard, no experiment to study something which has no on/off switch can be considered legitimate. Since gravity has no on/off switch that includes all experiments to study gravity. Why are we arguing about missing mass when, by your standard of argument we don't have any legitimate experiments for determining a law of gravity?

Gravity isn't shy around the lab. We can argue about what "causes" gravity, but there's no doubt that it is "real' in every empirical way and it has a direct effect on things "here and now", not in some mythical distant past.

Still doesn't have an on/off switch though.
So are you going to stop with this rubbish about controlled experiments requiring an on/off switch or are you going to continue to repeat the same ridiculous argument.

Sorry but QM is on my side of that debate.

Wrong.

QM insists that the carrier particle of the EM field is responsible for the Casimir effect

Wrong again, according to QM there is a weak and strong force equivalent. They're just not measurable at the current time.

and the "pressure" on the outside of the plates is simply "greater than" than pressure between them.

No. The number of modes that can be "contained" within the space between the plates increases as the metallic plates are separated. Since there are are more modes there is greater vacuum energy. Since the plates have been moved apart the volume has increased. That is the energy has increased as the volume has. That is dE/dV is positive. Hence -dE/dV is negative. Since pressure is equal to -dE/dV the pressure is negative.

You folks simply ignored every reference

Your primary reference was wikipedia. (Which in no way supported your assertions anyway. In fact, it actually linked to an article on Casimir pressure which explicitly says: "Therefore, dividing the magnitude of Casimir force by the area of each conductor, Casimir pressure can be found. Because Casimir force between conductors is attractive then the Casimir pressure in space between the conductors is negative.")

and pretty picture I provided.

Your primary picture was a picture from wikipedia. It was also wrong.

We know it's the carrier particle of the EM field is the particle that is doing the work because the type of material in the plates has a direct effect on the 'experiment'.

Sure. It changes the boundary conditions.

In that case the change/modification of material is a valid "control mechanism".

I'd agree. I fail to see your point.

It's only because your stuff is "mythical" that you whine about needing a control mechanism.

What on Earth are you talking about. It was you who whining about control mechanisms. It was you who was insisting dark matter detectors didn't have them. It was you who came up with the absurd idea that to be a controlled experiment the source must always have an on/off switch.

If we were discussing any other physical process, you could easily come up with a legitimate control mechanism.

I just came up with three control mechanisms for dark matter detectors without even looking very hard. Have you forgotten that too? Or do you think putting the detectors underground is just for fun? That using lead shielding that's been buried underwater for centuries is just for a bit of laugh? And that large amounts of money are spent cooling the detectors just for the hell of it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The second paper contains a physical explanation for magnetic reconnection between the twisted magnetic ropes.

First of all, do you think I haven't noticed that you personally haven't touched that first or third paper yet? Care to explain that dodgy behavior?

Secondly, did you read Alfven's explanation of a "magnetic rope" and how he compared it to a "Bennett Pinch"?

That "magnetic rope" is going to hang you because that is exactly the thing Alfven is using in his "circuit". The "reconnection" process is between "circuits", not "magnetic lines".

How about that first paper RC, or did you intend to just live in pure denial?

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid

Hi Michael Mozina.
You have been mentioning the "Klein model" in this thread. That is better known as plasma cosmology or Alfven-Klein cosmology. It has a number of problems that make it invalid.

First asked 8 January 2010
Michael Mozina
Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?

For example:
Alfven-Klein cosmology cannot match the details of the CMB. You can plug the observed CMB temperature into it. But you cannot the observed anisotropy in the CMB from Alfven-Klein cosmology (maybe not even that it is a perfect black body spectrum).
Alfven-Klein cosmology cannot match the observed X-ray background.

And from Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"

In the BBNH, Lerner presents the Alfven-Klein model which explains the redshift using a portion of the Universe that starts to collapse, then the collapse is reversed. This model requires new physics to generate the force necessary reverse the collapse Figure 6.2 of BBNH shows the collapse, reversal, and later expansion of a region of space. The figure below shows space-time diagrams based on this idea. In a space-time diagram, time is plotted going upward, with the bottom being the distant past. The black lines show the paths of different clumps of matter (galaxies) as function of time. These are called "world-lines". The red lines show the position of light rays that reach us now at the top center of the diagrams. These are called "light cones". Lerner says that only a small region of space collapsed: only a few hundred million light-years across. This is shown on the left. But if this were the case, then the distant galaxy at G would have a recession velocity smaller than the recession velocity of the nearby galaxy A. This is not what we observe. Thus a much larger region must have collapsed. This is shown on the right. Now G has a larger recession velocity than A which matches the observations.

What causes the reversal from collapse to re-expansion? Lerner claims that it is the pressure caused by the annihilation of matter and antimatter during the collapse. The green ellipse shows this high pressure region. But only pressure differences cause forces. A pressure gradient is needed to generate an acceleration. In the case of a large region of collapse, which is needed to match the observations, a larger acceleration requires a larger pressure gradient, and this gradient exists over a larger distance, leading to a greatly increased pressure.
But in relativity pressure has "weight" and causes stronger gravitational attraction. This can be seen using work W = PdV, so the pressure is similar to an energy density. Then through E = mc2, this energy density is similar to a mass density. If the collapsing region is big enough to match the observations, then the pressure must be so large that a black hole forms and the region does not re-expand. Peebles discusses this problem with the plasma cosmology in his book "Principles of Physical Cosmology".

Remarkably, Lerner now disowns the the Alfven-Klein model which plays such a big part in the BBNH, and wants me to give the proper attribution! He points out that he listed problems with the Alfven-Klein model in the Appendix of BBNH, but these were rather minor problems compared to the fact that it just won't work!