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

[Perpetual Student]

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.

OK, we see those things within our solar system. Why don't we see such things between galaxies and galaxy clusters, where it appears they would have to exist to cause the observed cosmic acceleration.

 

[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,

Er, FYI, "standard GR" (the one Einstein taught to his students) didn't have any "dark energy". Did you mean "blunder theory"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, we see those things within our solar system. Why don't we see such things between galaxies and galaxy clusters, where it appears they would have to exist to cause the observed cosmic acceleration.

Well something is sure heating all that plasma out there in space. Why is the ICM so hot?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Would you please stop trying to hijack your own thread.

Are you even keeping up with the conversation? I would expect that something that makes up 70+ of the universe has some physical effect inside the solar system. Indeed I see evidence that EM fields do exist inside the solar system and do have an effect on events inside the solar system. It doesn't matter if you treat the sun as a plasma body or use another solar model. The effect in the solar atmosphere is exactly the same.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, we see those things within our solar system.

Ok, so our "theory" passes the first "test".

Why don't we see such things between galaxies and galaxy clusters,

We do. We call them "jets". They are also a form of "current flow". We see many Birkeland current "structures" in space.

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/

Instead of recognizing them as a standard Birkeland current, they call them something stupid like a "magnetic slinky".

 

[GeeMack]

Are you even keeping up with the conversation?

Since you ask, yes, I have. And just like every other conversation you've been involved in, it seems you've been wholly unable to make your point in a way that convinces anyone else that you know what you're talking about. Does it ever occur to you that it's because you're just plain wrong?

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You really cannot understand Birkeland's book.
Birkeland never predicted high speed solar jets. He predicted pencils of cathode-rays (electrons) where the speed of the electrons was a few 100 m/s short of the speed of light.

This is not the million mile per hour electrons and ions of the fast solar wind.
Birkeland was wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

You're wrong about the diagram being wrong. The arrows of kinetic energy ...

Wrong again.
Simple physics MM: kinetic energy is a number not a vector. The arrows are not kinetic energy.

 

[Reality Check]

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

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

And there are big arrows in the outside of each plate.
And there are small arrows on the inside of each plate.
Small - big = negative!

All sides of all the plates experience EM carrier particle forces pushing into all the surfaces.

And the ignorance continues.

1. There is no EM field in the diagram.
2. There is probably an EM field in the experimental apparatus. It exerts the same force on each side of the plates.

...snipped idiotic EM stuf...

 

[ben m]

Er, FYI, "standard GR" (the one Einstein taught to his students) didn't have any "dark energy". Did you mean "blunder theory"?

Listen, MM: if you are going to say "your theory predicts that the solar system will explode", I am going to use my theory itself to see whether or not it predicts that the solar system explodes.

My theory---that the vacuum has an energy density---DOES NOT predict that the solar system explodes. "Using a theory to predict something" does not mean "assuming the theory is wrong and refusing to compare its equations to the data."

Anyway, you again misunderstand GR. GR tells you how spacetime is distorted by energy densities. Dark energy doesn't change GR, it doesn't change the rules governing this distortion. It just adds something to the list of energy densities. Lambda is just an energy density. Its value is 10^-29 g/cc. GR tells you how spacetime (and therefore matter) will respond to this density.

 

[ben m]

We do. We call them "jets". They are also a form of "current flow".

For the millionth time: no, we call them matter flow. They consist of equal numbers of positive and negative charges.

The Gulf Stream is a matter current but not an electrical current.
Traffic on the 405 is a matter current but not an electrical current.
The Solar Wind is a matter current but not an electrical current.
Quasar jets are matter currents but not electrical currents.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Well something is sure heating all that plasma out there in space. Why is the ICM so hot?

From Wikipedia:

"The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei."

 

[Reality Check]

From Wikipedia:

"The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei."

Hi Perpetual Student
This is another demonstration of Michael Mozina's inability to learn. He asked a similar question before and was pointed to the same Wikipedia article.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Ok, so our "theory" passes the first "test".



We do. We call them "jets". They are also a form of "current flow". We see many Birkeland current "structures" in space.

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/

Instead of recognizing them as a standard Birkeland current, they call them something stupid like a "magnetic slinky".

The link you provided is about a structure within our galaxy. This seems to be a systematic problem with all your evidence, which is invariably about something on the sun, within the solar system, or as in the case above, within the galaxy. The cosmic acceleration attributed to dark energy has to do with the spacial relationship among galaxies and galaxy clusters on a large scale.
So, you have still failed to demonstrate any large scale EM fields causing the observed cosmic acceleration. You references to local stuff within the solar system and even within the galaxy provide no evidence for EM fields on a cosmic scale.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hi Perpetual Student
This is another demonstration of Michael Mozina's inability to learn. He asked a similar question before and was pointed to the same Wikipedia article.

I hate getting caught up in a discussion like this when I am totally out of my element. Nevertheless, my rudimentary knowledge of physics appears to be enough to detect MM's kind of pseudo-science.

 

[Tubbythin]

Please elaborate.

Well the motions of bodies in the solar system would no longer be controlled purely by NG. I can't see how we'd ever get a stable equilibirum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From Wikipedia:

"The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures.

Isn't that just a tad "vague"? Which smaller structures are we talking about? How does "gravitational energy get released" exactly? In what physical form does that energy get released? Flying rocks? Dust? Charged particles? Does the Earth "release" it's "gravitational energy" too and if so, how does it do that? Does the sun release it's gravitational energy? If so, how does it do that? How exactly do we get from an attractive process (curvature or force) to flying kinetic particles that head off into the ICM?

Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks.

So some vaguely undefined physical objects go flying off somehow and hit stuff 24/7?

The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei."

So every single atom in the ICM is somehow affected by gravity defying objects being flung randomly into space and heat the whole thing uniformly? You don't find this so called "explanation' the least bit "fishy"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I hate getting caught up in a discussion like this when I am totally out of my element. Nevertheless, my rudimentary knowledge of physics appears to be enough to detect MM's kind of pseudo-science.

You're going to hate it a lot worse when we start asking any serious questions because that lame excuse of a "heating process" described by the mainstream simply will not fly under and serious scrutiny and you know it. There is no way something like that could uniformly heat the entire ICM to those kinds of temperatures. The only thing that is known to heat things to those temperatures and sustain them at such high temperatures is "current flow" on a massive scale.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Kinetic energy is a scalar not a vector.
Its wrong because the fluctuations should have nodes at the plate boundaries (as I have said before).

There is nothing in that diagram that supports the notion of "negative pressure in a vacuum".

Read the article then. Or other articles on the Casimir effect. The diagram is just a mental aid. Its pretty meaningless without the accompanying text.

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!

No we don't. Even if we don't agree on every detail, everyone except you agrees that you are wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Isn't that just a tad "vague"? Which smaller structures are we talking about? How does "gravitational energy get released" exactly?
...snip...
You don't find this so called "explanation' the least by "fishy"?

No one who knows the basics of physics finds this fishy.


Here is it is in baby talk just for you:

• Big ball of plasma.
• Big ball of plasma has mass.
• Big ball of plasma collapses because of magic pully stuff (gravity).
• Plasma thingies collide and the plasma heat up.
• The increased temperature balances the pulling from the magic pully stuff.

This of course leaves out quite a bit, e.g. the role of supernovae and galactic jets!.