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

[schrodingasdawg]

Hello.

I think Mr. Mozina might be a bit confused regarding the origin of the Casimir effect. The effect is not due to particles bouncing off the surface of plates.

In the quantum theory of electrodynamics, each mode of the electromagnetic field is treated as an independent quantum harmonic oscillator. Excitations from the ground state of each mode are, of course, photons: the carrier particles of the EM force. However, even in the absence of photons, the electric and magnetic fields associated with each mode aren't everywhere zero, and the energy of the mode is likewise not zero. So each mode of the EM field carries energy in the absence of photons.

The Casimir force is calculated from a rather simplistic approximation. Two neutrally charged conducting plates are placed parallel to each other in a vacuum. The plates are assumed to be perfectly conducting, so the EM field must be zero on the surface of the plates. The modes of the EM field are thus functions which are sinusoidal in the space between the plates or outside the plates, but zero on the plates. Configurations with different distances between the plates result in different possible modes, and thus different energies. In fact, closer plates result in lower EM field energies, so the plates experience an attractive force.

The Casimir force is due to what is happening between the plates, and not what is outside of them. They are being pulled towards each other, not pushed. That is why the pressure between them is considered to be negative, as opposed to a vacuum-sealed container which is held together by the positive pressure of the Earth's atmosphere.

The Casimir effect itself might be confusing, and it seems the reason it was brought up (sorry if I'm mistaken in this; I'm too lazy to read all 14 pages of the discussion) was because of difficulty in understanding the concept of negative pressure. A simpler example, I think, would involve a capacitor carrying charge. The two parallel capacitor plates carry opposite electric charges and are attracted to each other. This force is the Coulomb force (which can be attributed theoretically to the exchange of photons), and it is attractive: it results in the plates being pulled towards each other, and is not due to the plates being pushed together by particles on the outside. So the plates experience a negative pressure from the Coulomb force, which is usually counteracted by the positive pressure of a dielectric keeping the plates apart.

Hopefully this can clear at least a little bit up for Mr. Mozina.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Keep at em mike.

Who started this thread btw?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think I'll try another approach here PS.

You and I both seem to agree that it would take an enormous amount of energy to create "acceleration" of a whole physical universe. To RC's credit (and oh do I hate to give him credit for anything. ) he at least understands that the term "dark energy" is nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance.

There's no actual way that they can "rule out" an EM field as being the source of that acceleration. In fact if we are looking for a "natural" explanation for acceleration of plasma, *the* most likely culprit is the EM field and it's known to be 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. It's the obvious first choice.

If the EM field is behind this acceleration process, it certainly matches all the criteria in terms of it's local effects inside the solar system, it's medium range effects inside the galaxy in our observation of massive Birkeland currents, and it's longer range features too including those light speed jets at the core of many galaxies that link many of them together in a long "circuit" of flowing electromagnetic energy.

Their dark energy "theory", if one can actually call it that is that, insists that some magic new energy makes up 70+ percent of the universe and yet has no effect at all inside of a solar system. That claim alone is enough to make me highly suspicious of their beliefs. How can any force cause all known matter to expand and accelerate and have no discernable physical effect on anything on Earth or anything inside the solar system? That's a hell of a lot of force of acceleration for something which has no observable physical effect on any science experiment.

IMO all "dark energy" amounts to is their poor understanding of plasma physics, and their blatant unwillingness to even "consider" an E field orientation to cosmology. All they ever talk about is "magnetic" slinky's and "magnetic reconnection" and "magnetic" yada yada yada. It's not a sterile "magnetic" field that surround a galaxy, it's "electromagnetic" fields that surround a galaxy.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/01/early-galaxy-magnetic.html

They are always "surprised" by everything because they refuse to embrace *ANYTHING* that is even remotely related to "current flows in space".

 

[Reality Check]

I think I'll try another approach here PS.

You and I both seem to agree that it would take an enormous amount of energy to create "acceleration" of a whole physical universe. To RC's credit (and oh do I hate to give him credit for anything. ) he at least understands that the term "dark energy" is nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance.

That is not quite right. Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever is causing the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That does not mean that we are ignorant about the nature of dark energy.

The observations tell scientists that dark energy is

• very homogeneous.
• not very dense (roughly 10⁻²⁹ grams per cubic centimeter ).
• is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity.
• dark energy has 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.
  In the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting.

