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

[Michael Mozina]

Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field.

 

[DazzaD]

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.

So over 150 years of "electromagnetics" on its own has failed to even come close to explaining the overall cosmology but we have to wait a few more years?

What about before GR came onto the scene? Where were the all pervading EM explanations for the universe?

Am I missing something or has this been given more than its fair crack of the whip?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field.

Well, I'm out of my league here, but since cosmic rays are omnidirectional, would not all those EM fields cancel out?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I'm out of my league here, but since cosmic rays are omnidirectional, would not all those EM fields cancel out?

Cancels out, or drives acceleration?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism II

Michael Mozina arrogantly boasts ...

... but I can definitely teach them physics.

So he is given the opportunity to do that ...

Really? Lets see ...
Is "dark energy" electric? No, and here's why.
Is "dark energy" magnetic? No, and here's why.
OK, here's your big chance to teach real, empirical physics. Both myself & ben_m present quantitative arguments based on straight forward classical physics. What did we do wrong? Are the forces wrongly calculated? Can you quantitatively show that is is possible for "dark energy" to be electromagnetic? Can you calculate the force or energy required for "dark energy" to be electromagnetic? If you can't, is that because you don't know enough math, or because you don't know enough physics? Neither? Both?

Mozina has ignored the real issue altogether. This is "Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology". What better place to support his own assertion that "dark energy" is a manifestation of classical electromagnetism? Myself & ben_m have presented objective & quantitative arguments to support the assertion that "dark energy" cannot be any manifestation of classical electromagnetism. Mozina has ignored the opportunity to present equally qualified objective & quantitative argument to the contrary. As far as I am concerned, that ends the discussion on the electromagnetic nature of "dark energy". It has been proven to my satisfaction that "dark energy" cannot be any manifestation of classical electromagnetism and Mozina is either unwilling or unable to directly address the issue. It is time therefore to move on to other topics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Cancels out, or drives acceleration?

Really? How? "In a lab" if we construct a matrix of thousands of separate wires oriented equally in all three space dimensions (say, in a sphere) and passed a current through all of them so we have equal EM fields in all directions, would we have a net force pushing outward? If that's true you may have a point; if not your statement is fantasy. I really don't know, but that strikes me as a fairly easy experiment to construct.

 

[ben m]

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.

You are still hoping that this simulation will tell you that EM fields exert a 10^-10 m/s galactic-center-wards acceleration on the Sun, on its neighbors, on the local ISM ions and electrons, and on the local halo stars.

There is no possible E and B field which does this. No matter what Peratt's code tells you the field is, this field has the properties I described with respect to force and acceleration. No matter what you guess the field is, this field has the properties I described. No matter what field is generated by the huge electromagnet the aliens install at the Galactic center, the field has the properties I described.

 

[ben m]

Cancels out, or drives acceleration?

CANCELS OUT. This isn't rocket science, MM, this is Freshman E&M. Electric currents moving in opposite directions cancel and give zero net B field.

But even if there is a B field (or an E field) generated by cosmic rays, aliens, your imagination, etc., it still cannot drive any of the various accelerations you insist it must, for reasons you are still ignoring.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really? How? "In a lab" if we construct a matrix of thousands of separate wires oriented equally in all three space dimensions (say, in a sphere) and passed a current through all of them so we have equal EM fields in all directions, would we have a net force pushing outward? If that's true you may have a point; if not your statement is fantasy. I really don't know, but that strikes me as a fairly easy experiment to construct.

Let's try a "thought experiment" first and we'll be "observers" outside the concepts of "space/time". We'll start with a "cosmic ray" EM field that essentially is an omnidirectional particle field composed of high velocity (light speed) charged particles.

Into this omnidirectional EM field we'll drop a few "stationary" (I guess to us/the field?) charged test particles. Sooner or later, one of those high velocity charged particles in the light speed EM field is going to strike our test particle, or perhaps simply "interact" with it electromagnetically in some way (no direct collision) and our test particle will 'move' in some direction relative to our original point of insertion into the field.

