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

[Michael Mozina]

Then you are trying to refute a tautology.

IMO your "dark evil energies" seem to be as physically impotent at the level of controlled experimentation as any religious dark energies I've seen.

 

[ben m]

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

As you know from the discussion of the Casimir effect, and from the CMB, etc., EM fields weaken as the Universe expands. (The CMB was hot and dense in the past, and cool and diffuse now.) That is a negative dE/dV (which we call what? positive pressure!) and therefore inconsistent with the observed expansion history which matches a positive dE/dV.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

You are doing your usual demonstation of your ignorance of science along in your latest posts:

• You still do not understand that dark energy is a placeholder for whatever causes the acceleration that you accept happens.
• Dark energy cannot be an EM field acting on plasma unless you can support your assertion that it is with more than meaningless rhetoric.
• You are still ignorant of the meaning of empirical in science.
• You are still obsessed with "controllable" without being able to define what you mean - see the previous posts about "control mechanisms".

Then now there is new psuedo religious gibberish: ""dark evil energies" and the "religious dark energies I've seen"

First asked 12 January 2010
Michael Mozina,

• What makes dark energy evil?
• Is dark energy evil even if it is an EM field?
• Just how many religious dark energies have you seem?
• Are there physically potent dark energies and how you tell the difference?

ETA:
I have seen one paper that models dark energy as cosmological electromagnetic fields: Cosmological electromagnetic fields and dark energy.
However you will not like it because the EM fields are generated during that "dead inflation entity" (using MM-speak).

First asked 12 January 2010

Michael Mozina
You stated

FYI, for the past 15+ years I've personally favored an accelerated expansion process. It was never "acceleration" that I questioned.
...snip...
Why and how did you guys exclude an EM field again?

Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?



First asked 12 January 2010 Michael Mozina

Just out of curiosity, why don't you find out exactly why scientists have already eliminated an EM field from consideration?



And you are ignoring the outstanding questions:

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.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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".

OK

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

Well, I'm not qualified to agree or disagree with that.

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

I have no idea what a "dark evil energy" is. Please stop conversing in such a childish manner.

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"?

You can't quite explain it but you're going with your hunch? So?

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.

More childish banter. Frankly, such comments undermine whatever merit your arguments may otherwise have.

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".

OK, if EM fields cause the observed acceleration, it must be the manifestation of the dark energy we seek. So, you do agree there is a dark energy.

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"?

Now I am not a physicist, but I do know whatever causes this acceleration requires an enormous amount of energy on a cosmic scale. The energy needed is estimated to be 74% of the total mass/energy of the universe. I think the calculations for that are a straightforward application of relativity. Would not such an amount of energy manifesting itself in EM fields throughout the universe be observable in some way? EM fields have a strong influence on EM waves and EM waves are all we really "see" when we observe the universe. I believe that there have been discussions with you and others about this EM theory on other threads and the rational for ruling out EM fields is quite convincing. I don't recall you having anything memorable to counter that. Has that changed?

 

[Tubbythin]

IMO your "dark evil energies" seem to be as physically impotent at the level of controlled experimentation as any religious dark energies I've seen.

Why are you quoting "dark evil energies"? The only person that's used that term is you. Nobody else knows what it means. You just made it up remember.
Michael, if you want to get anywhere you really need to start discussing what people have actually said to you. Not what you would have liked them to have said.

 

[Pythonic]

Maybe this will clear it all up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casimir_plates.svg

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:
After you've read my above response, consider this:
It doesn't matter if the acceleration is caused by EM fields or not. It still requires the amount of estimated energy to cause the acceleration. As I'm sure you know there is no free ride with energy. Do you know of any way of accelerating anything "in a lab" using an EM field without expending energy? As I said, I am not a physicist so please enlighten me.

 

[DazzaD]

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.

Does that mean you would be unable to accept any cosmological theory in that "the universe cannot be rerun or replicated"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I'm not qualified to agree or disagree with that.

Like anyone would?

I have no idea what a "dark evil energy" is. Please stop conversing in such a childish manner.

