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

[Michael Mozina]

I have learned nothing at all within the limits you specify, "in terms of the case MM seems to be trying to make." I did learn early on, a long time ago, that Mozina is not rational and therefore not capable of rational discussion. I see no reason to believe that things have changed at all along those lines, over what must now be a few years I guess.

I'm "rational" enough to have created and run my own business successfully for over 17 years. I'm rational enough to have a wife that I've been married to for 20 years. I'm rational enough to have raised two lovely daughters, one that will be starting college next year. I'm rational enough that the banks lent me money to buy a home, and I'm rational enough to have made every payment so far on time, not to mention lend them money with my tax dollars. (is that rational?) How exactly are you defining "rational"? You mean that if I don't come around to your way of thinking in a year or so, I'm not "rational" anymore Tim?

What if your crusade against empirical physics has been "irrational" Tim? What if my belief system (in EU theory) has nothing at all to do with the problem, but rather it's your unwillingness to consider any other alternatives that is the real root of the problem Tim?

The rest of your rant is hardly worth responding to with the exception of the "religion" comment. I think I'll crucify you for that one if you don't mind.

Tim, your belief system is a "religion", whereas my belief systems are based upon empirical physics, physics that actually works in the lab. I don't believe in "dark energies" when a religious person tells me "dark energies" did it. Likewise I don't believe you when you claim "dark energies" did it. I don't believe either of you for exactly the same empirical reason. Neither of you can demonstrate that "dark evil energies" exist in nature or have any effect on nature.

What you can demonstrate via redshift patterns is a long term pattern of "acceleration". That is no more due to your brand of "dark energies" than any religious "dark evil energy". Empirically speaking nothing like that exists in nature. You're blowing mathematical smoke. Acceleration is not "dark energy". If you claim "dark energy" can cause acceleration, demonstrate it. If you can't demonstrate it empirically exists, don't blame me for your failures.

Guth literally "made up" inflation in his head, on the spot, without a lick of preexisting science on the topic of "inflation". He literally postdicted the whole thing to fit and endowed his creation with supernatural properties. It's pure human fabrication from one human imagination. From there it became a "MEME", and a dead one at that. It's a impotent today and as irrelevant to empirical physics today as any dead deistic entity. It cannot and will not ever show up in an empirical experiment and must there *ALWAYS* remain an "act of faith" on the part of "believer". Don't even think about lecturing me about 'religion".

It's not my fault you chose to believe in these things Tim, and it's not my fault you can't get a non existent inflation deity, or "dark energies" to show up in a lab, anymore than it's my fault that a religious person lacks empirical support for one of their pet beliefs.

Now "empirical physics" can be demonstrated to be "wrong" occasionally, but it's not "irrational" to lack belief in something that lacks empirical support Tim. Blame me all you like, whine all you like, bitch all you like, but it's not my personal fault you chose to put your faith in non existent stuff that has no effect on me.

FYI, when it comes to acting like a "religion", you guys/gals are in a class all by yourselves. Even religious websites tend to treat 'skeptics" better than your little cult. You folks even hold witch trials over at BAUT to "hunt down" any and all offending belief systems. I've never seen a religious website act more aggressively and repressively than that place.

You ignore valid scientific evidence when it's presented to you like those last 3 papers I handed you. You ignored those white light images on the DVD for weeks TIM. Even still the most vocal among you go from website to website to persecute PC/EU theory wherever and whenever you can. Talk about irrational behaviors Tim. When it comes to irrational behaviors Tim, you win that battle hands down.

 

[ben m]

Did "spacetime" even exist during Guth's "negative pressure vacuum" scenario? When did "matter" as we understand it form?

First off, I wasn't talking about inflation, I was talking about dark energy.

Inflation = hypothesized to have occurred before (or as the first quadrillionth of a femtosecond of) the Big Bang. Dark energy = tiny acceleration observed to be affecting the Universe today and for the past 13.7 Gy. They're different. Is "the spacetime within which we observe large-scale structure between z=0 and z=1.7" enough context for you?

ETA: Anyway, yes, spacetime existed during inflation. Look at Guth's paper and the zillion other papers on the topic and what do you see? A hypothesis about what the spacetime was doing. You see a FRW-like equation for its expansion, of exactly the same form as the modern-universe equation, just with different source terms.

There is no "spacetime" without mass.

