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

[Reality Check]

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?

First of all, do you think I haven't noticed that you personally cannot read?
I read the papers. They are the use of electric circuits to describe the flares.
Neither says anthing about the coronal loops. They are about the flares produced by coronal loops.
First paper: 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.
Third paper: 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.

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

I did.
Did you read the second paper and see that explanation of the flares as the result of the interaction between magnetic ropes and how a Bennett pinch never appears in the paper?

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

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.

Can you read MM?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Use Guth's original paper. I'm willing to let you use any paper you like on the topic of inflation or dark energy and tell me what the control mechanism is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

First of all, do you think I haven't noticed that you personally cannot read?
I read the papers. They are the use of electric circuits to describe the flares.

Then the reconnection takes place between two "circuits" RC just like Alfven predicted, not two "magnetic lines"! How much more evasive can you be on this topic?

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

1. Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
   First asked 7 January 2010
2. Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
   First asked 7 January 2010
   Note that baryonic mass includes all the things you have mentioned, e.g. rocks, planets, electron, ions, plasma, black holes, etc.
3. Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
   First asked 8 January 2010

 

[GeeMack]

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.

And since you clearly do understand the math, why don't you explain it to us?

 

[Reality Check]

Then the reconnection takes place between two "circuits" RC just like Alfven predicted, not two "magnetic lines"! How much more evasive can you be on this topic?

No. The circuits have nothing to do with the reconnection. How much more evasive can you be on this topic?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. The number of modes that can be "contained" within the space between the plates increases as the metallic plates are separated.

The "pressure" of those "modes" on the inside of the plates is "less than" (not negative) the "pressure" from those same modes on the *OUTSIDE* of the plates. Hoy.

 

[Reality Check]

The "pressure" of those "modes" on the inside of the plates is "less than" (not negative) the "pressure" from those same modes on the *OUTSIDE* of the plates. Hoy.

And the difference is negative. Hoy

 

[GeeMack]

The "pressure" of those "modes" on the inside of the plates is "less than" (not negative) the "pressure" from those same modes on the *OUTSIDE* of the plates. Hoy.

Why don't you explain the *RELATIVE* math formula that you obviously understand? Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. The circuits have nothing to do with the reconnection. How much more evasive can you be on this topic?

You are in hardcore denial RC. Magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum without beginning and without end. Individual magnetic lines are physically incapable of "disconnecting" from or "reconnecting" to any other "magnetic lines". Only "circuits" can "disconnect" and "reconnect" in plasma. The "magnetic ropes" that are used in the second paper to describe the reconnection process are exactly the same "magnetic ropes" that Alfven describes as "circuits" in his papers and books and that he equates to a "Bennett Pinch" in plasma.

All of those papers (and all of Alfven's solar papers) describe the "circuits" in the solar atmosphere. The only physical things that can physically *RECONNECT* are the circuits in the solar atmosphere, not magnetic lines. Those papers all demonstrate the presence of "circuits" in what you are calling a "magnetic line".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why don't you explain the *RELATIVE* math formula that you obviously understand? Hoy.

The - sign is completely and absolutely relative. It simply denotes the "pressure difference" between the outside and inside of the plates!

The stupid thing about this debate is that all vacuums on Earth have *positive pressure* so there is no physical way in hell there is a "negative pressure" between the plates! Man this is a stupid argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the difference is negative. Hoy

Did you even think about what you just said? The *DIFFERENCE* has nothing to do with the *ABSOLUTE PRESSURE*, its a *RELATIVE* number. Think about it!

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

I already did that earlier. Try page 771.

FYI, you owe me an hour and 45 minutes of your time. I watched that last video you suggested on 'dark energy'. While I enjoyed the "teaching style" of teacher, his statements during that particular video did not help your case. Despite the title of the video, it was pretty much limited to Newtonian physics and described gravity and dark energy as a 'force'. Do you even personally agree with that statement? FYI, I don't believe that the instructor even believed gravity or dark energy to be a force, he simply did so for purposes of that particular lecture involving Newtonian physics.