There's no actual way that they can "rule out" an EM field as being the source of that acceleration.

Wrong.

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.

This does not rule out a cosmological EM field.
What it does rule out is a cosmological EM field that acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe. It is impossible for a cosmological EM field to be dark energy.

And then there is the fact that all you have is an EM field idea that predicts absolutely nothing, not even the Hubble curve.

In fact if we are looking for a "natural" explanation for acceleration of plasma, *the* most likely culprit is the EM field and it's known to be 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. It's the obvious first choice.

The usual idiotic statement that we see from electric universe/plasma "cosmology" cranks.
The fact that EM forces are short range makes it the obvious second choice. If you do not know why EM forces are short range by now then there is no hope for you (think positive and negative charges, shielding, quasi-neutral).

If the EM field is behind this acceleration process, it certainly matches all the criteria in terms of it's local effects inside the solar system, it's medium range effects inside the galaxy in our observation of massive Birkeland currents, and it's longer range features too including those light speed jets at the core of many galaxies that link many of them together in a long "circuit" of flowing electromagnetic energy.

Still wrong and ignorant MM.
No "massive Birkeland currents" have been observed inside the galaxy, i.e. outside the Solar System.
There are no "light speed jets". There are relativistic jets and there is not evidence that they are Birkeland currents.
There is no evidence that relativistic jets link galaxies. They are too short to do so at lengths of 1000's of light year. There is one observed case of a galaxy being in the right postion and right distance for a relativistic jet from another to hit it. See this blog entry: Taste my death ray, 3C321!

 

[Reality Check]

What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy

If the EM field is behind this acceleration process, it certainly matches all the criteria in terms of it's local effects inside the solar system, it's medium range effects inside the galaxy in our observation of massive Birkeland currents, and it's longer range features too including those light speed jets at the core of many galaxies that link many of them together in a long "circuit" of flowing electromagnetic energy.

First asked 14 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
Birkeland current

A Birkeland current is a specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphere. Lately, the term Birkeland currents has been expanded by some authors to include magnetic field aligned currents in general space plasmas.

Your claim is that massive Birkeland currents have been observed in the galaxy, i.e. outside of the Solar System. Now support the claim with an actual sources - not new articles with pretty pictures that you say look like Birkeland currents.

What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do we have to add entropy to the list of things you misunderstand?

Oh please don't make me laugh when I have hot coffee in my mouth.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say nothing ever heats up.

Where did you even get that strawman from my earlier comment? I didn't say it never heats up. The implication was that it should tend to continually cool off, not that it never heats up.

Indeed, many things do heat up, including objects colliding at high speed.

Discharges heat stuff up too, like those coronal loops that reach millions of degrees. The difference is that "current flow" can be sustained over time.

The ICM is losing energy, both by particle flow and by radiation;

Ok

neither is terribly efficient at these temperatures and densities. (Hint: this thing is NOT a blackbody by any stretch of the imagination.)

No atom is a "black body", but no atom tends to hang on to it's "heat" indefinitely. It will radiate away that excess heat over time.

At the same time that energy is radiated away, new gas is falling in all the time,

"Gas" is "falling in" at at hundreds of thousands of degrees over the whole span of the ICM? Is this "falling gas" composed of ionized particles or composed of neutral particles?

and existing gas is being reaccelerated in the wake of galaxies passing through again. Some energy loss, some energy gain, and you need to look at both to figure out the present-day temperature.

I don't care how you try to add it up, you aren't going to get enough energy from a few stray "falling gases" to sustain 100,000K temperatures over light years of plasma for billions of years. That kind of consistent energy requires sustained flows of current and plenty of "resistance" to that current flow. Your "falling gas" isn't likely even a neutral "gas" at all, but rather they are composed of high speed charged particles that are also called "current flow".

 

[Reality Check]

What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies

If the EM field is behind this acceleration process, it certainly matches all the criteria in terms of it's local effects inside the solar system, it's medium range effects inside the galaxy in our observation of massive Birkeland currents, and it's longer range features too including those light speed jets at the core of many galaxies that link many of them together in a long "circuit" of flowing electromagnetic energy.

