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

[DeiRenDopa]

-snip-

(Note: [MM has] 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.)

You're much too polite.

The objective, independently verifiable, evidence is consistent with:

'MM cannot do EM calculations because he does not understand the underlying math'

Indeed, AFAIK, there is no data whatsoever that is inconsistent with this hypothesis.

 

[Reality Check]

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!

Cosmic rays do have an electric charge and do all sorts of electromagnetic stuff.
So what?

My industry is IT. But I do know enough about sicience from my physics degree to know that your ignorance of physics has deluded you.

Scientists are well aware that magnetic fields in light plasma are *ELECTRO*magnetic fields in space.
Magnetic fields in "light plasma" are not sterile tangible things. They move and do other fertile tangible things.

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.

That is really ignorant.

1. Magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations. The complexity comes when you also have a plasma.
2. Magnetic fields do not need a current flow to sustain them. Ferromagnets do not have currents in them and are magnetics.
   Coronal loops are loops of magnetic flux that were created by the magnetic field of the Sun. They are not sustained by it and move in the photosphere (and out of it).

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Alfven also called Magnetohydrodynamics a from of science, because it is scientific. Magnetic firleds reconnect (as defined by scientists which is not your simple idea of broken lines joining together) and ciircuits reconnect! If you understood magnetic fields in plasma, you you wouldn't be stuck in the E orientation when Alfven clearly and intentionally used the B orientation in all things related to the appropriate plasmas.

 

[ben m]

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.

I know what your theory is supposed to be, and my post is 100% relevant to it. I also know that your theory changes from moment to moment, so I wanted to go through the possible force laws one by one and exclude all possible EM-did-it variants, since I don't know which one you will pull out next time.

You realize, of course, that "particle/EM fields" are just collections of point masses/charges that obey Maxwell's Equations and Newton's Laws. I told you what those laws do. They do the same thing for plasma-generated E and B sources as for bar-magnet-like sources or for unspecified E and B sources.

You are proposing, as I said, a low mass source (some plasma structure with its own internal currents) trying to exert a force on a high mass object. The Coulomb calculation cannot produce a large force. The Lorentz calculation cannot produce a large force.

Let's look again at the dipole. The dipole is different---if you put the source very close, then the gradient can be larger compared with a source far away, so my 1/r^3 calculation wasn't quite the right one. Fortunately I gave you all the relevant numbers, so let's go all the way. You want an exact dipole force calculation for a super-nearby source---like current loops in this imaginary "entraining" plasma? You would get a 10^20N force on the solar dipole if there's a magnetic field which rises from 0 on one side to 10^7 T on the other side. I.e., if there were a young magnetar parked in the orbit of Mercury, maybe it could exert a 10^20 N force on the Sun. And the Sun would exert a -10^20 N force on it.

Does your "embedding" field have a strength like that? If not it's not going to exert 10^20 N on the Sun, period. No combination of such forces is going to "fake" the appearance of a uniformly-attractive central force law (in the Galaxy) nor a cosmological expansion law.

"Maybe the field is that strong", perhaps you wonder, "and we haven't looked for it yet". Look for it yourself! Take a strong refrigerator magnet and hold it over your head. Did it get torn out of your hand and accelerated towards the constellation Sagittarius? No? Then there is not a 100 g/m field gradient in the inner solar system.

To conclude, MM, your mental picture of "embedding" things in plasma is unphysical and totally wrong The standard picture of things "embedded" in a plasma and following it around applies exclusively to high-charge, low-mass objects. That's what the Solar Wind is, that's where Alfven waves act like waves, that's what Perratt simulated. High-mass objects, even ones with small excess charges, complex surface currents and fields, etc., simply pass through plasmas subject to the small forces that Newton and Maxwell tells you about. To the extent that there is an object/plasma interaction at all, it consists mostly of the massive object pushing the plasma aside---this, of course, requires only a small force, and small forces are exactly what you keep citing.

You cannot crank up the plasma-sourced field strengths high enough to "entrain" high-mass, low-charge objects. You seem to daydream that it works, but the laws of physics disagree with you. We have given you the relevant numbers dozens of times, including here. Stop daydreaming and do some physics.