Now if we drop a 'string' of test particles, and/or clumps of test particles into the field, they may not interact with the EM field in exactly the same way, but sooner or later those test particles will again "move' away from our original position.

The overall tendency will be to "accelerate" all our charged test particles away from their original "stationary" position, and it will cause them to "accelerate" over time. They may not travel in exactly the same direction, but the overall light speed field will have the tendency to 'accelerate' our test particles over time.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmic Ray Driven Magnetic Fields

Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field.

Where have you been all these years? That was suggested at least as early as Bagge, 1973 though it got little attention. There is also Dolginov & Toptygin, 2004. But it is unlikely that cosmic rays all by themselves can be responsible for a galactic magnetic field because the environment is so complex. However, Parker, 1992 suggests that cosmic ray induced expansion of loops in the Galactic magnetic field could be one aspect that drives a galactic alpha-omega dynamo. This idea was expanded on in a series of papers by Hanasz & Lesch (Hanasz & Lesch, 1993; Hanasz & Lesch, 1997; Hanasz, 1997; Hanasz & Lesch, 1998), culminating in Hanasz, Woltanski & Kowalik, 2009, where a full scale simulation shows a cosmic-ray driven dynamo for the Galactic magnetic field is feasible.

That's Mozina, always up to date on the latest news in astrophysics

 

[Michael Mozina]

So over 150 years of "electromagnetics" on its own has failed to even come close to explaining the overall cosmology but we have to wait a few more years?

Considering the fact inflation will *never* be empirically demonstrated in lab, what's the problem with waiting awhile, and looking for real empirical solutions?

What about before GR came onto the scene? Where were the all pervading EM explanations for the universe?

Hmm, I guess GR theory was "on the scene' by the time of Birkeland, but his physics is pretty much Newtonian in physical/mathematical expression. I suppose you could start there.

Am I missing something or has this been given more than its fair crack of the whip?

Not even close IMO. None of us were afforded the luxury of even being taught the importance of the EM field to events in space. It's all been pretty much "self taught", and mostly in the last few generations. Prior to that point, and even now in most circles, only 'gravity' is considered important to astronomy. It's like being blind all the way though college and saying "here, you figure it out".

Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina has ignored the real issue altogether. This is "Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology". What better place to support his own assertion that "dark energy" is a manifestation of classical electromagnetism?

The "physics" lesson I am going to teach you personally is related to "induction/circuit reconnection" which you keep describing as "magnetic reconnection" Tim. Let's see you respond to Alfven's first paper please. Notice that part where he describes the amount of current flow in terms of Curl H(B)?

 

[ben m]

Let's try a "thought experiment" first and we'll be "observers" outside the concepts of "space/time". We'll start with a "cosmic ray" EM field that essentially is an omnidirectional particle field composed of high velocity (light speed) charged particles.

First: "high velocity charged particles" are not an EM field. They're a current field (q and p) which produces an EM field (E and B). Is that too hard to get?

Now if we drop a 'string' of test particles, and/or clumps of test particles into the field, they may not interact with the EM field in exactly the same way, but sooner or later those test particles will again "move' away from our original position.

Great Scott! Is that how you think E&M works? You just described an ideal gas. Yes, ideal gases expand; they have positive pressure forces, which propagate at the speed of sound via extremely short-range interactions; all such expansion decelerates; this is all well-known. The dynamics of an ideal gas have absolutely flat nothing in common with anything we observe in large-scale galactic dynamics or cosmology.