Think for just a moment about "why" you find it "childish". I agree with you, but think about why it's childish to do that in a religion and how it applies to science. You find it "childish" that we're chalking up our ignorance, be it religious or scientific ignorance to "dark energy". You seem to find it acceptable to do that however in one environment, but not the other. Isn't that a double standard? Why is it "childish" to believe anything is caused by "dark energy", religious or otherwise?

You can't quite explain it but you're going with your hunch? So?

So at least my "hunch" is congruent with empirical physics, and as far you or I know, "acceleration" may in fact be due to an EM process of some kind that we don't fully understand yet. In other words, I could be right in the end anyway as far as the mainstream knows.

My belief in an all pervasive EM field is congruent with those million mile per hours solar wind particle whizzing by us every moment of every day. They're congruent with those multimillion degree coronal loops, those "jets" and all the solar processes Birkeland empirically "predicted" 100 years ago. I see a consistent pattern of energy release and movement in the universe that is entirely consistent with electromagnetic movements of energy in and through the universe. The whole thing fits together very nicely under the umbrella of empirical physics without any of those three metaphysical friends the mainstream has created. Even if I don't even have all the math worked out, it "works" for me.

What doesn't work for me is stuffing the gaps of human ignorance with "made up" energies.

There's a real danger here too as that one line I quoted from the earlier article demonstrates. The author didn't say "acceleration' is real or "acceleration we can't explain is real". He said "dark energy is real". He took what is nothing more than an observation of plasma acceleration and turned it into a new "real" (but entirely mythical) form of energy without a shred of evidence such a thing even exists in nature, or that it is necessary in any way.

More childish banter. Frankly, such comments undermine whatever merit your arguments may otherwise have.

Fine, I will try to tone down the shock value commentary.

OK, if EM fields cause the observed acceleration, it must be the manifestation of the dark energy we seek. So, you do agree there is a dark energy.

I agree that there is plenty of energy in the universe. Not much of it seems particularly 'dark' or mysterious to me, but then neither is the solar wind, nor those million degree solar discharges. Those million degree coronal loops sure aren't dark at the highest energy levels. They stick out like a gigantic electrical sore thumb in the mainstreams concept of "dark energy". How is it "dark" exactly? The only thing that is "dark" is their understanding of the universe and that is entirely due to their willfull blind ignorance toward EU theory. Rather than spend a few nights or even months studying the concept in earnest, many of these same guys have been railing against empirical physics for years and haven't even bothered to check it out.

Now I am not a physicist, but I do know whatever causes this acceleration requires an enormous amount of energy on a cosmic scale.

Agreed. Wouldn't you expect to see some physical evidence of that kind of energy release at the local level too? Shouldn't we see some manifestation of all that extra energy somewhere *INSIDE* our solar system?

The energy needed is estimated to be 74% of the total mass/energy of the universe. I think the calculations for that are a straightforward application of relativity. Would not such an amount of energy manifesting itself in EM fields throughout the universe be observable in some way?

IMO it's damn observable in almost every conceivable way, but only if you're looking for it, and certainly not if your intentionally ignoring the obvious solution.

EM fields have a strong influence on EM waves and EM waves are all we really "see" when we observe the universe.

So what are Rhessi and Trace and SOHO "seeing" in their higher energy wavelengths if not a clear manifestation of EM waves in action *INSIDE* the solar system?

I believe that there have been discussions with you and others about this EM theory on other threads and the rational for ruling out EM fields is quite convincing. I don't recall you having anything memorable to counter that. Has that changed?

If a "convincing" argument was ever made, I've never heard it. I've been preoccupied the last few months, so maybe I missed it, but how did they rule out EM fields?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe this will clear it all up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casimir_plates.svg

The diagram looks exactly right to me, but somehow they're convinced that diagram, the one below it, and every other one I've shown them from every other article I provided is wrong and there is "negative pressure" (less than absolute zero pressure) in that chamber even though no vacuum on Earth even removes all the atoms in the chamber.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM:
After you've read my above response, consider this:
It doesn't matter if the acceleration is caused by EM fields or not. It still requires the amount of estimated energy to cause the acceleration. As I'm sure you know there is no free ride with energy. Do you know of any way of accelerating anything "in a lab" using an EM field without expending energy? As I said, I am not a physicist so please enlighten me.