 

[The Man]

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.

MM, take a couple of refrigerator magnets (the flat rectangular business card or credit card company types), they have alternating north south stripes (generally running vertically). If you place two back to back and slide them across each other you will feel those magnetic stripes alternately repelling and attracting each other. When you feel it switching from resisting the sliding to that sliding being easier (and being pulled in that direction) that is magnetic reconnection as field lines from the stripes on one refrigerator magnet reconnect to the next stripes on the other refrigerator magnet. No “magic magnets”, just what magnets do and reconnection that you can experience in your own kitchen or home. You could do the same thing with a compass and a magnet, the compass needle being itself a small magnet. When the magnet is far from the compass the needle is connected to the earths magnetic field as you bring the magnet closer to the compass at some point the felid of the needle reconnects to that of the magnet and the compass points at the magnet. Move the magnet away from the compass and the field of the needle will reconnect to the magnetic field of the earth. Repeat as many times as you feel necessary until you stop believing in "magic magnets".

 

[DazzaD]

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"?

I dunno...

But it isnt science...

and it also is not inflation if that is what this comment is aimed at.


But I will ask again....

Does it have to be an experiment here on the Earth to qualify under your scheme?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism III

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)?

See, I was right! You really did ignore the real issue altogether. In fact, now you are desperately trying to change the subject. You know & I know & everybody else knows that dark energy cannot be any manifestation of classical electromagnetism. That's why you do not answer either ben_m or me.

And so I repeat:

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.

As for your lesson on reconnection, I will not answer in this thread because the question of magnetic reconnection is not relevant in any way to dark energy, dark matter, or inflationary cosmology. I will answer later and put my answer in the magnetic reconnection discussion.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism IV

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)?

No. I will not read anything by Alfven until you meet my demands for you to read. See my post Magnetic Reconnection is Real in the relevant magnetic reconnection thread.

I don't want to discuss magnetic reconnection in this thread because it is not relevant to dark energy and inflationary cosmology. I don't want it to be so easy for you to deflect the conversation of this thread away from the real issue. Dark energy is not any manifestation of classical electromagnetism, and there is enough evidence on the table now to support this claim. If you cannot provide a quantitative physical argument in opposition to the quantitative physical arguments already presented, then the discussion is over, isn't it?

 

[ben m]

Dark energy is not any manifestation of classical electromagnetism, and there is enough evidence on the table now to support this claim.

I second that statement, and I want to clarify that MM has invoked electromagnetism in three different cosmology questions: dark matter, dark energy, and inflation.

My particular force calculations were done so as to emphasize why E&M is irrelevant to dark matter, and it's trivial to make explicit that E&M is also not relevant to dark energy. E&M is irrelevant to inflation as well; the reasons are clear enough to physicists (wrong equation of state) but generally unrelated to my calculations above.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Does GR (i.e., our only theory of gravity) tell us "IF dark energy THEN acceleration"? YES IT DOES.

Quote Einstein using the term "dark energy" in reference to GR. You're intentionally, and willfully stuffing metaphysics into a perfectly good physics theory, and claiming it's exactly the same theory it was before your change! BS.

Gravity doesn't do repulsive tricks. Let's see you jump off the planet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, take a couple of refrigerator magnets (the flat rectangular business card or credit card company types), they have alternating north south stripes (generally running vertically). If you place two back to back and slide them across each other you will feel those magnetic stripes alternately repelling and attracting each other. When you feel it switching from resisting the sliding to that sliding being easier (and being pulled in that direction) that is magnetic reconnection as field lines from the stripes on one refrigerator magnet reconnect to the next stripes on the other refrigerator magnet.

I've read many of your post TM, and I respect you a great deal, but magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion are not "magnetic reconnection". These are not the same processes and I know that you know that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

An EM field is not "high energy current flows".
An EM field is ... an electromagnetic field!