You are misunderstanding GR. With some exceptions, as far as GR can tell spacetime is always there. (Einstein's famous statement "spacetime would disappear" has nothing to do with your issue.) In the absence of energy, you have spacetime with strictly uniform curvature. In the presence of energy, you have spacetime with energy-dependent curvature. GR doesn't care if the energy consists of "mass as we know it" (what does that even mean?), or photons, or inflatons, or nuclear binding energy, or vacuum energy, or whatever.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, but evidently you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge that I already did that for you. If you're going to create this annoying lists of yours, the very least you could do is update them once in a blue moon and acknowledge the questions that have already been answered.

The stupidity continues so lets yell at you a bit:

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

In the case of strong nuclear force (or anything we might physically demonstrate "someday"), there is some hope of eventually verifying the concept via active empirical experimentation, if not today, then someday.

Compared to buying into a dead inflation deity, we're comparing dead apples to living oranges.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perfectly fair question. So we have two hypotheses, one being:

a) "The Universe, which obeys GR, has a constant vacuum energy density whose magnitude is Lambda". One parameter.

Er, "one" parameter?

You just added GR theory to physical universe filled with "vacuum energy" and "Lamdba" (whatever you mean by that word) and did it "one parameter"? Let's see that one parameter math.

and the other being

b) "God arranges all of the accelerations however he wants". Infinity parameters.

Well, first off, option B) explains *WHY* it happened when it happened. B) allows us to posit *ONE* thing "God", where you have three different variables, Godflation, God energy and God matter. We also now know where all these three variables (Godflation,God energy, God matter) come from (unlike that A) theory) It also happens to "explain" why the planet is overwhelmingly theistic as a species and claim to commune with something they call "God". Come on Ben, you'll have to do better than that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The stupidity continues

No the 'stupidity' is not even trying to use the search engine. I provided you with the actual quote, not just a page number. It's page *721*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA: Anyway, yes, spacetime existed during inflation.

In what "form" did "matter" exist prior to inflation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

One more attempt to clarify my point for you PS:

I do believe that there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that "acceleration" is possible and in fact probable. I have no physical evidence that "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that "acceleration". It's not that I doubt the existence of acceleration, I doubt that dark energy had anything to do with it. Is that helpful in clarifying my position on "dark energy"?

 

[Pythonic]

If your basis of refutation, MM, is how dark matter just cannot be supported by empirical, everyday common experience evidence, and is nothing more than a mathematical idealization, why not go after the enigmas of quantum mechanics?

 

[Tubbythin]

One more attempt to clarify my point for you PS:

I do believe that there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that "acceleration" is possible and in fact probable. I have no physical evidence that "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that "acceleration". It's not that I doubt the existence of acceleration, I doubt that dark energy had anything to do with it. Is that helpful in clarifying my position on "dark energy"?

Then you are trying to refute a tautology.

 

[Reality Check]

No the 'stupidity' is not even trying to use the search engine. I provided you with the actual quote, not just a page number. It's page *721*.

You did not provitde me with the actual quote.
This is your post

I already did that earlier. Try page 771.
...

Page 721 daoes not have "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"
It has a calculation of the impact on the Earth's motion due to corpuscles in space.
"There is also another question which naturally presents itself for investigation: Will the assumed ;nsity of flying corpuscles in space bring about any appreciable resistance to the motion of the heavily
bodies?
...
Let us look at the case as regards the earth, when it was assumed that there were 10 iron atoms ;r cubic centimetre in space"
That is not a calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars.

A dumb person would use this 100 year old calculation as an estimate for the average density of the universe.

An intelligent person would know that Birkeland was limited by the knowledge of the time, e.g. not knowing abour galaxies and the enormous distances between them. They would use the modern calculation of the average density of the universe as about 1 hydrogen atom per 4 cubic meters.

 

[Reality Check]

First asked 7 January 2010 and now answered correctly
In response to:

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"?

I asked:
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?

The answer is page 721 of Birkeland's book (published in 1908).
But page 721 daoes not actually have "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"
It has a calculation of the impact on the Earth's motion due to corpuscles in space.
"There is also another question which naturally presents itself for investigation: Will the assumed ;nsity of flying corpuscles in space bring about any appreciable resistance to the motion of the heavily
bodies?
...
Let us look at the case as regards the earth, when it was assumed that there were 10 iron atoms ;r cubic centimetre in space"
That is not a calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars.

