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

[DeiRenDopa]

Here's an example of this re-naming in operation^:

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

Now Peratt's 1986 paper is very clear on what the characteristics of the plasma filaments must be, in order for his simulations to produce the results he publishes, AND he is equally clear that there is no wiggle room (he uses plasma scaling relationships that brook no tweaking, and hard astronomical observables, such as radio emissions and spectra).

Ergo, the jets of DRAGNs (and M87, and ...) cannot be the plasma filaments of which produce a spiral structure in Peratt's model!

(There's also the fact that Peratt's paper describes how his model addresses double-lobed radio galaxies - i.e. jets; they're very different).

^ I'm assuming the topic is the galactic sized plasma filaments that are central to Peratt's model; if not, then this post is toast

 

[ben m]

(Before MM replies, I want to head off some of his usual escape routes.)

1) I'm not talking about whether solar flares, the solar wind, and similar small-scale phenomena are modeled correctly by mainstream plasma physicists. I think they are, you think they aren't---I don't care. You have a whole other thread to discuss that. We are talking about the 2x10^-10 m/s/s acceleration of the Sun (and of everything near it, irrespective of composition, speed, direction, etc.) towards the Galactic center, and about gradual increase in the Hubble Constant.

2) Nobody is pretending that the Sun is not made of plasma, does not have a B field, or may not have an excess charge. We are taking those known facts and then correctly inserting them into the actual laws of nature that govern forces.

3) Notice that we are not somehow "assuming" that DE and/or DM hypotheses are correct; we're just showing that your present hypothesis is incorrect. You are welcome to come up with other hypotheses.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you see how ridiculous this "Z evil Y" habit of yours makes you seem?

First asked 25 January 2010
This following post is one of the many examples of Michael Mozina dumb debating technique where he inserts "evil" into a phrase and seems to think it makes spome sort of point.

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.

All this does is suggest that he is a typical crank without any way to present his argument without childish tactics.

MM,
Do you see how ridiculous this "Z evil Y" habit of yours makes you seem?

 

[Reality Check]

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.

In other words you have no idea what you are talking about.

• Peratt's simulations are totally useless to explain a bang event.
• Peratt's simulations are be totally useless to explain the layout of matter into galaxies.
  This is not a coincidence, the formation of galaxies is a standard gravitational effect.
• And a final bit of ignorance - dark energy has no effect on the formation of galaxies (dark matter does).

In other words the gravitational field *STILL* dominates the process.

 

[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

A couple of Michael Mozina's debating tactics that reveal the depths that he has to descend to because he has no science to backup his claims:

• Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem?
  First asked 15 January 2010
• Do you see how ridiculous this "Z evil Y" habit of yours makes you seem?
  First asked 15 January 2010

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]

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.

The ignorance continues.
The model is Peratt's - he is the single author of the papers. It has nothing to do with a "bang" sort of simulation in plasma.

Plasma Cosmology proponents often cite this plasma model of galaxy formation and evolution. When the errors in it are pointed out they then ignore these until they have an excuse to cute Peratt yet again (as one poster has stated: "blather, rinse, repeat"). So I have started this thread to reduce the number of repetitions. I will prime the pump with the flaws that I perceive (I am not an expert so there may be errors).

In 1986 Anthony Peratt published a pair of papers in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science about a model for galaxy formation and evolution that only included plasma and plasma interactions. This was inspired by experiments with plasmoids where the plasmoids showed galaxy like structures (on a tiny scale). Peratt ran some computer simulations based on these experiments and concluded that the simulations matched observations of galaxies.

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).

For simplicity he used pairs of filaments. The interaction between the filaments caused them to twist around each other and distort. The initial distribution of plasma looked like radio images of double lobed radio galaxies. This evolved into distributions that looked like optical images of the various types of spiral galaxies. Later he concluded that his model also explained the rotation of galaxies without dark matter.
The computer simulation was done using a couple of plasma simulation packages - SPLASH and TRISTRAN.

There is no "bang" in the model. This model has the ad-hoc assumption of galaxy sized plasma filaments which:

• Gives the wrong results in his simulations.
• His simulations ignore gravity.
• The filaments would be easily detected.
• The filaments would be unstable.

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.

It is Peratt's job to fix his model as in the published paper. The fact that he has not done this in the 34 years eye-poppi) since it was published suggests that he has never realized that it is broken despite that quite basic astronomy knowledge is needed:

• The mass in spiral galaxies is not distributed in a spiral.
• Double-lobe radio galaxies are actually hosted in elliptical galaxies.

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.

I *DO* not have to fix his models in the final analysis, because there are existing models of galaxy formation that actually work with the known properties of the universe.

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.