The EM field is *CREATED BY THOSE MOVING CHARGED PARTICLES*. You people really have a serious cognitive disassociation problem with it comes to understanding the cause of a sustained magnetic field in light plasma. You treat the "magnetic field line" as though it is "primary", when it fact it is a "by product" of the "current flow" that sustains that magnetic field. The "magnetic rope" is constricted by the magnetic field, but the presence of that field is directly related to the "current flow" through the "magnetic rope". It is that current flow that generates the magnetic field that then acts to constrict the current flow into a 'tube'. Two of these current carrying "circuits" interact, they form a "double layer" between them, and its all an *ELECTROmagnetic* process, none of which involves "magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconfiguration" and "induction".

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. I will not read anything by Alfven until you meet my demands for you to read.

I cited one paper for you Tim, and a specific line of that paper. I didn't hand you a reading list. You don't even have to take it personally. I ask everyone that same question. It's more for my own information than anything else, and I'm stunned how few have read his work.

See my post Magnetic Reconnection is Real in the relevant magnetic reconnection thread.

Whatever. We can split up the topics if you prefer.

Dark energy is not any manifestation of classical electromagnetism,...

Dark energy isn't even "real" Tim. It can't "be" anything. Electromagnetism is real, and it has a real affect on real things, including the ability to accelerate plasma.

If you cannot provide a quantitative physical argument in opposition to the quantitative physical arguments already presented, then the discussion is over, isn't it?

Likewise if you can't produce a physical empirical demonstration that "dark energy" isn't simply a figment of your overactive imagination, and an ad hoc gap filler of epic proportions, the discussion is over isn't it? When did "dark energy" ever cause even a single atom to "accelerate" in a lab Tim?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I dunno...

But it isnt science...

and it also is not inflation if that is what this comment is aimed at.


But I will ask again....

Does it have to be an experiment here on the Earth to qualify under your scheme?

It seems to me that there has to be some hope of empirically validating or falsifying the claim, otherwise the best it can ever be is "creation mythology". "In the beginning was a lump. Inflation saw the lump and was not pleased. Inflation said "let their be light", and died, never to be seen again".

That's not "science", that's "myth making with math". It's no better than a dead deistic religion with a mathematical window dressing.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

How about a quick show of hands, how many of the following individuals have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven? ... Tim Thompson ...

You have asked this question about a bazillion times, keep getting the same answers, and then just ask it again like it's the first time. How many times do I have to tell you ... YES ... I have read the book and I have two copies of it in my physics library. I used the book as a reference when I was a graduate student.

[...]

This is as good an anchor as any, and as good a time as any ...

An interesting, empirical, experiment might be to see what happens when a curious, general, reader takes up MM's challenge (if that's what it can be called), obtains "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfvén, and reads it (well, the interesting part would be what this reader has to say after reading it!).

Turns out something like this did, in fact, happen.

Someone with the handle DrRocket, who had engaged MM in a very lengthy series of exchanges at space.com, not only read Cosmic Plasma, but also "his earlier book Cosmical Electrodynamics, Fundamental Principles, written with Carl-Gunne Falthammar", and he wrote up his experience in a very lengthy SDC post (it's well worth a read, for any regular or lurker who has not already seen it).

DrRocket's conclusion? Here it is (it's just over a year old):

It is now 45 years since the publication of Cosmical Electrodynamics, Fundamental Principles. Nevertheless, it can still be recommended as good source of information with regard to plasma physics, written by a master of the subject.

It is 27 years since the publication of Cosmic Plasma. That book is speculative and contains no physics not better explained in Cosmical Electrodynamics or other books on plasma physics. The cosmological and astrophysical speculation in the book is largely discredited. One cannot recommend this book for any serious scientific purpose, but it is perhaps of interest for historical reasons.

Perhaps more importantly, Alfven’s speculative hypotheses of 27 years ago do not in any way support the pseudoscience that has been built from them and called “EU Theory”. EU theory seems to be the result of wild extrapolation of Alfven’s speculations by a group that lacks both the knowledge of real physics and the intelligence to apply it properly. The utter pseudoscience that has arisen from the misinterpretation, misapplication, and misunderstanding of Cosmic Plasma is in some ways tragic, but mostly just plain silly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I second that statement, and I want to clarify that MM has invoked electromagnetism in three different cosmology questions: dark matter, dark energy, and inflation.