A dumb person would use this 100 year old calculation as an estimate for the average density of the universe.

An intelligent person would know that Birkeland was limited by the knowledge of the time, e.g. not knowing that about galaxies and the enormous distances between them. They would use the modern calculation of the average density of the universe as about 1 hydrogen atom per 4 cubic meters.

The progress of science has invalidated MM's thesis (of course ). He thinks that Birkeland's high value for the density means that there is a lot of undiscovered matter. The fact is that the values for the average density of the universe have decreased as science has learned more about the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

1. 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.
2. Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
   First asked 8 January 2010
3. A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
   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)
4. What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
   First asked 9 January 2010

Answered questions:

1. Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
   He made a rough calculation on page 721 of his 1908 book of the average density of matter that is not in stars.
   That calculation was correct at the time given the knowledge of the universe.
   The calculation is wrong now since we know more about the universe.

 

[ben m]

Er, "one" parameter? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/jaw-dropping.gif[/qimg] You just added GR theory to physical universe filled with "vacuum energy" and "Lamdba" (whatever you mean by that word) and did it "one parameter"? Let's see that one parameter math.
[/latex]

[latex] R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu} [/latex]

Lambda, the constant vacuum energy density, is a single parameter. You add it to the EFE and you get a valid GR equation that describes the spacetime that's been observed over the past 13.7 Gy. The value of this parameter is 10^−29 g/cm^3.

Well, first off, option B) explains *WHY* it happened when it happened.

I asked whether you had a theory that predicted for the intensity of supernovae at redshift of 1.8?

Your "god" strawman argument is just as good (or bad) at rejecting modern cosmology as it is at rejecting plasma cosmology, Maxwell's Equations, evolution, hydrodynamics, Shakespeare authorship hypotheses, and everything else.

 

[ben m]

One more attempt to clarify my point for you PS:

I do believe that there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that "acceleration" is possible and in fact probable. I have no physical evidence that "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that "acceleration". It's not that I doubt the existence of acceleration, I doubt that dark energy had anything to do with it. Is that helpful in clarifying my position on "dark energy"?

You realize, of course, that the evidence for acceleration explicitly relies on

a) the use of the CMB as a point on the distance ladder, giving it its usual mainstream interpretation
b) the use of a "hot gas + dark matter + gravity" wave equation to figure out how matter moved around during the CMB epoch, and
c) the use of gravity, and only gravity, to effect the large-scale motion of structures from the CMB era to the present.

I am only too happy if you have come around to accepting those interpretations.

To say "there is evidence for acceleration" with one breath, and "I subscribe to an alternative Alfven-Klein cosmology" with the other, is utterly inconsistent. It's like saying, "The last common human-chimp ancestor was already distinct from the gibbons", and also "The Grand Canyon was formed instantly in Noah's flood".

 

[ben m]

In what "form" did "matter" exist prior to inflation?

Since you are someone who wants to demand absurd amounts of benchtop-experiment evidence for everything---why on Earth are you asking about the thing for which we have the least evidence of all?

Nobody knows what existed prior to inflation. There are various guesses. None of them can be told apart from one another by any evidence we know of yet.

Why do you ask? Do you think that not knowing somehow invalidates anything that comes next? Funny, I shouldn't think that you need to resort to that argument until you've abandoned the "negative pressure is a contradiction" tack.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about inflation, and I certainly wasn't talking about something before inflation. I was talking about dark energy which apparently exists today, long after the end of inflation and long, long, long after "spacetime doesn't exist" could even be floated as an anti-GR argument.

 

[Perpetual Student]

One more attempt to clarify my point for you PS:

I do believe that there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that "acceleration" is possible and in fact probable. I have no physical evidence that "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that "acceleration". It's not that I doubt the existence of acceleration, I doubt that dark energy had anything to do with it. Is that helpful in clarifying my position on "dark energy"?

Not really. You tell me how your position makes any sense. We know of no way to experience acceleration without force in a lab (as you would say -- "in a lab!!!"). For a continuing rate of acceleration to occur an ongoing input of energy is required in a lab (as you would say -- "in a lab!!!"). So, how would you have us believe there is an observed continuing cosmic acceleration (which you have agreed exists), without a continuing input of energy? Does god-do-it?
You see, you are the one left with the necessity for some make-believe/supernatural/paranormal cause. Cosmologists are using known physics from known "lab stuff!!!" -- that you claim you so love. You see, you have painted yourself into a logical corner! Trying to squirm out is futile -- just admit you are wrong!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not really. You tell me how your position makes any sense. We know of no way to experience acceleration without force in a lab (as you would say -- "in a lab!!!"). For a continuing rate of acceleration to occur an ongoing input of energy is required in a lab (as you would say -- "in a lab!!!").

