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

[Tubbythin]

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

I'd give that a probability of 1. Even if nothing else could tell you why this has to be the case, the anthropic principle certainly does.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

I've already explained why its wrong.
Its also worth noting, the arrow labeling "vacuum fluctuations". And the complete absence of an arrow labelling say "stray neutrinos" or "real photons".

 

[Reality Check]

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.

That just shows that you cannot understand the diagram.
It is a diagram of the forces between two metallic plates in an ideal vacuum, i.e. without atoms.
The diagram is a bit right to me. It shows the existence of negative pressure between the plates quite clearly.


Some simple physics for you MM:

• The arrows in the diagram are forces since they have directions.
• Forces can be added together.
• Add the forces on each plate together.
• The result is a force away from each each plate toward the other plate.
• The convention is that a force away from a surface is negative. That is the reason why the force exerted by gas particles on surfaces (toward the surface) is positive.
• Divide a negative force by an area and you get a negative pressure.

You would have (maybe) realised this if you were able to answer A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.

Here are the answers:

• A force F pushes on a surface of area A. The pressure p = F/A.
  This is positive (e.g. atmospheric pressure).
• A force F pulls on a surface of area A. The pressure p = -F/A.
  This is negative (e.g. the Casimir effect).

(F is the force vector, F is the magnitude of F)

Why is the force that pulls have a negative magnitude?
Consider if both forces were present and equal, e.g. the Casimir effect in a low pressure environment. Then the forces add up to zero. That means that the magnitude of one force must be the negative of the other force. It is convenient to have a pushing force positive so that the pressure is positive and we do not have to deal with negative signs in everyday situations, e.g. weather maps.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Wake up, it is not called an EM field. It is called dark energy.

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

You mean besides those million degree coronal loops having nothing at all to do with "dark" energy?

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

BS. You don't grasp the definition of empirical that is used in science.

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.

You mean how the universe physically controls the parameters of the physical experiments that we observe?

What makes it "dark"?

Dark energy is dark because it

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.

More really dumb stuff.

• Only an idiot would think that dark energy is the solar wind.
• Only an idiot would think that dark energy is coronal loops.

What's dark is your understanding of the universe and the topic of this thread.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Ya, in years of debates (months worth here alone), that's the *ONLY* one of your endless questions that I ever answered. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The questions are endless because you cannot answer most of them.

The questions from this thread are

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. 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..."
   Birkeland 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.
2. A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
   The answer is that he is incapable of answering them so I did it.

As for other threads:

• There are 31 outstanding questions dating from July 2009 here mostly about your dumb Iron Sun idea as well as a couple of questions that you "asnwered" with your usual unsupported assertions.
• You had a dark matter = rocks idea in this thread and outstanding questions about it. That list is moot because the idea is obviously wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Your personal religious beliefs ?
Your ignorance of physics?

You really do not get it. Nothing makes acceleration, dark energy. Dark energy is not acceleration. Energy has different units than acceleration.

Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever causes the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Nature of dark energy
The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense — roughly 10⁻²⁹ grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.
Negative pressure
Independently from its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (i.e. effects, acting repulsively ) in order to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe.
According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, in years of debates (months worth here alone), that's the *ONLY* one of your endless questions that I ever answered. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/qimg]

And not a single professional in any field related to physics has ever found anything you say to be compelling enough to agree with you. So in all your years of debate you've gotten exactly how far?

​

 

[GeeMack]

• There are 31 outstanding questions dating from July 2009 here mostly about your dumb Iron Sun idea as well as a couple of questions that you "asnwered" with your usual unsupported assertions.

Actually there are dozens upon dozens of unanswered questions about the stupid iron Sun fantasy on at least a couple of other forums. Unfortunately Michael either bailed out completely when the lists got too long, and/or got himself banned for refusing to answer the questions. But the insane notion that the Sun has an iron surface is so convoluted and so ridiculous that it really merits its very own thread.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The questions are endless because you cannot answer most of them.

[...]

As for other threads:

• There are 31 outstanding questions dating from July 2009 here mostly about your dumb Iron Sun idea as well as a couple of questions that you "asnwered" with your usual unsupported assertions.
• You had a dark matter = rocks idea in this thread and outstanding questions about it. That list is moot because the idea is obviously wrong.

Not only mere questions remain unanswered, but a "critically important question" (those are MM's own words)!

Now it is possible that MM did, in fact, answer sol's question (and that the failure is mine, for not being able to find it) ...

 

[Cuddles]

Now it is possible that MM did, in fact, answer sol's question

Possible that Michael Mozina answered a question? Surely you jest!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'd give that a probability of 1. Even if nothing else could tell you why this has to be the case, the anthropic principle certainly does.