First asked 14 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
Relativistic jet:

Relativistic jets are extremely powerful jets of plasma which emerge from presumed massive objects at the centers of some active galaxies, notably radio galaxies and quasars. Their lengths can reach several thousand[1] or even hundreds of thousands of light years.[2] It is believed that the twisting of magnetic fields in the accretion disk collimates the outflow along the rotation axis of the central object, so that when conditions are suitable, a jet will emerge from each face of the accretion disk. If the jet is oriented along the line of sight to earth, relativistic beaming will change its apparent brightness. The mechanics behind both the creation of the jets[3][4] and the composition of the jets[5] are still a matter of much debate in the scientific community. It is believed that the jets are composed of an electrically neutral mixture of electrons, positrons and protons in some proportion.

You can see from this and your extensive knowledge of astronomy that relativisic jets are

• Generally short range compared to the average distance between galaxies.
• Jets, thus making it hard for them to hit the needle in a haystack that is another galaxy.

But a jet hitting another galaxy has been observed: 3C 321 or see this blog entry: Taste my death ray, 3C321! or the Chandra web site.

What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is not quite right. Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever is causing the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

And you don't know what that is, so it amounts to nothing more than a stupid label for pure human ignorance.

That does not mean that we are ignorant about the nature of dark energy.

Let's see you try to justify this claim:

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.

Pure speculative BS. How exactly did you decide that "dark energy" does not interact with *ANY* of the fundamental forces of nature other than gravity? Give me a break. You guys make this up as you go.

 

[ben m]

"Gas" is "falling in" at at hundreds of thousands of degrees over the whole span of the ICM? Is this "falling gas" composed of ionized particles or composed of neutral particles?

Falling in at ... degrees? Check your units.

I don't care how you try to add it up,

That's the general theme of your reasoning, isn't it? Mainstream astrophysics can be rejected because (never having seen the numbers and not quite knowing physics) you guess that it won't add up. Meanwhile, as soon as you say "electric current", you form a mental picture in which you guess that it will work perfectly, and you guess that it will add up.

 

[Reality Check]

And you don't know what that is, so it amounts to nothing more than a stupid label for pure human ignorance.

Learn to read MM:
Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever is causing the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
That does not mean that we are ignorant about the nature of dark energy. It amounts to an intelligent label for something we know a bit about.

Let's see you try to justify this claim:

There you go:
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.
In the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting.

Claim justified!

Pure speculative BS. How exactly did you decide that "dark energy" does not interact with *ANY* of the fundamental forces of nature other than gravity? Give me a break. You guys make this up as you go.

Pure knee jerk reaction BS.
No one decided that dark matter does not interact with *ANY* of the fundamental forces of nature other than gravity.
The statement is that dark matter is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. We have not measured it interacting with any other force except gravity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Falling in at ... degrees? Check your units.

Ok, that was certainly sloppy verbiage on my part. Even still you get the point. Somewhere you're trying to convert kinetic energy from an unspecific type of matter (ion? electron?) into "heat", but even such a process would only "heat" a relatively stationary atom for so long before it started releasing heat again. You'd need a direct "nick" by something to come along every couple of seconds to keep that up those kind of temperatures indefinitely.

That's the general theme of your reasoning, isn't it? Mainstream astrophysics can be rejected because (never having seen the numbers and not quite knowing physics) you guess that it won't add up.

No, I have seen the math, and I have noticed that you *HAVE NO PHYSICAL THINGS TO WORK WITH*, and your theory doesn't add up. Your math is great. You're physically dead in the water.

Even if we accept all of your math related to "dark energies", for all any of you know, it is in fact an EM field that causes this tiny "acceleration" you keep claiming happens "out there somewhere" where no human can ever travel. Fortunately IMO that isn't necessary, you simply don't comprehend the "nature" of "current flow energy".

Meanwhile, as soon as you say "electric current", you form a mental picture in which you guess that it will work perfectly, and you guess that it will add up.

No, I *KNOW FOR AN EMPIRICAL FACT* that it does add up and will add up, and it physically works in a lab. I may not understand every mathematical detail of how a car's transmission works, or little if anything about it's breaking system, but I can drive it and experience it for myself in real consumer products. Electrical cars are the wave of the future and electrical energy has always produced useful consumer products, at least "always" in my human lifetime.

You're welcome to put your faith in mythical forms of energy, but I know for a fact that EM field accelerate plasma as the $25 plasma ball on my desk easily demonstrates.

