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

[Marcus]

This thread has fallen down to page 2 ... we can't have that!

Question for long-time posters (and lurkers): can you recall any examples of MM making a *quantitative* case (argument, point, narrative)?

As in a *consistent* quantitative point, with numbers which correspond to observed (or estimated) values of physical quantities (as defined in standard physics textbooks)^?

And what about maths ... any examples of the application of any math (even arithmetic!) - in a consistent, coherent way - to an event, observation, phenomenon, etc in physics or astronomy?

^ not just quoting one (e.g. "million mile an hour solar wind")

As a long-time lurker on this thread, what really sticks out for me is MM's avoidance of actual math or physics in favor of rhetoric.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The answer is irrelevant to mainstream cosmology.

Only because you choose to be willfully ignorant of empirical physics. I've really been up to my ears in projects at work, but later today I should wrap up the last of my serious projects and I should have time to put some energy into these threads again.

I'm simply blown away of how willfully negligent you're being and how irrational you're acting when it comes to plasma physics. There's only one known force in the universe that can produce the results that you're looking for, but you refuse to even look at the process logically or rationally.

There can't be more than say a dozen of "anti-empirical physics" critics on this website, but the willfulness of the ignorance is simply a blow mind. How about a quick show of hands, how many of the following individuals have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven?

Ben
DRD
RC
Tim Thompson
Geemack
(removed TBT from list as he is not a PC/EU critic per se. My bad)

Do any of you actually have a clue about what Alfven called the "particle" or "circuit" orientation of MHD theory? If so, how did you acquire this understanding of MHD theory?

 

[Pythonic]

Indeed.

Perhaps I was too terse.

By writing "case (argument, point, narrative)", my intended meaning was not only any new (against-the-mainstream, alternative, fringe, ...) case (etc), but also any consistent, quantitative critique of any theory/model/hypothesis/idea (whether as well-established as QED, or as far out as Thornhill's Electric Star idea, or anything in between).


Yep ... but I think it's important to always include the second part ("*consistent*") ... it's incredibly easy to "stat[e] quantitatively where the current model fails"^; whether any such statements have a consistent basis is a whole different kettle of sardines ...

^ e.g. estimated primordial abundance of ⁷Li

So, does MM actually have enough grasp of physics to be taking this on? If one is going to criticize a widely held theory, you have to demonstrate that the theory is at least fully understood first. The most fundamental premise of his refutation, from what I gleaned, is actually personal: he knows and thinks the physicist coining the term dark energy is a hack.

He really needs to demonstrate an understanding of the mathematical model to establish creditability. Otherwise this like watching a first semester physics student arguing with the professor over the twin paradox. It's too complex of a topic to operate from a strictly common sense standpoint.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As a long-time lurker on this thread, what really sticks out for me is MM's avoidance of actual math or physics in favor of rhetoric.

I would ask you the same question then about "dark energy". Since it can't be shown to move a single atom in a lab, how does one "quantitatively' refute the concept or the number they come up with?

The problem as I see it is that astronomers have conjured up three invisible friends and with them they have created what I can only call a "math religion". The only thing they understand is math, and they are completely clueless at the level of empirical physics. That's why they can't tell "induction" from "magnetic reconnection". There is no problem with their mathematical understanding of the process. Alfven himself saw Parker's "magnetic reconnection" theory, and although the math was fine, he still called it "pseudoscience". That is because there are two ways of looking at MHD theory, via the B field orientation or the E field orientation. Alfven switched between them gracefully, comparing the former method to the "wave/field" orientation of particle physics theory, and calling the latter the "particle" side of particle physics theory. When looking at the physics, Alfven tried to keep MHD theory consistent with other branches of science, particularly electrical engineering and particle physics theories. By using the "particle" side of that orientation, he was able to describe the physical processes at play in the plasma. The mainstream still only understands the "field" orientation of MDH theory, so when they put together Maxwell's formulas, the attempt to transfer every math formula to a B orientation. The problem is that when you apply that line of thinking to current carrying plasmas, you end up believing (mathematically) that you're dealing with a strictly "magnetic" process. They've essentially convinced themselves through math that the universe is "magnetic" rather than "electromagnetic" only because they removed/replace the current flow with a B oriented math formula.

It's the physics they don't comprehend. I could never teach these folks a lick about math, but I can definitely teach them physics. There's no point in arguing about the math. The math is "right" as long as you accept mythical energies and all their "specs" too, but the moment you look at the issue from the standpoint of empirical physics, their whole belief system falls apart instantly. All they can do to try to hide that fact from you is to bitch/complain/convince you about my lack of math skills.