Please elaborate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've already explained why its wrong.
Its also worth noting, the arrow labeling "vacuum fluctuations". And the complete absence of an arrow labelling say "stray neutrinos" or "real photons".

You're wrong about the diagram being wrong. The arrows of kinetic energy would apply to anything and everything still flowing through the 'vacuum'. All flowing things in the vacuum will apply kinetic energy to *ALL* sides of *ALL* plates, some more than others. There is nothing in that diagram that supports the notion of "negative pressure in a vacuum".

You guys at least need to come up with a consensus on whether or not the diagrams (plural) on the WIKI page are correct or incorrect. If you all agree they are incorrect, please agree and explain why they are incorrect. So far it's not even clear that you all even agree with each other!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not only mere questions remain unanswered, but a "critically important question" (those are MM's own words)!

Now it is possible that MM did, in fact, answer sol's question (and that the failure is mine, for not being able to find it) ...

Would you two please stop trying to hijack my thread. The topic has nothing to do with solar models.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The arrows in the diagram are forces since they have directions.

And they all point *INTO* all sides of all plates. Hoy! This is like a twilight zone episode.

Forces can be added together.

All sides of all the plates experience EM carrier particle forces pushing into all the surfaces. All you're doing is coming up with a "relative force" that has nothing whatsoever to to do with "pressure" in the chamber.

Man, I can't even believe how you can acknowledge that it's a "force" and in the next breath try to claim it's a "negative pressure in the vacuum". It has nothing to do with "negative pressure". It has to do with a "relative force differential' between the outside and inside of the plates. All sides of all plates experience quantum "pressure" into the plate from the carrier particles of the EM field! Nowhere in that chamber can there be a location that has "negative kinetic energy"! Get real.

 

[Perpetual Student]

As a layman, I find it useful to put a debate like this in my own naive terms.
So, we have an energy causing a cosmic acceleration, of which the mass equivalent is 18 times all the baryonic matter in the universe. Whew!
MM says that it this massive energy manifests as EM fields throughout the universe but astronomers and cosmologists throughout the world are not aware of these EM fields even though everything we "see" is either EM waves or ions (cosmic rays), both of which are highly interactive with EM fields.
So, I guess MM would have us rename this phenomenon dark EM fields, because they have the special property of being undetectable EM fields. Sounds like a religion to me!

 

[ben m]

Please elaborate.

You were presented with two answers to "why isn't DE visible in the solar system". I gave you an exact solution using standard GR, including numbers, which shows how a vacuum energy density of 10^-29 g/cc fails to affect the solar system; who cares what the anthropic principle says? The anthropic principle is what you resort to in cases where the equations don't answer the question.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As a layman, I find it useful to put a debate like this in my own naive terms.
So, we have an energy causing a cosmic acceleration, of which the mass equivalent is 18 times all the baryonic matter in the universe. Whew!
MM says that it this massive energy manifests as EM fields throughout the universe but astronomers and cosmologists throughout the world are not aware of these EM fields even though everything we "see" is either EM waves or ions (cosmic rays), both of which are highly interactive with EM fields.

You can't "see" those multimillion degree "coronal loops"? You don't see those high speed solar "jets" Birkeland predicted? You don't see those million mile per hour particles whizzing by Earth every day? I certainly do.

 

[ben m]

You don't see those million mile per hour particles whizzing by Earth every day? I certainly do.

<sarcasm>
Wow! If electromagnetic fields are so good accelerating things, surely the planet Mercury will be expelled from the solar system any day now.
</sarcasm>

Like the "anthropic principle", reasoning purely by analogy is the sort of thing one resorts to when one is otherwise unable to use the laws of physics. I leave it as an exercise for Mozina anyone who passed high school physics to compute the charge-to-mass ratio of an ion and of a galaxy cluster. (hint: they're very, very, very different.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

You were presented with two answers to "why isn't DE visible in the solar system". I gave you an exact solution using standard GR, including numbers, which shows how a vacuum energy density of 10^-29 g/cc fails to affect the solar system; who cares what the anthropic principle says? The anthropic principle is what you resort to in cases where the equations don't answer the question.

So how did you rule out an EM field again if the local effect is so small?

 

[GeeMack]

You can't "see" those multimillion degree "coronal loops"? You don't see those high speed solar "jets" Birkeland predicted? You don't see those million mile per hour particles whizzing by Earth every day? I certainly do.

Would you please stop trying to hijack your own thread. For god's sake man, the topic has nothing to do with solar models.

Would you two please stop trying to hijack my thread. The topic has nothing to do with solar models.

​