Let me elaborate on how wrong this is. MM is now using the kinetic energy of cosmic rays to move other cosmic rays around. All of the expansion he's described comes from this kinetic energy; he completely ignored the magnetic field energy; his description reads exactly the same way when he makes the interactions "collisions" vs. "EM interactions" and indeed it's not clear that he knows the difference. How are cosmic ray collisions supposed to make the Sun accelerate at 10^-10 m/s towards the Galactic center? Is it that the cosmic-ray-induced B field exerts a Lorentz force on the Sun? Or a gradient force on the Solar dipole? Sorry, those are subject to the exact same constraints as usual, and the net force is incredibly small. In this particularly stupid case, Newton's Law shows that the force exerted by one cosmic ray particle on the Sun is the same as the force exerted by the Sun on that particle; the cosmic ray can only transfer a maximum of 2x its initial momentum before it's been repelled---and this is true whether the interaction is EM, strong, weak, Pauli exclusion, gravity, whatever.

 

[tusenfem]

And therein lies the rub. None of us were taught the relevancy of electrical current to the activities in space. It's not something any of us are exposed to in the classroom. While I had vaguely heard the term "Birkeland currents", I had no idea of the depth of his work until about perhaps 5 years ago.

My goodness, please go to Utrecht University and take the course on plasma astrophysics, you'll have currents come out of your nose.

E.g. my master's thesis:
Magnetic flares near accreting black holes (pdf free available)
Note that TWO students did work on this (Volwerk and van Oss), note that it has currents, circuit theory, plasmas, electric fields even, distinction between collisional and collisionless plasmas. The only thing that is missing would be a reference to "Cosmic Plasmas" but rest assured that Alfvén's books have been looked at.

Now, had you studied "space physics" at UCLA, then as an undergraduate or graduate student you would have had Birkeland currents in the magnetospheric physics courses, not only those currents but also the cross tail current for example, and to shock you, you would also get taught that electric fields exist, that there is a polar cap potential etc. etc.

Could you please stop now dissing plasma astrophysics and space physics as apparently you have no idea what is being taught nowadays. Maybe you did not hear about it in community college, but any self-respecting university teaches full plasma physics and does not exclude Alfvén, although his old fashioned books may not be used as teaching material,

 

[DSo]

The Sun's magnetic dipole moment is 10^22 T-m^2. Sounds big, huh?

The force on a magnetic field is F = grad (m.B). It's the magnetic dipole moment times the gradient of the B field (not the field magnitude) and the gradient drops as the 3rd power of the distance from sources. Given the structure of the galaxy, any possible gradient term has to have a 1/r^3 in it---where r is the distance to the Galactic Center of 8 kiloparsecs. Let's imagine (absurdly) that the Galactic center is such a powerful magnet that it puts out a 1T field near the Sun. Sorry, that gives you a gradient force of 10^22/10^61 = 10^-39 Newtons. Let's be more generous and put the "attracting" magnet right in the Solar neighborhood, a parsec away. F = 10^22/10^49 = 10^-27 N. Sorry, that's enough force to make one small bacterium orbit the galaxy.

In other words: gradient forces are good for the bumping-around of close together objects, and just about as weak as you could possibly imagine for long-distance forces. Anyhow, given that the Sun's B field reverses every 11 years, the Sun would spend 11 years getting attracted to something and 11 years getting repelled. Try again.

Or don't try again. This is exactly what I meant when I said "you cannot possibly find an E&M model that actually describes the Milky Way". I meant that you can try each of the known equations of E&M and none of them will work. Not one by one, not in any combination.

We've ruled out Coulomb's Law on net solar charge. We've ruled out the Lorentz force law on the solar dipole. What else do you have? Lorentz force on the net charge (sorry, same problem as Coulomb)? Electric dipole in a electric field gradient? Nope. Photon pressure? Nope. THAT'S IT. Anything else you add to Maxwell's Equations is either (a) smaller or (b) the product of your imagination.

I thought I would give a bump to ben m's response from a few days ago. For me (a lurker and a layman) this was one of the most comprehensible beat-downs of EU theory I've seen. I've kind of been disappointed by MM's lack of response to this information. I think a refutation from an EU proponent would be illuminating. MM anything to say? If no, then I'd have to say that the empircal facts are not on your side.

