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

[Reality Check]

The theory isn't "outdated", it's "confirmed" by those later four papers!

The theory is not outdated. It is out of date (published 1966) and superceded by the references in one of those later four papers!

Boloney. If tusemfem is your plasma guru, you're in serious trouble. He can't describe the difference between simple induction and what he calls "magnetic reconnection" any better than you can.

Boloney.
The difference between induction and magnetic reconnection is clear. One is induction. One is magnetic reconnection.

Birkeland "predicted" these observations empirically in the lab. Alfven "predicted" them in MHD theory as he applied it to the sun. The fact you refuse to notice that what you call a "magnetic line" is actually part of what Alfven called a "circuit" is simply jaw dropping behavior IMO.

Birkeland did not predict these observations empirically in the lab. He saw things that looked like things on the Sun and was wrong.

That is what I said. Alfven predicted them in MHD theory.
Only an idiot would think that a magnetic line is a circuit. A magnetic line is a representation of the magnetic field.

No, it's about 'circuits' and circuit energy and "short circuits". It's about the E orientation of MHD theory.

Yes, it's about 'circuits' and circuit energy and "short circuits". It's about the E orientation of MHD theory.
It is not about return currents.

A magnetic field forms as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. It can't "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. The "reconnection" is between two "magnetic ropes", something Alfven drew as part of a "circuit".

Your ignorance continues: Magnetic reconnection.
There is only one "magnetic rope" in a typical coronal loop. It is the magnetic flux tube.

In 1966, Alfven represented the energy released in a solar flare as an electrical circuit.
There is nothing in his paper about your two magnetic ropes. There is nothing in Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits about your two magnetic ropes

The only thing separating domains of *electro*magnetic plasma are double layers.

That is almost correct. Double layers are separated layers of electromagnetic plasma with opposite electrical charges.

Magnetic reconnection.

Domains in a magnetic plasma are separated by separatrix surfaces: curved surfaces in space that divide different bundles of flux
....
This view is a cross-section through four magnetic domains undergoing separator reconnection. Two separatrices (see text) divide space into four magnetic domains with a separator at the center of the figure. Field lines (and associated plasma) flow inward from above and below the separator, reconnect, and spring outward horizontally. A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models.

The definition of a separatrix surface is the surface that separates magnetic domains in an electromagnetic plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually MM, we should take this dicussion of magnetic reconnection which has nothing to do with the OP to the "Magnetic reconnection and physical processes" thread.
There you can show how magnetic reconnection in plasmas can be replaced physically by induction. Please use actual mathematics or that dreaded science .

But this is unlikely:

...snip...
Why not induction?
Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
I'd love to see Peratt rerun those simulations with Manual's elemental abundance figures. It would likely elevate gravity to a more important role, and no doubt result in actual "clumps" of matter.

You really do not know anything about Peratt's simulations or Peratt's debunked and invalid model.

• Peratt's simulations produce results ("clumps of plasma") that do not agree with observations.
  So we do not need to look any further. Peratt's model is wrong.
• Peratt's simulations do not include gravity at all.
• Peratt's model assume the existence of galactic sized plasma filaments that would be easy to see and are not.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

...snip...
I'd love to see Peratt rerun those simulations with Manual's elemental abundance figures. It would likely elevate gravity to a more important role, and no doubt result in actual "clumps" of matter.

You really do not know anything about Peratt's simulations or Peratt's debunked and invalid model.

• Peratt's simulations produce results ("clumps of plasma") that do not agree with observations.
  So we do not need to look any further. Peratt's model is wrong.
• Peratt's simulations do not include gravity at all.
• Peratt's model assume the existence of galactic sized plasma filaments that would be easy to see and are not.

You know what makes MM's words sometimes pure comedy?

Well, here's an example.

Not only did Peratt write an entire book on the very topic so dear to MM's heart (Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992)), but he even included the source code used in his simulations in it (Appendix C)!

IIRC, MM has said that he's a computer guy, and his name is on at least one of the Manuel papers (as co-author), so why is it that he (MM) has not yet "rerun those simulations with Manual's elemental abundance figures" himself?!?