IMO Including elemental abundance into Peratt's simulation will result in a random distribution of plasma.
See I can make unsupported assertions from personal prejudices too !

Don't tell me - tell Anthony Peratt that you have a magic way to fix his simulation.

There's only one known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and that is the EM field..snip..

There ae TWO known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and they are the gravitational and EM fields.

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
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)?

(emphasis added)
MM: Say this after me

Dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.
Dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.
Dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.
...
​

Repeat until you learn that dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.

Please present your physics lesson that magnetic reconnection is something called "induction/circuit reconnection" in the Magnetic reconnection and physical processes thread.
P.S.

1. Alfven's outdated (1966) paper ("Currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares") oddly enough is about currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares. It never states that magnetic reconnection does not exist.
2. The current density (i) in terms of Curl H is Maxwell's first equation which is Alfven's equation (1).

 

[Michael Mozina]

So I will politely ask again then.

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

What exactly do we call a 'dead legend' that goes something like "in the beginning, "fill-in-metaphysical garbarge-or-deity-of-choice did it, and died, never to be seen again by human beings"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, this is the last week of January and historically my busiest week of the year. Don't take it personally if my posts are short and specific and sparse for awhile.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words the gravitational field *STILL* dominates the process.

Gravity cannot possibly dominate the expansion process or the universe would have slowed down over time.

 

[ben m]

Gravity cannot possibly dominate the expansion process or the universe would have slowed down over time.

Sorry, that may seem an obvious conclusion in "intuitive" gravity, but it's wrong. GR predicts a globally decelerating universe if the gravity source is particle masses (or any equivalence-principle equivalent), and a globally accelerating universe if the gravity source is the vacuum energy density.

ETA: In the presence of both types of sources, like the Universe we seem to be in, GR predicts an initial period of deceleration which either (a) collapses into a big crunch or (b) switches over to acceleration.

That's what gravity does, MM. If you think that gravity does something else, then you must not be using General Relativity but rather some alternative theory of gravity which you made up yourself. If you think I am misstating the way gravity works, please go into Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, find the relevant mistake, and cite the equation where it occurs. You have no grounds for claiming a mistake based solely on the fact that the result isn't the one you wanted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, that may seem an obvious conclusion in "intuitive" gravity, but it's wrong.

Funny how it was "right" until that "prediction" of deceleration was falsified, and then you had to stuff a "blunder theory" with "dark energy". Now of course you want to call a *NON ZERO* constant brand of "blunder theory", "GR theory". You people intentionally confuse your audience. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

Ok, I took a little poetic license for the sake of brevity. So sue me. The point is that there is an underlying E and B field that blows past us at the speed of light.

Great Scott! Is that how you think E&M works?

Er, no I'm doing a thought experiment again ben, chill out....

You just described an ideal gas.

Gases don't typically blow by at near light speed ben.

The point is that nothing is going to remain "stationary', and these high energy current flows will have a dramatic effect on material in the field(s).

 

[Reality Check]

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously whan you write so childishly

Funny how it was "right" until that "prediction" of deceleration was falsified, and then you had to stuff a "blunder theory" with "dark energy". Now of course you want to call a *NON ZERO* constant brand of "blunder theory", "GR theory". You people intentionally confuse your audience. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

You are still ignorant and that has lead you to be confused and baffled by your BS.

Dark energy is an observation not a theory. The expansion of the universe have been measured to be accelerating.

The use of a *NON ZERO* cosmological constant is a standard part of General Relativitiy.

The only member of "our audience" who is confused is you. We can certainly baflle you with mathematics and science.

And now you are continuing another another childish, ridiculous thing with your "blunder theory" idoicy.

First asked 26 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously whan you write so childishly?

 

[ben m]

Funny how it was "right" until that "prediction" of deceleration was falsified, and then you had to stuff a "blunder theory" with "dark energy". Now of course you want to call a *NON ZERO* constant brand of "blunder theory", "GR theory". You people intentionally confuse your audience. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

There are two things which you seem unable to keep straight. Or perhaps you find it useful to deliberately not keep them straight.

Does GR (i.e., our only theory of gravity) tell us "IF dark energy THEN acceleration"? YES IT DOES. The reason Einstein put in a nonzero cosmological constant in to begin with was that he THOUGHT the data (which was crap) showed a balance between outward acceleration and inward contraction. The reason he took it out again was that new data (which was rather good) showed no balance at all, meaning the inward contraction (deceleration) term was all you needed. The reason we put it in again was that ultra-precise data showed the dark-energy-like "turnaround" from deceleration to acceleration.

