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

[Michael Mozina]

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?

The fact they all "shoot out" blows out your claim. I stand corrected on the electrons part, but they're doing the work of acceleration, whereas the positively charged ions come along for the ride.

If was a "neutral" body, we wouldn't observe million mile per hour "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere.

 

[DazzaD]

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.

Ok..

This is on my desk because I sorted out my "job folder" which has all my qualifications and I glanced at this while reading this post.

As an undergraduate at a UK University I did the following courses in a Mathematics and Astrophysics degree:

Elements of Pure Mathematics
Mathematical Computation
Calculus and Analysis
Newtonian Dynamics and Gravitation
Linear Algebra I
Mathematical and Computational Models
Advanced Calculus
The Physics and Astronomy of Stars
The Structure and Evolution of Stars
Numerical Analysis I
Linear Operators and Differential Equations
Numerical Computing
Classical and Quantum Mechanics
Solar System
Electromagnetism
The Physics of Galaxies
Theory of Plasmas
Calculus II
Linear Algebra II
Relativity
Solving Partial Differential Equations
Cosmology
Nuclear and Elementary Particle Physics
The Interstellar Medium

Thats just as a lowly undergrad.

Now, you would think that those courses would suit you up reasonably well to notice that maybe, just maybe, if the Sun and the Universe was as MM described then something would be amiss in all those millions of facts/figures/data/experiments/practicals/theories/calculations that were involved in just those 3 years of undergrad work (which of course would occur in any good uni anywhere in the world).

If there is this big "mistake" in such a MASSIVE chunk of physics why are we not seeing it then? What is it about all the millions of scientists that puts the same blinkers on them?

You would think with those courses you could, say, understand how a star works (and if its purely electromagnetic), or how the interstellar medium or solar system or galaxy consists of plasmas and how that "drives" everything... no?

What did I miss then? Really?


I teach all day and all night... one of the most important things I get a student to do is to explain WHY they are wrong or right... not just say, or "cos", or just wave their hands and say it cant be that... but say WHY.

MM, please, I really would reiterate what some others are saying, there does appear to be a distinct lack of detail in your rebuttals, especially if you wish to converse with those whose bread and butter is 'details, maths, equations, explanations etc'.

 

[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.

For the record again, how much "normal mass" (percentage wise) is actually contained inside the stars and solar system objects again, according to your theory?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok..

This is on my desk because I sorted out my "job folder" which has all my qualifications and I glanced at this while reading this post.

FYI, I didn't ask for your job qualifications, I asked DRD what makes their *skepticism* of inflation any "better" than mine from a quantitative (or qualitative) standpoint. It's an impressive list and all, but it doesn't answer my basic question. DRD evidently also rejects one of the three metaphysical amigo's, so why condemn me for tossing out the other two?

As an undergraduate at a UK University I did the following courses in a Mathematics and Astrophysics degree:

Thats just as a lowly undergrad.

Which of those classes you listed required a thorough reading of Birkeland's work or required you to read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? Have you ever read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven, yes or no? In all those classes you listed were you exposed to Alfven's cosmology theories in any structured manner?

Now, you would think that those courses would suit you up reasonably well to notice that maybe, just maybe, if the Sun and the Universe was as MM described then something would be amiss in all those millions of facts/figures/data/experiments/practicals/theories/calculations that were involved in just those 3 years of undergrad work (which of course would occur in any good uni anywhere in the world).

That assumes a lot about the required reading in the curriculum IMO. Based upon a rather unscientific sampling over the years, I can tell you few if any folks in your industry have read Cosmic Plasma when asked the first time. I've shamed a couple of folks into reading it, but most never are exposed to Alfven's formal cosmology theories in a structured university setting, or at least have never read his book on this topic.

If there is this big "mistake" in such a MASSIVE chunk of physics why are we not seeing it then?

You are. I handed you five recent papers where return currents are seen in solar activity. Did you read those papers? If you did, you didn't have much to say about them. What's up with that?

What is it about all the millions of scientists that puts the same blinkers on them?

There aren't "millions" of scientists that do that by the way, just a small subset of "astronomers". Most of them aren't in the business playing the role of "grand inquisitor" against PC/EU theory. That seems to be something only a handful of individuals choose to actually do.

What's with the different rule system for ATM ideas at BAUT? Why impose a double standard like that?

You would think with those courses you could, say, understand how a star works (and if its purely electromagnetic), or how the interstellar medium or solar system or galaxy consists of plasmas and how that "drives" everything... no?

No. I was never taught any of that in college. Were you? I had to figure it out on my own.

What did I miss then? Really?

Ya, you missed all of Birkeland's emirical experiments. You missed those five recent papers I just provided. You probably "missed" reading Cosmic Plasma too.

I teach all day and all night... one of the most important things I get a student to do is to explain WHY they are wrong or right... not just say, or "cos", or just wave their hands and say it cant be that... but say WHY.

You're wrong because Birkeland empirically demonstrated you are wrong over 100 years ago via old fashion "empirical physics". Go ahead and believe in "dark energies" if they float your boat, but show me anything that runs on "dark energy"?