And in the LAB, the most obvious way to accelerate a plasma is to use an EM field. All I can tell from my "lab experiments" is that the EM field "could be" a "force" that might cause plasma to accelerate. What else might we explore that is "real" and shows up in the lab? I'm open to other suggestions, but it has to be something that isn't shy around a lab and is physically distinguishable from "magic energy".

So, how would you have us believe there is an observed continuing cosmic acceleration (which you have agreed exists), without a continuing input of energy? Does god-do-it?

If he/she did, she did it with an EM field IMO.

I'm not doubting the fact that acceleration happens, just the concept that "dark evil energies" did it.

You see, you are the one left with the necessity for some make-believe/supernatural/paranormal cause.

Not at all. I'm happy with my "hunch" about any "force of acceleration" for the time being and I "invented" nothing new. At worst case I'll have to admit "no, I can't quite explain it", but then neither can you without "whipping up" something in a purely ad hoc manner. Which now is the worse "flaw"?

Cosmologists are using known physics from known "lab stuff!!!"

Oh boloney. They avoid the lab like the plaque. They've long since traded in their lab coat for a computer simulation, and they can't distinguish between empirical science and a "SIM world" anymore. It's all an "experiment" from their perspective.

-- that you claim you so love. You see, you have painted yourself into a logical corner! Trying to squirm out is futile -- just admit you are wrong!

The only way I could have painted myself into a corner is to *DENY* acceleration (which I do not) or to claim "Michael's magic energy did it" with nothing more than your pilfered "dark energy" formulas. Sorry PS, but it just isn't that "easy" here to ignore the problem. Yes, there is evidence for "acceleration". No, there is *ZERO* evidence "dark evil energies did it". There is an empirical gap a mile wide between your "cause/effect" claim. Acceleration can't be caused by "dark energy" because you've never shown "dark energy" even accelerate a single thing in a lab. You can't "exclude" an EM field because *IT DOES* show up in a lab and you don't like the fact you can't make it fit right. At least me claiming "EM fields did it' has some empirical viability even without a working math formula. A working math formula would simply be a "bonus".

Just out of curiosity, why don't you find out exactly how they already "eliminated' an EM field from consideration, particularly since everyone now keeps calling it a "force". How does this "force" manifest itself and what exactly does it "do" that creates "acceleration"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You realize, of course, that the evidence for acceleration explicitly relies on

a) the use of the CMB as a point on the distance ladder, giving it its usual mainstream interpretation
b) the use of a "hot gas + dark matter + gravity" wave equation to figure out how matter moved around during the CMB epoch, and
c) the use of gravity, and only gravity, to effect the large-scale motion of structures from the CMB era to the present.

I am only too happy if you have come around to accepting those interpretations.

FYI, for the past 15+ years I've personally favored an accelerated expansion process. It was never "acceleration" that I questioned. The physical disconnect in your "dark energy" theory is at the level of empirical physics. That is because you can't get "dark energy" to accelerate a single atom in a lab. Why should I then believe it causes a whole universe to accelerate?

Why and how did you guys exclude an EM field again?

To say "there is evidence for acceleration" with one breath, and "I subscribe to an alternative Alfven-Klein cosmology" with the other, is utterly inconsistent. It's like saying, "The last common human-chimp ancestor was already distinct from the gibbons", and also "The Grand Canyon was formed instantly in Noah's flood".

That was a really funny strawman you built there Ben. Not at all. All that you might ever demonstrate via the CMB is a pattern of acceleration. The cause/effect link between "dark energy" and "acceleration" has never been empirically established. Did you just expect me to ignore that small little flaw or what?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If your basis of refutation, MM, is how dark matter just cannot be supported by empirical, everyday common experience evidence, and is nothing more than a mathematical idealization, why not go after the enigmas of quantum mechanics?

Because the math in QM is applied to actual physical things like photons so we can then compare the math to the empirical experiment. The effects of QM show up in controlled experiments. Notice that I can't do that with 'dark energy', 'inflation' or "dark matter".