Could it be - shock! horror! - that MM has not actually read Peratt's book?

 

[GeeMack]

Er, no, it's more like "iron did it". IMO that particular feature was likely due to Alfven and Peratt believing the mainstream's claim about a non-mass separation of material in stars, and their elemental abundance figures that are all based upon that assumption. I'd love to see Peratt rerun those simulations with Manual's elemental abundance figures. It would likely elevate gravity to a more important role, and no doubt result in actual "clumps" of matter.

On the other hand, since Manuel's elemental abundance figures are simply the rantings of a crackpot, it would be foolish for anyone to use that if they were making a legitimate scientific effort to model reality.

 

[GeeMack]

You know what makes MM's words sometimes pure comedy?

Well, here's an example.

Not only did Peratt write an entire book on the very topic so dear to MM's heart (Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992)), but he even included the source code used in his simulations in it (Appendix C)!

IIRC, MM has said that he's a computer guy, and his name is on at least one of the Manuel papers (as co-author), so why is it that he (MM) has not yet "rerun those simulations with Manual's elemental abundance figures" himself?!?

Could it be - shock! horror! - that MM has not actually read Peratt's book?

Willful ignorance because of confirmation bias? Inability to actually understand those elemental abundance figures, since after all, they are numbers. Maybe he knows deep down that Manuel is a crackpot and doesn't want to make himself look any more foolish than he already does? I can actually think of several plausible reasons.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK ... but as with RC, this misses MM's point!

Keep in mind that MM has not - to the best of any reader of this thread's knowledge, today - posted anything which could be said to be evidence that he understands, let alone can use, math (including arithmetic) in astrophysics.

You and GM are one trick ponies. All you know is how to engage in personal attack. More telling is that you refuse to answer *any* direct questions put to you. You don't even believe in "inflation" AFAIK, but here you are complaining about my rejection of your mythical "math bunnies" under the bed. How ironic.

This is what MM means by "empirical" ... something like 'can create nice piccies which look like some other nice piccies' (or, if you prefer, bunny picture science).

No, I mean like what Birkeland did in his lab, something that actually works, something that functions, something that one might compare their mathematical models to in real physics experiments with real control mechanisms. You folks don't do empirical physics anymore. If you can't simulate your invisible friends in software, and you have to actually get your hands dirty, you're not interested in it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Those are some of the low-mass, high-charge particles I was talking about. Don't forget about electrons. Yes, that order is vaguely what you expect given the solar metallicity and the corona temperature; I'd expect He++ to be quite a lot rarer than He+.

You'd be wrong. Why?

 

[Michael Mozina]

First, get it straight: 0.4% of the entire Universe's mass-energy resides in stars.

So the fact Peratt's models didn't include stars is virtually irrelevant. It's a plasma universe, but most of the mass is in those "flying electrons and flying electric ions" that Birkeland talked about.

IMO his lack of "clumpy stuff" is directly related to the elements selected in the model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We've ruled out Coulomb's Law on net solar charge.

Yes, and that's where you got lost as that constant flow of solar wind particles demonstrates. It would not flow past the Earth at a million miles per hour if there was not net charge difference between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. Something accelerates those solar wind particles and selectively accelerates more He+2 ions over He+1 ions. What's doing that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's look at your silly quote, one that is *EASILY* debunked.

"For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."

None of you have ever seen a "coil" in action eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You really do not know anything about Peratt's simulations or Peratt's debunked and invalid model.

• Peratt's simulations produce results ("clumps of plasma") that do not agree with observations.

They produced galaxy-like layouts of plasma, yes, but not "stars". There's a difference in the way you and I are using the term "clump".

So we do not need to look any further. Peratt's model is wrong.

So fix it rather than reject it completely! Hell, you didn't reject BB theory when it predicted deceleration and we observed acceleration. You simply stuffed the gaps of your ignorance with 70+ metaphysics! I'm simply suggesting a relatively simple set of changes.

[*]Peratt's simulations do not include gravity at all.

