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

[Reality Check]

Nothing. Notice the word *controlled* however. That seems to be the one thing your folks seem to ignore in all your "experiments". What you folks tend to call an experiment has no control mechanism.

Wrong again MM.
No scientist calls an uncontrolled experiment an experiment. That is your ignorance of science speaking or persional delusion.
They call it an observation.

Observations of the universe lead to:

• The theory that stars such as the Sun exist. A large number of "uncontrolled experiments" over a very long period is strong evidence for this theory. I guess that since they were uncontrolled you would say that stars do not exist .
• The theory of evolution.
• Inflation
• Dark energy
• Dark matter
• etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That wiki agrees with nearly everything with what we've been telling you, Michael.

No. That wiki page talks about Einstein creating a "static" universe with that constant sol. It clearly notes the fact that Einstein set his constant back to zero after seeing the Hubble data, and it disagrees with everything you're claiming.

In fact I'm seeing a definite pattern emerging here. Every time that I cite a Wiki reference to help settle our dispute, it is always in direct disagreement with the "mob" position around here. Those "pressure diagrams" were supposedly "all screwed up" according to you guys, and so is that entire WIKI page devoted to a static universe. Is the problem really WIKI, or is there just a problem with herd mentality around here?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm also interested in hearing how Michael will apply his theory to an expanding universe.

I would have absolutely no trouble at all with sticking anything 'real/empirical' into that constant/function related to GR. In other words, I'd have no trouble at all allowing someone to put MHD equations into that constant. Anything that is actually "real" and "exists" is a reasonable way to attempt to explain the expansion. Simply stuffing our ignorance with magic energies isn't an "empirical solution", it's a "make believe" solution that evidently defies empirical testing in a lab on Earth or anywhere humans can travel.

 

[Tubbythin]

In fact I'm seeing a definite pattern emerging here. Every time that I cite a Wiki reference to help settle our dispute, it is always in direct disagreement with the "mob" position around here. Those "pressure diagrams" were supposedly "all screwed up" according to you guys, and so is that entire WIKI page devoted to a static universe. Is the problem really WIKI, or is there just a problem with herd mentality around here?

The Casimir page is in complete disagreement with everything you have said. So is that page. There's certainly a pattern.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because the vacuum energy is the energy present in the absence of anything else.

True enough, but it has nothing to do with the overall 'pressure" inside the chamber, but rather relative pressures from the EM field inside the chamber. Nothing produces 'negative pressure" in the chamber!

I've explained this several times. Which bit do you not understand?

I don't understand how any of this relates to the 'pressure' of a "vacuum" in absolute terms. Guth needs 'negative pressure" out of a "vacuum" and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Casimir effect. The EM field exerts pressure is on all sides of all plates, just more on some sides and less on others. In fact it's a geometrically driven process because it can repulse not simply attract.

 

[GeeMack]

The Casimir page is in complete disagreement with everything you have said. So is that page. There's certainly a pattern.

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is part of that herd mentality that Michael mentioned? Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that since not one single professional physicist on Earth agrees with Michael's position, they're all part of the herd mentality, too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The Casimir page is in complete disagreement with everything you have said. So is that page. There's certainly a pattern.

Relative to the sides of the plates, which way are the little blue arrows pointing, and why are there bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates and smaller blue arrows on the insides? Where in the diagram do you see blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates?

 

[ben m]

No. That wiki page talks about Einstein creating a "static" universe with that constant sol. It clearly notes the fact that Einstein set his constant back to zero after seeing the Hubble data, and it disagrees with everything you're claiming.

Why was his Universe static, MM? You know that the matter term causes deceleration. Fill in the blank: deceleration + ______ = constant velocity. What did Einstein fill that blank with in 1917?

I have a guess at what you're misunderstanding: the Hubble data was expanding but not accelerating. The Hubble data was consistent with an large but decreasing expansion velocity, i.e. deceleration, which is what you get from a matter term without a CC term. Perhaps you're mentally filling in "expanding universe=acceleration" and "static universe=no acceleration" and getting everything wrong for that reason. (Among others.)

 

[Tubbythin]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Casimir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png[/qimg]

Relative to the sides of the plates, which way are the little blue arrows pointing, and why are there bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates and smaller blue arrows on the insides? Where in the diagram do you see blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates?

A diagram from wikipedia (which is wrong for the reason I explained a few posts ago). With little explanation of what anything in it means. Is that ALL you have? You intend to overthrow the whole of modern cosmology using only a diagram from wikipedia. Absolutely amazing.

 

[sol invictus]

No. That wiki page talks about Einstein creating a "static" universe with that constant sol. It clearly notes the fact that Einstein set his constant back to zero after seeing the Hubble data,

That's more or less correct (except the word "creating", which is just bizarre).

and it disagrees with everything you're claiming.

What?!? Quote me, Michael. Go ahead. Find one thing I said that disagrees with that.

In fact I'm seeing a definite pattern emerging here. Every time that I cite a Wiki reference to help settle our dispute, it is always in direct disagreement with the "mob" position around here. Those "pressure diagrams" were supposedly "all screwed up" according to you guys, and so is that entire WIKI page devoted to a static universe. Is the problem really WIKI, or is there just a problem with herd mentality around here?

There were a few problems with the static universe wiki, but it was more or less correct. It certainly wasn't "all screwed up".