MM, please, I really would reiterate what some others are saying, there does appear to be a distinct lack of detail in your rebuttals, especially if you wish to converse with those whose bread and butter is 'details, maths, equations, explanations etc'.

There is a distinct lack of mathematics in my rebuttals because my objections have zero to do with your math formulas and everything to do with your lack of empirical physical support for any of your key ideas.

What you missed is the same thing I missed in my formal education, a direct exposure to Birkeland's most important writings and a direct exposure to Alfven's most important writings.

Yes or no have you read Cosmic Plasma? It seems to me if you have not read his work you have no business complaining about my lack of math. It's all been done, you just refuse to read it or consider it unless I personally bark math for you on command. Boloney. I won't play that game with you. I don't have to bark math for you especially since I'm not complaining about your math in the first place. That's simply a red herring so you can avoid those five papers, and that wealth of mathematical modeling done by Alfven. I won't let you live in denial of the empirical flaws in your belief systems only because you have superior math skills. Get it?

(edited)

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is the sound of an electric star shorting out.

Ok, that was sort of funny.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

I apologize for the silly rhetorical question, but ... isn't one of the virtues of having good mathematics that observation and experimentation in physics involve the measurement of numerical quantities and the comparison of their values to quantities calculated in models? Isn't this use of mathematics necessary for empiricism in physics to even make any sense?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?

It seems to me that you folks need to at least put up a consistent argument. If only such a small percentage of the mass resides in stars, then you can't also claim that the presumed "neutrality" of stars would somehow have some giant effect on Peratt's model. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too as it suits you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I apologize for the silly rhetorical question, but ... isn't one of the virtues of having good mathematics that observation and experimentation in physics involve the measurement of numerical quantities and the comparison of their values to quantities calculated in models? Isn't this use of mathematics necessary for empiricism in physics to even make any sense?

There's nothing wrong (and everything right) with math as long as you're actually comparing it to something that exists in nature and that you can show does exist in nature. I can't just conjure up a few math formulas, call it "magic energy' and demonstrate the existence of magic energy from uncontrolled observations of distant objects in the sky!

*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space. As it is, you didn't demonstrate "magic/dark energy" has any effect on even a single atom, so pointing at the sky and claiming your math formula did it, has no physical substance and I have no way to compare your claim to anything in physics.

 

[GeeMack]

*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space.

*IF* you could do math, which as far as anyone on any Internet forum knows, you can't. So that's a moot *IF*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

*IF* you could do math, which as far as anyone on any Internet forum knows, you can't. So that's a moot *IF*.

So what? The only people that actually need my help in math are my teenage children. They actually appreciate the fact that I've been through calculus. I don't really give a damn what you think of my math skills because they are irrelevant in terms of my basic argument or the flaws in your theory. Your theories are devoid of *EMPIRICAL PHYSICAL SUPPORT* that has nothing to do with your pretty math formulas.

It doesn't matter how many equations you integrate to figure out how many invisible elves fit on the head of a pin. The problem isn't in your math formulas related to the surface area of the pin, it's your basic physical claim of the existence of elves that lacks physical support. Asking me to find the flaw in your elf math is utterly pointless when it's your "physics" that doesn't add up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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)

Percentage wise, how much mass is contained inside the stars of a galaxy compared to the total mass of a galaxy?

If the sun is electrically "neutral", why do we observe constant, full sphere, million mile per hour "current flows" of charged particles between the photosphere and heliosphere?

 

[Reality Check]

The fact they all "shoot out" blows out your claim.

The fact they all shoot out blows out your claim.
Take away equal amounts of positive and negaive charges from a neutral body and you are left with a neutral body.

Strictly speaking stars may not be neutral. But they are so slightly charged that any effects are negligible as has been explained in several threads in this forum.
To start with there is an upper limit to their charge of about 77 Coulombs per solar mass. Stars with a charge higher than this explode as they cannot retain particles.

ETA
On the global electrostatic charge of stars.

If was a "neutral" body, we wouldn't observe million mile per hour "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere.

We do not observe million mile per hour "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere.

We do observe million mile per hour mass flows (the solar wind) between the photosphere and heliosphere and beyond into interstellar space.

 

[Reality Check]

It seems to me that you folks need to at least put up a consistent argument. If only such a small percentage of the mass resides in stars, then you can't also claim that the presumed "neutrality" of stars would somehow have some giant effect on Peratt's model. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too as it suits you.

Wrong.
It seems that you need to learn to understand what you read.


We measure that the universe contains at most 6% (the accepted value is 4%) of baryonic matter. That is a percentage of the total mass and energy iin the universe.

• ~0.4% in stars.
• ~3.6% in the intracluster medium.
• The rest is dark matter and dark energy.

This states nothing about the neutrality of the stars.

If you knew anything about Peratt's debunked and invalid model then you would know that it is a plasma model of galaxy formation and ignores stars.

There are some idiots out there that claim that stars have enough of a charge on them that their interaction with the galactic magnetic field is significant. This is not Peratt's debunked and invalid model. The problem with this idea is it is simple to show that that the forces are many orders of magnitude less than the force of gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

For the record again, how much "normal mass" (percentage wise) is actually contained inside the stars and solar system objects again, according to your theory?