This issue has nothing to do with "math". It's all about "physics" and their lack of empirical support for any of their mythical creatures. They can't tell induction from "magnetic reconnection" because they mathematically eliminated the E field in their formula.

 

[ben m]

If we quantitatively come up with a number of say how many invisible elves can fit on the head of a pin, how does one refute that number "quantitatively"?

The world has a number of people in it who think dark matter and/or dark energy are incorrect.

The tired light people gave a quantitative model. The MOND people gave a quantitative model. The MACHOs people gave us a quantitative model. Alfven-Klein gave us a quantitative model. TeVeS gives us a quantitative model. The "grey dust" people gave us a quantitative model. The guy who thinks neutrinos are the dark matter gave us a quantitative model. Heck, Terry Witt was making an honest effort at giving us a quantitative model.

We can plot those models against the data; the failure of those plots is the reason we don't believe these models.

You expect us to believe that you have a principled objection to quantitative comparisons of theory to data? That's a mighty convenient principle for someone whose hobby horse theory has been caught with 30 orders of magnitude of disagreement.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, does MM actually have enough grasp of physics to be taking this on? If one is going to criticize a widely held theory, you have to demonstrate that the theory is at least fully understood first. The most fundamental premise of his refutation, from what I gleaned, is actually personal: he knows and thinks the physicist coining the term dark energy is a hack.

He really needs to demonstrate an understanding of the mathematical model to establish creditability. Otherwise this like watching a first semester physics student arguing with the professor over the twin paradox. It's too complex of a topic to operate from a strictly common sense standpoint.

FYI, that was the intent of providing those earlier papers on circuits in the solar atmosphere by Alfven, and the purpose of providing those GR papers by Chodorowski. Some folks like edd really do understand GR theory fully. Others "kind of" understand the idea, but only look at the issue from *ONE* way of thinking, not several. To be able to argue these points effectively you have to first understand that there is more than one way to conceptually look at the problem. In MHD theory that's pretty straight forward because there are E and B to consider. In GR theory it's "wild and wooly" because they aren't really talking about GR theory as Einstein taught it, but rather a variation of what Einstein called a "blunder" theory, or his greatest blunder, with their mythical friends stuffed into what used to be a ZERO in the formula.

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Chodorowski_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

[ben m]

I'm simply blown away of how willfully negligent you're being and how irrational you're acting when it comes to plasma physics.

That's the thing: making a star accelerate around a galaxy has nothing to do with plasma physics. Accelerating a galaxy to 1000 km/s as it falls through a cluster has nothing to do with plasma physics. Plasmas exerts forces due to F = q (E + v x B), and thus accelerations of a = F/m = q/m(E + v x B). That's what it does in the solar corona, that's what it does in a terella, that's what it does in ITER, in lightning bolts, in the Van Allen belts, etc., which are all places where q/m is large. For stars, galaxies, clusters, etc., q/m is so small that these accelerations are negligible.

Sure, I would need to know ultra-detailed plasma physics to tell me whether the plasma-based acceleration of a star is 10^-38 or 5 x 10^-39 or 10^-40 m/s^2. I do not need to know detailed plasma physics to tell you that the plasma-based acceleration is not 10^-10 m/s^2.

Do any of you actually have a clue about what Alfven called the "particle" or "circuit" orientation of MHD theory? If so, how did you acquire this understanding of MHD theory?

What part of "Alfven's circuit notation for MHD theory" results in answers that are a factor of 10^30 different than the one above? That's got to be some crazy notation.

And you have already told us---repeatedly, IIRC---that you do not have an actual model which accounts for DE and DM observations. I am not terribly curious about what notation you don't use to not write down the model that you don't have.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's the thing: making a star accelerate around a galaxy has nothing to do with plasma physics.

So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yep ... but I think it's important to always include the second part ("*consistent*") ... it's incredibly easy to "stat[e] quantitatively where the current model fails"^; whether any such statements have a consistent basis is a whole different kettle of sardines ...

Your models "consistently" fail at level of empirical physics. I have to consistently "have faith" in all your math because you can't for instance demonstrate a single act of "acceleration" with "dark energy" in a lab. Is that really my personal fault, or the fault of the fact you put your faith in metaphysics rather than a physical force of nature? Your math is "consistently" based upon mythical energies and mythical forms of matter. They consistently fail at the level of empirical physics, and therefore they consistently fail to show up in lab experiments and they will consistently fail to do so forever and ever in the case of "inflation", which if I recall correctly even you personally don't care for. How by the way is your skepticism of inflation any "better" than mine "quantitatively"?