 

[DazzaD]

Considering the fact inflation will *never* be empirically demonstrated in lab, what's the problem with waiting awhile, and looking for real empirical solutions?

So I will politely ask again then.

If it cannot be tested in a lab here on Earth then it isnt science?

Not even close IMO. None of us were afforded the luxury of even being taught the importance of the EM field to events in space. It's all been pretty much "self taught", and mostly in the last few generations. Prior to that point, and even now in most circles, only 'gravity' is considered important to astronomy. It's like being blind all the way though college and saying "here, you figure it out".

Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.

Argggllle..

Please... did you see the courses I had to do for my Astrophysics degree?

Electromagnetism, Plasmas etc

Its standard stuff to introduce, you make it sound as if there is a world wide conspiracy.

It is a big like someone claiming that the strong nuclear force can account for the observed cosmological expansion but those pesky scientists are unwilling to teach it in their courses on cosmology, I mean, just look at the syllabus, they happily avoid the strong nuclear force and its role in galaxy formation and cosmology.

That argument, by itself, just doesnt hold any water at all.

ben and others have politely but persistently outlined why we have no need to consider such an effect on such a large scale, it simply is unable in any way, shape or form, able to explain what we see.

Empirical testing.....as you so love.

 

[GeeMack]

I thought I would give a bump to ben m's response from a few days ago. For me (a lurker and a layman) this was one of the most comprehensible beat-downs of EU theory I've seen. I've kind of been disappointed by MM's lack of response to this information. I think a refutation from an EU proponent would be illuminating. MM anything to say? If no, then I'd have to say that the empircal facts are not on your side.

You did notice that ben m used actual numbers to explain his position there. It was a quantitative description. Michael has written literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of words, in tens of thousands of posts, on at least a half dozen forums over the past 5 or 6 years. Consider that he has never, in what would amount to an entire book worth of text, never, not once, ever explained anything in quantitative terms. Ever. If after typing all those millions of characters he has never displayed even the most rudimentary grasp on numbers, quantities, math, even at a high school level, the likelihood that he'll offer a sane, rational response to anything quantitative seems pretty damned slim.

 

[ben m]

Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.

I posted a number of calculations where I did incorporate E&M into a galactic model. I told you what that model was---it was "E&M could cause stellar accelerations no larger than 10^-30 m/s^2"

It sounds, then, like you don't want to incorporate E&M into the model.

You want to incorporate some made-up theory that tells you what you wanted to hear. Then you want to slap the name E&M onto that theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not even close IMO. None of us were afforded the luxury of even being taught the importance of the EM field to events in space. It's all been pretty much "self taught", and mostly in the last few generations. Prior to that point, and even now in most circles, only 'gravity' is considered important to astronomy. It's like being blind all the way though college and saying "here, you figure it out".

What are you talking about???

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.

I posted a number of calculations where I did incorporate E&M into a galactic model. I told you what that model was---it was "E&M could cause stellar accelerations no larger than 10^-30 m/s^2"

It sounds, then, like you don't want to incorporate E&M into the model.

You want to incorporate some made-up theory that tells you what you wanted to hear. Then you want to slap the name E&M onto that theory.

This is quite insightful, thanks ben m!

Another way of saying this is that MM creates dark, invisible fairies (or deities, or ...), which he uses to explain (in a qualitative, 'look at this picture' way) something astronomical, and then, prior to posting, re-names these fairies "*ELECTO*magnetic fields", or "current flows", or "Birkeland currents" (or similar).

And how can we tell that this is what, in effect, MM is doing?

By noting that, not once in the tens of thousands of posts he has written, across a half dozen (or more) fora, not once has he provided 'in-the-lab', empirical, experiments-with-controls evidence for these dark invisible fairies.

Now of course electromagnetic fields, current flows, Birkeland currents, etc show up in thousands of lab experiments ... but these have well-understood, widely-published characteristics (none of which are shared by the dark invisible fairies in MM's explanations).