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

[Michael Mozina]

More hilarity. Its a definition Michael. Its meant to be circular.

If we define dark energy as "the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe", then, if the Universe's expansion is accelerating the only possible way that dark energy could not exist is if the accelerated expansion is acausal. If you cannot understand this then its not just basic physics you have extreme difficulties, its the basics of the English language.

Likewise if I define "God energy" as the 'cause of accelerated expansion of the universe', then, if the universe's expansion is accelerating, the only possible way that God energy could not exist is if the accelerating expansion is 'acausal'. You've created an unfalsifiable "religion".

 

[Michael Mozina]

yikes!

Keep in mind that Bad Astronomy actually holds "with hunts" (ATM trials) where the "accusers" (mainstream) of the "heretic" (ATM believer) are allowed to pummel you with questions. If you don't respond to each and every one of those questions in a timely manner, they lop off your virtual head. I've been virtually dead there for years now and couldn't defend myself there properly if I wanted to.

I've also posted a lot to space.com over the years, and most of recent free time has been spent here. I've never stopped talking about these topics, and I've tried to address as many questions as I could answer on each topic.

What's is 'yikes' from my perspective is that anyone would bother to round up such a comprehensive set of links and personally attack me (as an individual rather than the topic) so irrationally in every post. GM is head trip and half and doesn't know the meaning of an honest debate. I'd ignore him if I were you.

 

[Prometheus]

Likewise if I define "God energy" as the 'cause of accelerated expansion of the universe', then, if the universe's expansion is accelerating, the only possible way that God energy could not exist is if the accelerating expansion is 'acausal'. You've created an unfalsifiable "religion".

And if I define an orange as "a globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruit."¹ then the only way oranges could not exist is if there are no globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruits.

By your argument, every entry in the dictionary creates a new religion. This is known as a Low Redefinition Fallacy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And if I define an orange as "a globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruit."¹ then the only way oranges could not exist is if there are no globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruits.

By your argument, every entry in the dictionary creates a new religion. This is known as a Low Redefinition Fallacy.

How ironic you recognize the fallacy in play and don't recognize the fact you're also engaging in exactly the same fallacy. You're simply redefining the term "acceleration" as "dark energy" and away you go......

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, this question gets to the heart of the matter! MM, Do you have a convincing mathematical model?

Nope.

Or -- perhaps an outline for an approach to develop such a model?

It would probably have to involve the concept of an all pervasive EM field that is growing in strength over time.

 

[ben m]

Nope.

Thought so.

It would probably have to involve the concept of an all pervasive EM field that is growing in strength over time.

All pervasive? Neither Gauss's nor Ampere's laws generate "all pervasive" fields, they generate fields that are strong near sources and weak far away.

Uniform repulsion, everywhere, in a vector field? Sorry, no. Not from a collection of magnetic dipoles. Not from an array of line currents. Not from a collection of electric dipoles. Not from a net-neutral collection of electric charges. Any other ideas? (A net overall + or - charge to everything? That's repulsion, at least, but it's impossible to "increase in strength over time" without violating charge conservation, plus it is incompatible with Gauss's Law.)

MM, your "concept" is for something impossible. Fun to daydream about, I'm sure, but there is no more physics in it than a perpetual-motion-machine inventor's daydreams. "I don't have a math model, but somehow or other the marble will go up the ramp forever, I can see the concept in my mind."

If you want to continue vaguely hoping that it will add up eventually, then you are hoping to violate Maxwell's Equations and electromagnetic force laws. It's as simple as that.

Again, please prove me wrong with a counterexample.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem

First asked 15 January 2010
This following post is one of the many examples of Michael Mozina dumb debating technique where he inserts "God" into a phrase just so that he can make it into a religion.

Likewise if I define "God energy" as the 'cause of accelerated expansion of the universe', then, if the universe's expansion is accelerating, the only possible way that God energy could not exist is if the accelerating expansion is 'acausal'. You've created an unfalsifiable "religion".

To make the absurdity of his statement clear, consider:

Likewise if I define "car energy" as the 'cause of accelerated expansion of the universe', then, if the universe's expansion is accelerating, the only possible way that car energy could not exist is if the accelerating expansion is 'acausal'. You've created an unfalsifiable "garage".
​

Or: If I define "electromagnetic energy" is the cause of accelerated expansion of the universe then I can turn this into a religion by changing the words to "God energy".

MM, Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem?

 

[Reality Check]

How ironic you recognize the fallacy in play and don't recognize the fact you're also engaging in exactly the same fallacy. You're simply redefining the term "acceleration" as "dark energy" and away you go......

You are still ignorant MM.
Dark energy is not defined as the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Dark energy is defined as whatever causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

 

[GeeMack]

MM, Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem?

My money is on, "No."

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Yes, this question gets to the heart of the matter! MM, Do you have a convincing mathematical model?

Nope.________MM

Or -- perhaps an outline for an approach to develop such a model?

It would probably have to involve the concept of an all pervasive EM field that is growing in strength over time._________MM

I can understand your frustration with a certain lack of "intuitiveness" for the theory of dark energy. In fact, I very much share that frustration. What I cannot understand is your outright rejection and disdain for the theory and its advocates when your alternative explanation has such a flimsy basis. The hallmark of modern physics (since Galileo) is that mathematical analysis has replaced general impressions and opinions about how the universe operates. Without a quantitative analysis, your "physics" is quite medieval. Can't you see that?