In all of these cases, Einstein and his successors knew, and used, the fact that "IF dark energy THEN acceleration". So your post "Gravity cannot possibly dominate the expansion process or the universe would have slowed down over time. " is complete baloney. Gravity CAN POSSIBLY dominate an accelerating expansion process.

Is "dark energy" the actual reason for the actual observed acceleration? MAYBE OR MAYBE NOT, IT IS A HYPOTHESIS. If you have another hypothesis which also predicts an acceleration, please state it. (Note: you've already stated the "EM did it" hypothesis. We have ruled out the "EM did it" hypothesis by doing the actual EM calculations that you're presently ignoring.)

 

[Reality Check]

OkThe point is that nothing is going to remain "stationary', and these high energy current flows will have a dramatic effect on material in the field(s).

An EM field is not "high energy current flows".
An EM field is ... an electromagnetic field! It has no charge. Its carrier particles (photons) have no charge.

We know that a cosmological EM field does not explain the increase in the expansion of the universe

• It acts to reduce the expansion of the universe.
• The EM field decreases as the universe expands.

If a cosmological EM field existed at the strength of dark energy then a back of the envelope calculation has been posting showing that that it will quickly accelerate free electrons to relativistic speeds.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

His analogy is so "wrong", and such a cartoon characterization of what I've been trying to describe, it's hard to even know where to start. First of all, what I'm proposing is not some "off in the distance magnetic field" pushing things apart. I'm talking about material objects being embedded *IN* an expanding/moving particle/EM field that is full of charged moving particles, that equate to "current flow" at near light speed. The field itself if "all pervasive" and expanding.

Try this analogy. Think of "normal matter" as being embedded on a "wave" of a growing, accelerating EM field. As the field itself expands, so do the material objects that are embedded in the wave.

 

[Michael Mozina]

An EM field is not "high energy current flows".
An EM field is ... an electromagnetic field! It has no charge. Its carrier particles (photons) have no charge.

Those cosmic rays have a "charge", and they are moving, and they therefore generate a magnetic field around the 'current flow' RC. Magnetic fields in light plasma are not sterile tangible things as your industry portrays them. They are *ELECTRO*magnetic fields in space, not "magnetic fields" without the presence of moving charged particles!

You guys dream up "magic magnets" that do things normal magnets do not do, namely disconnect and reconnect from any other magnetic line. You don't comprehend that in order to have all those powerful magnetic fields, you must also have "current flow' to sustain them, particularly in light plasmas, where solids cannot even factor into the discussion.

 

[ben m]

Ok, I took a little poetic license for the sake of brevity. So sue me. The point is that there is an underlying E and B field that blows past us at the speed of light.

That's somewhere between wrong and right, and if this were an oral exam the examiner would be going in for the kill---but it doesn't make any difference at this point. Funny that absolutely nothing in MM's previous "arguments" has had anything to do with this sort of field. Perratt's galaxy model? Nonrelativistic sources, large-scale quasistatic fields. Birkeland's terella, the supposedly perfect demo model for anything with linear structure? Nonrelativistic sources, large-scale static fields. Solar winds and flares---MM's favorite examples of "EM accelerates things"---large scale quasistatic fields, nonrelativistic particles, coherent source currents.

So, what, are you throwing out those other fields in favor of this new ideal gas field? Which one is your actual hypothesis? (predicted answer: "I figured if I mentioned some sort of field that exerted some sort of force, that ought to be good enough.")

Gases don't typically blow by at near light speed ben.

The particle collection you described has an ideal gas equation of state. The "near light speed" business means that the temperature of this particular ideal gas is very high.

The point is that nothing is going to remain "stationary', and these high energy current flows will have a dramatic effect on material in the field(s).

SOME effects, yes. Would you like me to tell you what these effects are? You can figure them out using the ideal gas equation of state.

Moreover, it predicts some effects and not others. Would you like me to tell you what effects you do not get from a relativistic ideal gas? You do NOT get central-force equivalence-principle acceleration in galaxies; you do NOT get central-force equivalence-principle acceleration in clusters; you do NOT get isotropic accelerating expansion of large scale structure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Then why the hell do you call "circuit reconnection/induction", "magnetic reconnection"?

E.g. my master's thesis:
Magnetic flares near accreting black holes (pdf free available)

The fact you didn't call them *ELECTRO*magnetic flares speaks volumes about your biases. The strength of solar flares directly relates to the current flow through those 'magnetic ropes' that Alfven described as "circuits".

Alfven also called '"magnetic reconnection' a form of "pseudoscience', because it's "pseudo-correct". Circuits reconnect, not magnetic lines! If you understood currents in plasma, you wouldn't be stuck in the B orientation when Alfven clearly and intentionally switched to the E orientation in all things related to light space plasmas.