Think about what we're both saying here for a moment. We're both in agreement that acceleration requires energy. I can't (you might feel differently) understand how all that energy could accelerate a whole physical universe of material objects and not leave it's mark on the planet or at least the solar system. Isn't it reasonable to expect that all that energy is going to manifest itself *everywhere* rather than just "somewhere out there where humans can never reach"?

*IF* all the energy is stored in the EM field, *THEN* I would "predict" it must fully manifest itself everywhere. I see signs that it does, from high speed solar wind, to million degree coronal loops, to gamma ray discharges in the atmospheres of every major planet in the solar system. I certainly see plenty of physical evidence that the EM field is very pervasive is space, don't you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are doing your usual demonstation of your ignorance of science along in your latest posts:

You still do not understand that dark energy is a placeholder for whatever causes the acceleration that you accept happens.

Wake up, it's called an "EM field". That stands for "ELECTROmagnetic energy, not just "magnetic energy" by the way.

[*]Dark energy cannot be an EM field acting on plasma unless you can support your assertion that it is with more than meaningless rhetoric.

You mean besides those million degree coronal loops blowing a giant hole in your concept of "dark" energy?

[*]You are still ignorant of the meaning of empirical in science.

BS. You don't grasp the concept between "empirical" and "make believe with math".

[*]You are still obsessed with "controllable" without being able to define what you mean - see the previous posts about "control mechanisms".

Baloney. I've been clear about that too. It can be anything used to actually physically "control" the parameters of the physical "experiment". Tell me at least three of them that Birkeland used in his terella experiments.

[/LIST]Then now there is new psuedo religious gibberish: ""dark evil energies" and the "religious dark energies I've seen"

You pseudoscientific 'dark energy' is every bit is pointless as a religious belief in "dark energy". EM fields are not "dark" and "selfishness" can typically explain every religious concept of "dark energy". When there are "better" explanations, I tend to stick with simple alternatives.

What makes dark energy evil?

What makes it "dark"? Don't you see those million mile per hour particle whizzing by Earth? Don't you see those million degree coronal loops? What's "dark" is your understanding of the universe.

I'm going to need more coffee and then I'll see if anything else in your post was worth responding to.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Does that mean you would be unable to accept any cosmological theory in that "the universe cannot be rerun or replicated"?

No. It simply means that I lack belief in inflation and I always will. It has no effect on me, and never will have any effect on me. It never did have any effect on anything as far as I know. It simply was invented in a single human imagination and postdicted to fit something "out there in space and time" in a nice little creation myth that requires "faster than light expansion".

It's a mythical entity as surely as any other mythical entity created from human imagination.

 

[ben m]

You pseudoscientific 'dark energy' is every bit is pointless as a religious belief in "dark energy". EM fields are not "dark" and "selfishness" can typically explain every religious concept of "dark energy". When there are "better" explanations, I tend to stick with simple alternatives.

In claiming that EM fields can cause cosmic-scale acceleration, you are guessing that EM fields have some mysterious new properties---properties that are not found in Maxwell, nor in GR, nor in telescopes---and guessing that those properties actually account for the Hubble law data.

You have no more "lab evidence" for this non-Maxwell, non-GR acceleration effect than we have for DE. Problem is, you also don't have a hypothesis and have no plans to build one.

That's not a "simple alternative"---it's nothing at all. It's not a hypothesis, it's not a prediction, it's not a postdiction, and it's certainly not using known physics to explain a new phenomenon. It's using a couple of words from known physics and repeating them in a place they don't apply.

(ETA: it's rather like the people (this is a recurring crackpot theme) who insist that the Strong Force doesn't exist and they can explain nuclei "using electromagnetic forces". Except they always have to mangle E&M into something bearing no resemblance to E&M.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

[/LIST]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.