 

[Reality Check]

A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina

A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina.

First asked 8 January 2010
(but a continuation of the various displays of your inability to grasp the concept of negative pressure in other threads since April 2009)

Michael Mozina

• A force F pushes on a surface of area A.
  What is the pressure?
• A force F pulls on a surface of area A.
  What is the pressure?

N.B. a force has both magnitude and direction.

When you have answered these I will ask another question. That will show you that negative pressure has to exist.

 

[Reality Check]

I already did that earlier. Try page 771.

Page 771 in Birkeland's book is a table of figures.
Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
First asked 7 January 2010

Or a link to the post where you previously gave the citation.

FYI, you owe me an hour and 45 minutes of your time. I watched that last video you suggested on 'dark energy'. While I enjoyed the "teaching style" of teacher, his statements during that particular video did not help your case. Despite the title of the video, it was pretty much limited to Newtonian physics and described gravity and dark energy as a 'force'. Do you even personally agree with that statement? FYI, I don't believe that the instructor even believed gravity or dark energy to be a force, he simply did so for purposes of that particular lecture involving Newtonian physics.

You missed the title of the lecture series: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
It is not a lecture on dark energy. The first 10 minutes are a response to a question about dark energy.
You missed that that video is the second of 12 lectures (all about 2 hours long!)

The lecture starts with decribing Newtonian mechanics. That is what happens in science lectures - introduce the basics and then go onto the advanced stuff.

I personally agree that the actions of gravity and dark energy can be decribed as forces. They however are not forces in the classic sense.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I've learnt that often the would-be results of the arguments Michael makes are in direct contradiction to the argument he's trying to make.
His case seems to be there can be nothing new in physics which he wasn't taught at school unless you can make a gram of it in a lab. Which is, without doubt, one of the stupidest arguments against the current cosmological paradigm I have ever heard.

Thanks.

No doubt MM sees it differently ... have you come across anyone else, here in this part of the JREF forum, who has similar views to MM's (in this respect)?

What would you say is the most concise, telling example of this self-defeating approach of MM's?

 

[Pythonic]

I probably have no right to pop my head up in this debate (certainly, out of my depth), but it seems that negative pressure is indeed accepted in standard physics. What is the case against its existence exactly? It seems MM is implying it's just common sense that absolute pressure can't be negative. I think you need to make a much stronger case than that, MM. Your language, and that argument in particular, makes you come across more like a layman than a physicist.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As a non-participant, I can't answer that.

As a non-physicist lurker, however, I can report that I have learned a number of things by following this thread, and that it has been far more interesting than reading Bjarne's threads. It isn't hard for lurkers to figure out which participants know what they're talking about, and which participant can be ignored.

Will

Now I'll HAVE to go read some of Bjarne's threads!

I've come across comments in a similar vein several times before (not just wrt MM), and I'm beginning to think that there might be a powerful pedagogical technique here somewhere, one that I don't recall having seen in any teacher training materials.

If there are any educators reading this, would you mind commenting? Specifically, do you know if the sort of exchange that is common in this (and other MM) thread(s) is used in a known teaching methodology (and if so, what)? Lurkers (students) certainly do seem to enjoy reading along, and they also certainly do seem to learn stuff that might otherwise be very hard to learn ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

Thanks too.

I too was surprised to learn just how blind MM is to the historical dimension of physics (and cosmology), and am still at a loss to understand it ... I mean, it's not like he's so young that putting himself in the shoes of an educated person in the west a century or so ago could be very difficult^. Further, it's not like his near total inability to thinking quantitatively (sadly, that's all too common) ... the ability to think about things from a historical perspective is a characteristic of minds that I thought was near universal.

^ of course, plenty of young people can do this with ease, but, generally, it seems to be easier for people who've already spent 3+ decades on this Earth

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I'm beginning to think that there might be a powerful pedagogical technique here somewhere, one that I don't recall having seen in any teacher training materials.

Really? I would have thought it dates back as far as Gallileo at least? Although this and similar threads are more colourful versions, more suitable to the modern age