In the sense it has no significant amount of heavy elements even I personally believe it underplays the significance of gravity.

[*]Peratt's model assume the existence of galactic sized plasma filaments that would be easy to see and are not.
[/LIST]

Bull. You euphemistically call them "jets" from "black holes".

 

[ben m]

So fix it rather than reject it completely!

I thought it was 100% lab-tested already---wouldn't "fixing it" be adding non-empirical fairies, according to your logic?

Don't bother, though---it's not fixable, it's just wrong. I gave you the list of EM forces, which one do you think is missing and can be added in the "fixed" version?

 

[ben m]

Yes, and that's where you got lost as that constant flow of solar wind particles demonstrates. It would not flow past the Earth at a million miles per hour if there was not net charge difference between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. Something accelerates those solar wind particles and selectively accelerates more He+2 ions over He+1 ions. What's doing that?

Let's be generous and say that solar wind ions is accelerated by Coulomb's Law. If that is the case, then the Sun needs an excess charge of +1000C. That's adequate to accelerate free ions to 10^6 mph, but it's only adequate to cause 0.00000000000000000000001% (or whatever it was) of the Sun's known acceleration around the galaxy.

We have been over this ten times. Can you write down those numbers somewhere, please?

And we know that the acceleration is NOT coulombic, since the wind is (a) both ions and electrons, and (b) accelerated near the Sun and cruising afterwards at nearly constant velocity. Therefore it's some mix of short range effects; you have a whole nother thread to discuss what the mix is.

 

[Tubbythin]

So fix it rather than reject it completely!

You fix it if you think its so wonderful.

 

[Reality Check]

They produced galaxy-like layouts of plasma, yes, but not "stars". There's a difference in the way you and I are using the term "clump".

You really do not know anything about Peratt's simulations or Peratt's debunked and invalid model.
Peratt's simulations produce results ("clumps of plasma") that do not agree with observations. He never produced "galaxy-like layouts of plasma". His simulations never get down to the level of stars and was never meant to.

So fix it rather than reject it completely!

So you fix it rather than accept it even though it is wrong!

We do not need to fix it. That is Peratt's job. It is his model.
We do not even have to "fix" his simulations.
Peratt's model is wrong even in its basic assumptions:

His model was that the galaxies start as a bundle of galactic sized plasma filaments each with an electric current running through them. These galactic plasma filaments are estimated to have a width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and a length of from 35 megaparasec to 3.5 gigaparasec (an average length of 350 megaparasec or 1 billion light years).

Galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.
The large electric current through them will cause synchrotron radiation. There is no evidence for this. See the forum posting Cluster-sized diffuse radio waveband synchrotron radiation and its footnote:

IMHO the movement of filaments through the intergalactic medium will cause shock waves and detectable X-rays (see below).

There is also the problem of why the filaments are not seen in studies of the mass distribution of matter within galactic clusters using gravitational lensing.
See this posting in the extremely long Plasma Cosmology - Woo or Not thread.

Galactic plasma filaments are not stable.
The SPLASH simulation started with 2 columns that were 32 grids high and 6 wide (the grids defined the spatial extent of the simulation). The 1983 paper describing the SPLASH simulation does mention that periodic boundary conditions are imposed (this essentially makes the simulated filaments infinite in length). So it is possible that the factor of 10,000 between the filament lengths in the simulation and model is not a factor. However in my (limited) knowledge of plasma physics, long filaments of plasma are inherently unstable.

The big problem comes because galaxies are dynamic – they move. Galactic clusters also move. Galaxies collide. Galactic clusters collide. Galaxies pass each other and cannibalize each other. The filaments considered alone may be stable but I cannot see them maintaining themselves when they get close or even collide. Not only could separate filaments collide and short circuit their electric currents but a filament could even collide with itself!

In the sense it has no significant amount of heavy elements even I personally believe it underplays the significance of gravity.

You really do need to learn about Peratt's simulations or Peratt's debunked and invalid model.