Ya, in years of debates (months worth here alone), that's the *ONLY* one of your endless questions that I ever answered.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In claiming that EM fields can cause cosmic-scale acceleration, you are guessing that EM fields have some mysterious new properties---properties that are not found in Maxwell, nor in GR, nor in telescopes---and guessing that those properties actually account for the Hubble law data.

Which "properties" might those be? I explicitly reject your notion that the energy manifestation is "dark" in the first place, so what "properties" are you talking about?

You have no more "lab evidence" for this non-Maxwell, non-GR acceleration effect than we have for DE.

That is pure nonsense. I can easily and amply demonstrate that EM field "accelerate" plasma. Go to Walmart and buy a plasma ball. Plug it in and turn in on. For less that $25 I can demonstrate to you that EM fields accelerate plasma and I can physically show you what to look for in terms of the physical manifestation of the EM field in light plasma, specifically those current carrying filaments.

Problem is, you also don't have a hypothesis and have no plans to build one.

So what? I've seen your industry build and then falsify a dozen different models. The current one is 96% make believe and none of you care if you EVER see inflation or "dark energy" do anything to anything in a physical experiment.

That's not a "simple alternative"---it's nothing at all.

Compared to 96% metaphysics, it's a MUCH better alternative.

It's not a hypothesis, it's not a prediction, it's not a postdiction, and it's certainly not using known physics to explain a new phenomenon. It's using a couple of words from known physics and repeating them in a place they don't apply.

Baloney. If we "predict" that "EM fields did it", then it would necessarily be true that the EM field would have to manifest itself physically inside our solar system too. It makes predictions *INSIDE* our solar system and Birkeland empirically did that for you in a lab 100 years ago.

His "hunch" about the current in the aurora took 60 more years to 'verify' via satellite evidence and he was long since dead at the time. I may be long dead by the time you folks even recognize a "solar discharge" when you see one. It could be 1000 years before some of mainstream wake up from their dark energy nightmare, but sooner or later they'll wake up. In the mean time empirical physics works fine for me, and I'm "ok" with the idea that I may not personally come up with all the mathematically answers in the universe.

The term "dark energy" isn't a hypothesis or a theory, nor does it "predict" anything that the term "acceleration" doesn't "better" predict. The only thing that your theory of "dark energy" "predicts" is that it has no physical effect on me or anything inside this solar system, so I can clearly ignore it in terms of useful physics in my lifetime.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What makes dark energy evil?

The same thing that makes 'acceleration', "dark energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now I am not a physicist, but I do know whatever causes this acceleration requires an enormous amount of energy on a cosmic scale.

Note my previous answer:

Agreed. Wouldn't you expect to see some physical evidence of that kind of energy release at the local level too? Shouldn't we see some manifestation of all that extra energy somewhere *INSIDE* our solar system?

You might now ask yourself how likely it is that all that energy they describe is entirely impotent inside the solar system?

 

[ben m]

That is pure nonsense. I can easily and amply demonstrate that EM field "accelerate" plasma. Go to Walmart and buy a plasma ball. Plug it in and turn in on.

The force on a charged object, due to an EM field is F = qE + qvxB. v, B, and E are time- and position-dependent vectors. You cannot find---I dare you to try---any values of q, E(r), and B(r), which result in forces that account for the observed Hubble curve. (Don't forget F=ma.)

Remember: you asked me what my dark energy force was. I gave you the complete equation-of-motion including all of the "new physics", including the only plausible numerical value in g/cm^3 of the one parameter. Go ahead, do the same for electromagnetic cosmic acceleration. Give me some set of q, E, and B values that you think exerts the acceleration-causing force that explains the Hubble curve.

 

[ben m]

You might now ask yourself how likely it is that all that energy they describe is entirely impotent inside the solar system?

Just as likely as you'd expect if you looked at the Einstein Field Equation and the value of lambda.

ETA: like this: http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/easyde.html