 

[Tubbythin]

Likewise if I define "God energy" as the 'cause of accelerated expansion of the universe', then, if the universe's expansion is accelerating, the only possible way that God energy could not exist is if the accelerating expansion is 'acausal'. You've created an unfalsifiable "religion".

Err no.

 

[Prometheus]

How ironic you recognize the fallacy in play and don't recognize the fact you're also engaging in exactly the same fallacy. You're simply redefining the term "acceleration" as "dark energy" and away you go......

Please link to the post where I've re-defined anything at all. If you can do that, and demonstrate that I've expanded the meaning of the re-defined term beyond what is commonly understood (that's the essence of the fallacy you're committing) I'll happily concede. You can't.

 

[Tubbythin]

How ironic you recognize the fallacy in play and don't recognize the fact you're also engaging in exactly the same fallacy. You're simply redefining the term "acceleration" as "dark energy" and away you go......

Nope.
Acceleration in kinematics is the rate of change of velocity.
In this respect, however, we really mean the increase in the expansion rate of the universe.
Dark energy is the cause of the latter, whatever that may be. Hence dark energy is not just another name for acceleration, unless of course you think that acceleration is the cause of acceleration.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can understand your frustration with a certain lack of "intuitiveness" for the theory of dark energy. In fact, I very much share that frustration.

Well, that's only "part" of the problem as I see it. A lot of cosmology theories aren't exactly "intuitive', or at least did not come naturally too me at first glance. Most of them however are based on empirical physics and sooner or later I 'get it', even if I don't agree with it. Some ideas seem "comprehensible' enough, but they simply lack any sort of empirical support or connection to empirical physics as is the case with "dark energy".

What I cannot understand is your outright rejection and disdain for the theory and its advocates when your alternative explanation has such a flimsy basis.

Well, the difference between us on that topic seems be related to the fact that you see the evidence of EM fields in space as 'flimsy' evidence. I simply don't see things that way. I percieve the evidence of EM fields in space to be overwhelming quite frankly. We see evidence of their influence everywhere IMO. We know that EM fields can accelerate plasma. We know that increasing the EM field can increase that acceleration, and we as a species use that same field to accelerate particles inside our most powerful particle accelerators. I fail to see how that is "flimsy'' evidence.

The hallmark of modern physics (since Galileo) is that mathematical analysis has replaced general impressions and opinions about how the universe operates. Without a quantitative analysis, your "physics" is quite medieval. Can't you see that?

I can appreciate your desire and need for a quantified model, but can't you also appreciate my need and desire for a qualified empirical demonstration?

The 'physics' isn't medieval IMO, it's simply physics that is limited to actual laws of known forces of nature. "Making up" a new force of nature isn't really a great example of a "modern" theory, it's more of a "make-believe' theory with no empirical substance IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope.
Acceleration in kinematics is the rate of change of velocity.
In this respect, however, we really mean the increase in the expansion rate of the universe.
Dark energy is the cause of the latter, whatever that may be. Hence dark energy is not just another name for acceleration, unless of course you think that acceleration is the cause of acceleration.

So if I substitute "cause of acceleration" with "acceleration" in my last sentence, would you *THEN* see the nature of your redefinition fallacy?

It's a term for what amounts to "human ignorance". You don't know what the "cause" is so why not just admit it and be honest about it, and call it "cause of acceleration"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Err no.

Er yes! You just redefined the idea of "cause of acceleration"! Whatever word we insert into our redefinition fallacy becomes unfalsifiable. God energy must have done it. Evil dark energy did it. Magic energy did it too! Anything and every word/phrase we might come up with can be abused in exactly the same manner.

 

[GeeMack]

Anything and every word/phrase we might come up with can be abused in exactly the same manner.

Spoken like a true expert.

 

[Prometheus]

So if I substitute "cause of acceleration" with "acceleration" in my last sentence, would you *THEN* see the nature of your redefinition fallacy?

No. Word substitution is not the same thing as redefinition. And redefinition is not necessarily a fallacy. It only becomes a fallacy when you mistakenly use your redefined term as the basis of an argument, as you do with 'religion'.

It's a term for what amounts to "human ignorance". You don't know what the "cause" is so why not just admit it and be honest about it, and call it "cause of acceleration"?

This is the point. We don't know exactly what dark energy is, but we can observe its effects and predict its properties, and our observations lead to a prediction that it is not an EMF.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This is hopeless!

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. Word substitution is not the same thing as redefinition. And redefinition is not necessarily a fallacy. It only becomes a fallacy when you mistakenly use your redefined term as the basis of an argument, as you do with 'religion'.

You're doing the exactly the same thing with "dark energy"! Your whole argument about the existence of 'dark energy' is based upon you redefining your ignorance "unknown cause of acceleration" with the term "dark energy".

This is the point. We don't know exactly what dark energy is, but we can observe its effects and predict its properties, and our observations lead to a prediction that it is not an EMF.

Which is exactly why it's a "high redefinition" fallacy. You're irrationally claiming that you already know that it interacts with the gravity field (vs. plasma mostly interacting with an EM field), and then you proceed to more narrowly redefine what is really an "unknown cause of acceleration" to exclude the one and only logical option to explain such unknown acceleration. It's a pure high redefinition fallacy from start to finish.