Think about it Ben. If it's true that "dark energy" is so "small" that it has no effect inside a solar system, then it could *EASILY* be replaced with an ordinary EM field in terms of pure kinetic energy inside charge particle "current flow". We don't need no stinkin exotic energy to explain ordinary acceleration of plasma. It happens all the time here on Earth during lightning storms. Electricity isn't shy around the lab, and it's certainly an easy replacement for such a "tiny little influence" locally.

 

[Reality Check]

Science in action: Supernovae put dark matter in the right place

 

[Michael Mozina]

Claim justified!

You have to be kidding me. You really don't grasp the concept of "empirical verification" do you? How exactly did you determine that "dark energy" has no interaction with any field *or* gravity? You guys are simply making this up as you go so you can stuff it into a variation of a blunder theory. You don't know anything of the sort about it interacting with gravity. You pulled that claim completely out of your back pocket in a completely ad hoc manner.

If that wimpy little amount of energy "somewhere out there" is all you need, then an ordinary EM field of moving charged particles can easily accommodate you. You don't know what "dark energy" actually is, so for all you know you are actually a "closet/pre-EM theorist" who's about to make an amazing "discovery" about the nature of "dark energy".

No one decided that dark matter does not interact with *ANY* of the fundamental forces of nature other than gravity.

That's what the website says! Holy Cow. You personally handed me the exact link to the "nature of dark energy", and that's the first thing it said about the nature of dark energy. It's purely an ad hoc statement about how it interacts with gravity. You made that up so you could stuff it into a blunder theory. If it doesn't interact with "gravity', then you can't play "make believe math" with a make believe GR formula.

The statement is that dark matter is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity.

It's *NOT* known to interact with anything because it's not known to even freaking exist! It isn't known to interact with gravity, you folks made that up so you had something to plug into your virtual world computer models.

We have not measured it interacting with any other force except gravity.

You haven't measured anything that can't be replaced with an ordinary EM field, and you never measured it to interact with the gravity field. All you saw is it's effect upon matter in the universe that is mostly plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

It's *NOT* known to interact with anything because it's not known to even freaking exist! It isn't known to interact with gravity, you folks made that up so you had something to plug into your virtual world computer models.

That is idoitic MM.
Dark energy is known to exist!
It is a placeholder for whatever is causing the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. The acceleration exists. It has a cause. That cause exists. We call that cause dark energy untill we know what is is.

There are no "virtual world computer models".
There is General Relativity that tells us that whatever dark energy is it has negative pressure.

You haven't measured anything that can't be replaced with an ordinary EM field, and you never measured it to interact with the gravity field.

We have measured the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
That rules your EM field as ben m stated

Originally Posted by ben m
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.

All you saw is it's effect upon matter in the universe that is mostly plasma.

More ignorance from you.
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.
That includes plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

Since MM was unable to answer these questions I have supplied the answers

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.

First an aside about the Casmir effect article and the diagram of the forces between two metallic plates in it. You have been told this many times this but as usual cannot understand some simple facts .

• The article shows the derivation of the force per area due to the Casimir effect for parallel plates done by Casimir. That is the Casimir pressure. This pressure has negative values. That is to be expected because the force on the plate is attractive (pulls one plate toward the other).
• The article cites serveral experiments where the pressure has been measured to be negative and vary as predicted.

The first diagram ("Casimir forces on parallel plates.") illustrates the Casimir effect for plates in an ideal vacuum, i.e. without atoms. It shows the existence of negative pressure between the plates quite clearly.

• 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 net 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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The Casimir force is due to what is happening between the plates, and not what is outside of them. They are being pulled towards each other, not pushed.

Where shall I start?

Welcome to the board and welcome to the discussion. You certainly stepped into a very long and involved debate. I don't blame you one bit for not reading the whole soap opera from start to finish.

The original debate began with a critique of Guth's original inflation paper and his specific claim about the "false vacuum" having "negative pressure". Guth used his 'negative pressure in the vacuum" to "pull" his "mass thingy" (don't know what else to call it at that point) apart. What he failed to acknowledge was that the limit of actual "pressure" in a "vacuum" is zero, not negative infinity. Unlike the twin plate scenario, there is no interaction between plates that might be 'attractive" in the "false vacuum" that Guth described.

The whole Casmir debate came about because they were trying to demonstrate the existence of "negative pressure in a vacuum", something that might do Guth's bidding and "pull" the universe apart. That's not even possible since we can't even create a "zero pressure vacuum" here on Earth, nor does it exist anywhere in the physical universe as far as we know.