 

[ben m]

So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?

Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
In GR theory it's "wild and wooly" because they aren't really talking about GR theory as Einstein taught it, but rather a variation of what Einstein called a "blunder" theory, or his greatest blunder, with their mythical friends stuffed into what used to be a ZERO in the formula.

GR includes the cosmological constant. It is not magically changed to another theory by changing the value of the constant. The cosmological constant can be ZERO or NONZERO and GR remains GR.

The setting of the cosmological constant to a nonzero value is as Einstein taught GR.

You re showing your ignorance. Einstein never called anything a "blunder" theory.
Einstein's Greatest Blunder

 

[Reality Check]

So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?

Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, are completely wrong because they did not produce galaxy-like "structures".

The Fatal Error
The results of the computer simulations are maps of the distribution of plasma particles in a plane through the plasma filaments. These are maps of the distribution of the mass in the galaxies since all of the mass is in plasma. Peratt then proceeds to compare these mass distribution maps to radio and optical images. But
* Radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies.
* The reason that spiral galaxies look like they have spiral arms is not because there are actual arms (with no matter in between them) but because they are "arms" of high mass density containing lots of bright young stars. The density of matter in between the arms is 10-20% less than the density of matter in the arms (not 100%).
The mass distribution of elliptical galaxies is ellipsoidal so a plane through them produces various ellipses from nearly a circle to flattened to a large degree.
The mass distribution of spiral galaxies is a central bulge contained within a flat disk along with a near-spherical halo outside the disk and bulge. The mass distribution of a plane running through the disk produces a disk with minor variations in density.

Neither mass distribution matches the results from the computer simulations.

This invalidates the model completely and so we need not really continue.

But there are other points that are also relevant.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?

Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.

The paper in which Peratt published the details of, and results from, his 'galaxies' simulation: Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies

The simulations are also covered in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe.

Perhaps MM has not read either ... but when he gets around to doing so, he will discover that Peratt did not model stars^ ...

^ more precisely: the simulations Peratt performed - which produced "galaxy-like "structures"" - did not incorporate entities with charge-to-mass ratios as low as those of stars (indeed, they did not incorporate neutral gas either)

 

[ben m]

They consistently fail at the level of empirical physics, and therefore they consistently fail to show up in lab experiments and they will consistently fail to do so forever and ever in the case of "inflation"

Hey Michael---go telephone God and complain. Apparently he is in violation of Clause II.45(a-b) of the Contract and Statement of Work.

"II.45(a). Creators must fabricate universes using a very small number of fundamental forces. All such forces must be 'detectable' as defined in II.45(b) unless an explicit exception is granted in II.45(c).

II.45(b). 'detectable' forces must be subject to controlled experiments with on-off switches on Earth by late-20th-century homo sapiens sapiens, who are 2m tall carbon-based beings with access to laser, accelerator, and telescope technology. Creators must keep in mind the materials science, engineering, power, budget, computing constraints on all such experiments.

II.45(c). Exceptions to II.45b(b) will be granted for gravity waves, short-lived elementary particles, space plasma physics, high-temperature properties of iron, and other phenomena at the sole discretion of Mr. Michael Mozina, a homo sapiens sapiens, or his designated proxies or executors. "

Yep, the dark energy data suggests that God is in violation. Do you want to grant Him an exception under your powers in II.45(c), or do you want to terminate his contract?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.

Your notion that a sun is a "neutral massive object" is false as the continuous flow of solar wind demonstrates. If it were "neutral" in relationship to the plasma outside the heliosphere, that would never happen.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey Michael---go telephone God and complain. Apparently he is in violation of Clause II.45(a-b) of the Contract and Statement of Work.



Yep, the dark energy data suggests that God is in violation. Do you want to grant Him an exception under your powers in II.45(c), or do you want to terminate his contract?

ER, evidently neither is necessary. Birkeland figured out that the universe was electric in the EARLY 20th century, and Alfven quantified a lot of it for you by the late 20th century. It's not God's fault you personally can't figure it out even with help.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.

The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Ben?

 

[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

Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem?
First asked 15 January 2010
This is more of a comment and I do not really expect an answer. Basically MM has the delusion that inserting God into a term like "dark energy" defines it as a religion. All it does it point out that his position is so deficient that he has to resort to ridiculous tactics.
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.

 

[Reality Check]

The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Ben?

The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of electrons, H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Michael Mozina?

 

[Dancing David]

The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of electrons, H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Michael Mozina?

That is the sound of an electric star shorting out.