As you have been told many times, the mass and energy of the universe is measured to be

• ~0.4% in stars.
• ~3.6% in the intracluster medium.
• ~23% in dark matter.
• ~73% in dark energy.

So stars contain 10% of of the normal (baryonic) mass.

 

[ben m]

If the sun is electrically "neutral", why do we observe constant, full sphere, million mile per hour "current flows" of charged particles between the photosphere and heliosphere?

Because the surface of the sun is a hot, violent place with lots of localized turbulent fields. The wind that gets pushed around by these fields has a mass of one billionth of one trillionth of the Sun's mass. Even if that was purely-electrostatic acceleration---which it's not, since the Solar Wind has an equal number of electrons and + ions and thus no electric current---it would require an excess charge of only 1000 Coulombs.

Go ahead, MM, put those 1000C on the Sun (and contrive a way to keep them there while an electric current flows away). If you can do that, the charge-to-mass ratio of the Sun is only a factor of 10^30 (instead of the 10^31 it was before) less than the charge-to-mass ratio of the proton.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think I'll work your claim from both directions. Let's now note that the sun also has a strong magnetic field which could also factor into an electromagnetic acceleration process. Your mythical sun needs to not only be "charge neutral", it also has to be devoid of a magnetic field to be completely unaffected by an all pervasive EM field expansion process.

 

[Reality Check]

I think I'll work your claim from both directions. Let's now note that the sun also has a strong magnetic field which could also factor into an electromagnetic acceleration process. Your mythical sun needs to not only be "charge neutral", it also has to be devoid of a magnetic field to be completely unaffected by an all pervasive EM field expansion process.

What claim is being worked?
What is "an all pervasive EM field expansion process"?

The Sun has a magnetic field. It is strong in comparison to some things and weak in comparison to other things. It factors into "an electromagnetic acceleration process". That factor is that it changes the path of charged particles that have been accelerated away from the Sun by other processes.
FYI:
The Suns magnetic field:

The Sun is a magnetically active star. It supports a strong, changing magnetic field that varies year-to-year and reverses direction about every eleven years around solar maximum.[58] The Sun's magnetic field gives rise to many effects that are collectively called solar activity, including sunspots on the surface of the Sun, solar flares, and variations in solar wind that carry material through the Solar System.[59] Effects of solar activity on Earth include auroras at moderate to high latitudes, and the disruption of radio communications and electric power. Solar activity is thought to have played a large role in the formation and evolution of the Solar System. Solar activity changes the structure of Earth's outer atmosphere.[60]

 

[Michael Mozina]

This claim:

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.

According to you only .4% of the mass/energy actually resides in stars, so what's the big difference between his model and an ordinary galaxy? Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely bogus) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space. As it is, you didn't demonstrate "magic/dark energy" has any effect on even a single atom, so pointing at the sky and claiming your math formula did it, has no physical substance and I have no way to compare your claim to anything in physics.

I'd suggest you look up Hubble's law. Galaxies apparently recede from one-another at a rate proportional to the distance between them. Hubble's constant is about 74 km/s per Megaparsec. A megaparsec is a million parsecs. A parsec is about 31 trillion km. So galaxies that are 31 million trillion km apart will appear to move away from each other at 74 km/s. Objects only 31 km apart, however, would only move away from each other at a million-trillionth of that speed. Two atoms in a lab? I'd imagine the rate at which they recede due to Hubble's law from one-another is immeasurable, especially compared to whatever sources of error may exist in an attempt at measurement.

What dark energy models are supposed to account for, as I understand it, is an increase over time of the rate of apparent recession between any two objects. This apparent recession only has a measurable effect on things that are already very far away.

Another thing that cannot be measured with atoms in a lab is simple gravitational attraction. The magnitude of the gravitational force between two atoms is too small to measure, but by observing the way the planets move around the sun, the moon moves around the Earth, and the way things fall on Earth, we know gravity exists nonetheless. Asking to demonstrate dark energy with atoms in the lab is absurd for the same reason that asking to demonstrate gravity with atoms in the lab is.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space.

*IF* you could do math, which as far as anyone on any Internet forum knows, you can't. So that's a moot *IF*.

There's an important aspect to this that we should not lose sight of; namely, that empirically (MM's definition, or anyone else's) showing acceleration (standard definition) requires numbers, equations, etc.

Now we know that Newton, Maxwell, Birkeland, Einstein, Hubble, Zwicky, Alfvén, Peratt, Guth, Turner, Perlmutter, ... knew/know how to analyse data, and show that acceleration was/is happening, but MM does not.

Think about this for a moment ... even if MM were given the cleaned data from a dozen ('in the lab') experiments - designed to test whether gravity/electric fields/magnetic fields/the weak force/the strong force caused acceleration (per models of these forces) - he couldn't take that data and show that the results match the models (within the experimental uncertainties)!

In fact, I suspect he couldn't show - from the data - that there was any acceleration (standard definition).

On the other hand, presented with some eye candy (a.k.a. nice images) ...