I think that it was Ed that originally suggested that the Casmir force could be/was an attraction process between the plates themselves. I agreed with him even then that this was a possibility due to some type of lattice attraction between the plates and and EM attraction between atoms.

Even if that is exactly what's going on, there is an attractive force related to the EM field acting between the plates at the atomic level, that is still absolutely no justification for claiming that a "vacuum" has "negative pressure". I conceded to Ed back then that such an "attraction" between the plates would still be related to the EM field, and would not justify the concept of a negative pressure in a vacuum that would allow a "vacuum" itself to "pull" a mass body apart. It's the "greater pressure" that "pushes" things apart in a vacuum.

That is why the pressure between them is considered to be negative, as opposed to a vacuum-sealed container which is held together by the positive pressure of the Earth's atmosphere.

I can accept your viewpoint of the EM interaction between the plates "pulling" each other together, but then we're ultimately talking about an ordinary EM field acting to attract the plates at the atomic level.

Guth's theory however was not related to another mass body "tugging" on his near singularity thingy. He needs the "vacuum" to "pull" it apart. A "vacuum" is physically incapable of doing any such thing. A greater pressure inside the mass body might "push" it apart, but the vacuum cannot ever contain "negative pressure" that might be used to indefinitely 'suck' the whole thing apart.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is idoitic MM.
Dark energy is known to exist!

No. Acceleration of plasma is known to happen. Dark energy isn't "known" to exist or have any effect on anything.

It is a placeholder for whatever is causing the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Then it's a placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically your human ignorance which you're clinging to like a security blanket.

The acceleration exists. It has a cause. That cause exists. We call that cause dark energy untill we know what is is.

I already know what it is. It's the one thing you refuse to accept or consider.

There are no "virtual world computer models".

You don't own an X-box I take it?

There is General Relativity that tells us that whatever dark energy is it has negative pressure.

Dark energy isn't known to interact with anything. It's a placeholder term for what ultimately is nothing more than your personal ignorance. You refuse to consider the one obvious option on the table, so it's still "dark and mysterious" to you. I'm not required to wallow in ignorance with you RC.

We have measured the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
That rules your EM field as ben m stated

No, it does not. The fact I can't personally explain it with an EM field is not evidence it's cannot ever be done.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

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
4. 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
5. Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force and so positive pressure?
   First asked 14 January 2010
6. What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy?
   First asked 14 January 2010
7. What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies?
   First asked 14 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.
   Is seems that MM cannot answer these simple questions on pressure other than regurgitating his usual Casimir effect is "relative pressure" from atoms.
   So I answered it for him in as simple a manner as possible. He still cannot understand it.

P.S.

• 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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

1. Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
   First asked 7 January 2010

1. 
   
   Did you know that:?
   
   A) I don't believe you for one second, and
   
   B) that Birkeland *overestimated* the amount of mass that is not contained in stars and planets and rocks and stationary plasma by several OOM?
   
   So what? You guys can't see "current flow" when it heats plasma to millions of degrees inside the solar system. What hope is there you'd take into account any mention of Birkeland's flying electrons and flying electric ions out in deep space? You're as blind as a bat to anything involving moving charged particles, aka "current flow". No wonder you can't account for all the mass in a galaxy.

 

[Reality Check]

No. Acceleration of plasma is known to happen. Dark energy isn't "known" to exist or have any effect on anything.

1. The acceleration of galaxies exists.
2. The cause of the acceleration exists.
3. We call that cause dark energy.
4. Thus dark energy exists.

No, it does not. The fact I can't personally explain it with an EM field is not evidence it's cannot ever be done.

Yes it does. You do not have to personally explain dark energy as an EM field. We know that you are incapable of doing this.

Originally Posted by ben m
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.

It is physically impossible for an EM field to cause the acceleration.

Expanding on this a bit:
Any cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe ("dark energy") exerts pressure. Even your impossible EM field will do this (ever hear of photons and light pressure?).
That pressure will contribute to the stress-energy tensor in General Relativity. It turns out that positive acceleration requires negative pressure, i.e. dE/dV is positive (pressure is defined as -dE/dV).

Fr example, if we allow the cosmological constant to be non-zero then
here are a couple of derivations of the consequences:

• The Cosmological Constant
• How does the cosmological constant fit into general relativity