Yes, because all we have to do is change a couple of initial conditions, and the EM field replaces the need for inflation and "dark energy" immediately. All we have to do is charge your "lump" relative to "space", accept the existence of "flying ions and flying electrons) and we can do away with all three (well, probably not all DM) of your invisible metaphysical friends. Pure coincidence?

 

[Michael Mozina]

DrRocket's conclusion? Here it is (it's just over a year old):

FYI, IMO Dr Rocket has infinitely more scientific integrity than you ever will have. At least he's bothered to read the book. He did not represent the "average reader" at Space.com, in fact he was the single most vocal critic of EU theory on that website at that moment in time. It would be akin to Tim in his current mindset reading the book. It may not change his personal opinion right this minute, but at least Dr Rocket had the integrity to read it. Did you ever personally do that?

 

[ben m]

Yes, because all we have to do is change a couple of initial conditions, and the EM field replaces the need for inflation and "dark energy" immediately.

NO IT DOESN'T. I just showed you it doesn't. You only guess it does because you haven't done the actual EM calculation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven also called Magnetohydrodynamics a from of science, because it is scientific. Magnetic firleds reconnect (as defined by scientists which is not your simple idea of broken lines joining together) and ciircuits reconnect! If you understood magnetic fields in plasma, you you wouldn't be stuck in the E orientation when Alfven clearly and intentionally used the B orientation in all things related to the appropriate plasmas.

This statement is so ignorant and so false it's hard to know where to start. Alfven read Parker's 'reconnection' theory RC. He called it "pseudoscience" because it is only "sort of" right. He personally talks about the "appropriate" use of E and B orientations but of course you wouldn't know because you've never bothered to read any of it yourself.

In "DENSE" plasmas (plasmas that don't move much), Alfven often used a B orientation to describe events, because the particles weren't moving around anyway. In "light" plasmas, and "current carrying" plasmas, Alfven immediately talked about boundary conditions and switched to a E orientation and talked in terms of "circuits".

You guys took the first B field semester orientation of MHD theory and never took the second semester or E field orientation. Instead you blindly attempt to use the B field orientation like a sledghammer to everything, including light, and even "current carrying" plasmas. Since all of space is filled with light speed charged particles, the whole of space is better suited to an "E field" orientation, which is exactly why Alfven did that and why he was the father of EU/PC theory, and the application of MHD theory to objects in space!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DrRocket's review is the first post of an SDC thread that is, currently, 105 posts long.

About half-way down the third page is another post by DrRocket, who seems very frustrated at MM's apparent refusal to engage in discussion of the physics in either of the Alfvén books DrRocket reviewed^:

Where in the solar atmosphere is Curl B = 0 DrRocket?

Aha, a rare event indeed. A succint post by Mr. Mozina with an understandable question. Therefore I can provide an answer.

If you would look a the complete Ampere's equation or if you understood page 7 of Cosmic Plasma, which you apparently don't you would see that curl B = mu I, where I is current and one has either neglected the displacement current, dD/dt or lumped in to the current term. So curl B is zero where the current is zero. Edit: This is slightly oversimplified to be consistent with page 7 of Alfven's book -- I is really current density, but there should be no serious confusion.

To apply this you would also have to recognize, which you have in the past demonstrated that you do not, that current is not just the movement of charged particles, but is in fact the transport of NET charge. So movement of a neutral plasma is NOT current. And as Alfven has often stated, many and probably most plasmas can be regarded as neutral. The exception occurs where there is charge separation caused by some outside force.

Don't you READ Cosmic Plasma ? Do you just throw words around with no concept of their meaning ? You really do need to learn some physics. Perhaps if you did you might be able to understand what Alfven has written in your favoroite book. It is not even possible to understand the pictures if you don't understand the basic physics. Cheez !!

Seems familiar, doesn't it?


^ this is, of course, just one additional piece of objective, independently verifiable evidence that MM cannot, in fact, understand the math involved in classical electromagnetism