Gravity in the Model
Gravity is ignored in the SPLASH and TRISTRAN simulation packages. This makes them useful only for situations where gravitational forces can be ignored, i.e. on short time scales or where EM forces are known to dominate. Section IX in Peratt's second paper describes proposed extensions to the three-dimensional electromagnetic particle simulation to include gravitational forces. No further work on these extensions seems to have been done since 1986. If the extensions were developed then there are no reports of them having being applied to the plasma model.

Gravitational forces will always have an effect on the formation and evolution of galaxies since they cannot be shielded like electromagnetic forces. Ignoring gravity is the second fatal flaw in Peratt's model.

(emphasis added for MM's benefit)

Bull. You euphemistically call them "jets" from "black holes".

Bull. You really do not know anything about Peratt's simulations or Peratt's debunked and invalid model.

His model was that the galaxies start as a bundle of galactic sized plasma filaments each with an electric current running through them. These galactic plasma filaments are estimated to have a width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and a length of from 35 megaparasec to 3.5 gigaparasec (an average length of 350 megaparasec or 1 billion light years).

(emphasis added for MM's benefit)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Gravity is ignored in the SPLASH and TRISTRAN simulation packages. This makes them useful only for situations where gravitational forces can be ignored, i.e. on short time scales or where EM forces are known to dominate.

In other words, these simulations might be useful to "explain" say a "bang" event, and the layout of matter into "galaxies" is not a "coincidence", it's a standard EM effect. Even today, "gravity" doesn't dominate the process, which is why you need all that "dark evil energy' of yours. In other words the EM field *STILL* dominates the process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I thought it was 100% lab-tested already---wouldn't "fixing it" be adding non-empirical fairies, according to your logic?

No, "fixing it" would involve writing a lot more software, formulas that include the relevancy of GR theory, particularly over time. They would include the ability to modify the elemental abundance numbers and the effects of gravity over time. It would allow us to vary the strength of the EM field "outside of" what you call the visible universe. It would require a real effort, by more than single individual.

Don't bother, though---it's not fixable, it's just wrong. I gave you the list of EM forces, which one do you think is missing and can be added in the "fixed" version?

I'm sure there are two highly critical variables that must be included in the model, the strength of the all encompassing EM field, and the elemental abundance numbers. I think those kinds of modifications to Peratt's models would probably create a more "realistic" simulation of real conditions in space.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you fix it rather than accept it even though it is wrong!

I'll certainly "help" if you like.

We do not need to fix it. That is Peratt's job. It is his model.
We do not even have to "fix" his simulations.
Peratt's model is wrong even in its basic assumptions:

You're wrong on all except the last statement, and even that statement is highly relevant.

First of all, it's not only "Peratt's" model, it's the "first attempt" to take "some of" Alfven's earlier ideas and simulate them in software. It's an attempt to apply MHD theory to a "bang" sort of simulation in plasma.

It's not "just" Peratt's job to "figure out" how and why our universe works, or to figure out every single detail of EU/PC theory all by himself. That will certainly require at "team effort" and take many, many, many years to complete.

You *DO* have to fix his models in the final analysis, because they are the only mathematical models that you have to work with that even come remotely close to removing your pathetic need for 70% metaphysics in your theories. If and when you really want to empirically 'explain' an accelerating universe, you'll need his work, and you'll need to fix it.

The last statement you made *IS* accurate. He made some "questionable" basic assumptions even by my way of looking at things. IMO he foolishly chose to believe your elemental abundance figures and that was the root of a lot of differences between observation and the model.

There's only one known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and that is the EM field. There's no other logical option. Simply ignoring the only force of nature you have to work with simply makes you look bad IMO. You're not trying to figure out how the universe works, you're trying to figure out how to stuff the EM genie back in the bottle. That's never going to happen. You need 70% metaphysics, only because you *REFUSE* to honestly attempt to figure it out with EM fields. Instead of actually putting in sweat equity effort into attempting to fix the models, you simply whine about their limitation, and ignore the obvious implication. No wonder the universe is so "dark" and mysterious to you. You don't WANT to know how it actually works.

 

[Perpetual Student]