Now, have you solved that equation yet? If not, why not? All you have to do is solve it and you'll see precisely how and why a positive CC leads to acceleration, and why the static solution is unstable.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Now, have you solved that equation yet? If not, why not? All you have to do is solve it and you'll see precisely how and why a positive CC leads to acceleration, and why the static solution is unstable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A diagram from wikipedia (which is wrong for the reason I explained a few posts ago).

So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong". Notice a pattern emerging here?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me ask you a philosophical question PS. What scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills? Why would it be necessary for me personally to do anything other than provide the relevant scientific papers and sources on various scientific topics? When debating young earth creationists, I don't make it a point to go out and dig up various fossils myself and carbon date them personally in my garage. I don't try to explain every mathematical formula in a carbon dating paper to a "disbeliever". Even *if* I had a personal inability to explain the math to the ''disbeliever", the validity of the science and the math would not rise or fall on my personal math skills.

What difference does it make if I personally bark math on command around here? What would be the point of doing that when everyone knows that they're simply looking for some flaw to criticize my personal math skills. It would detract from the topic, and it would do nothing to resolve the basic debate. What's the point of me barking math when Einstein did that already in GR, Alfven did that in MHD theory and far better mathematicians have done that for every scientific topic under the sun?

Let's turn the tables here and suppose I was defending the validity of carbon dating techniques to a bunch of young earth creationists. Would you still think my personal math skills were relevant in some way?

 

[Tubbythin]

So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong".

I didn't say either of these things.

Notice a pattern emerging here?

Yes. You're making stuff up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not a "trivial" issue because without that magic negative pressure that Guth/Einstein stuffed into his mythical vacuum, his mass object can't be 'sucked apart'.

Fixed that for you.

How about this little gem sol? When did Einstein claim that a 'vacuum' had "negative pressure"?

 

[Reality Check]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...simir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png

Relative to the sides of the plates, which way are the little blue arrows pointing, and why are there bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates and smaller blue arrows on the insides? Where in the diagram do you see blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates?

Since MM has not been able to understand the simple concept of negative pressure explained many times in this thread (and in the many other threads and forums that he has participated in), it is obviously futile to explain this again.

But miracles happen so:


MM's obsession with pretty pictures has lead him to be deluded that this diagram is significant in some way. This is wrong:

1. The diagram is wrong as already noted (the waves should be zero at the plates).
2. The diagram has nothing to do with the calculation of the pressure exerted by the Casimir effect. That calculation results in values of pressure that are negative. Scientists call this negative pressure.
3. The diagram has nothing to do with the measurement of the pressure exerted by the Casimir effect in experiments. Those measurement measure negative pressure.

There are bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates because the author of the diagram wanted to illustrate that the force (not the pressure MM) exerted on the plate by vacuum flutuations (the wavy green lines) is greater on the outside of the plates than the force (not the pressure MM) exerted on the plate by vacuum flutuations on the inside of the plates.

MM: A high school physics assignment for you:

First asked 3 February 2010
Calculate the pressure caused by the big blue arrows on the left hand plate. Assume that the force is F₁.
Calculate the pressure caused by the small blue arrows on the left hand plate. Assume that the force is F₂.
Calculate the pressure caused by the big blue arrows on the right hand plate. Assume that the force is F₁.
Calculate the pressure caused by the small blue arrows on the right hand plate. Assume that the force is F₂.

Remember that a force that points in the opposite direction to another has an opposite magnitude, e.g. if the first force has a positive value then the second force has a negative value. So you will have to set a convention about how to determine this, e.g. forces pointing to the right are positive.
N.B. Apply the same convention to both plates.
​

High school students know that when you have 2 forces acting on an object then you can always replace them with their sum to get the force on that object. Do that with the diagram and you get "blue arrows", i.e. forces (not the pressures MM), pointing away from the plates.

A really simple explanation suitable for high school students for negative pressure has already been presented to MM.

Here it is again:
Using the definiton of pressure as equal to the magnitude of the force (F)normal to that surface divided by the area of the surface:

• A force F₁ pushes on a surface of area A. The pressure p = F₁/A.
  This is positive (e.g. atmospheric pressure).
• A force F₂ pulls on a surface of area A. The pressure p = -F₂/A.
  This is negative (e.g. the Casimir effect).

(F is the force vector, F is the magnitude of F)

Why is the force that pulls have a negative magnitude?
Consider if both forces were present and equal, e.g. the Casimir effect in a low pressure environment. Then the forces add up to zero. That means that the magnitude of one force must be the negative of the other force. It is convenient to have a pushing force positive so that the pressure is positive and we do not have to deal with negative signs in everyday situations, e.g. weather maps.

There are no surfaces when we are talking about cosmology as in this thread. In that case we have to use the more technical definition of pressure as p as a change of energy per volume (p=-dE/dV if I remember correctly).

 

[sol invictus]

Do you know what this makes you look like, Michael?

So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong". Notice a pattern emerging here?

Yes, that's exactly what Sol and I and everyone have been telling you over and over. I am curious as to what you think the difference is.

That wiki agrees with nearly everything with what we've been telling you, Michael.

It's one thing to lie when your lie isn't easy to check. It's another to lie when the record is sitting right there on the same page in black and white. So to answer my own question, it makes you look like a fool.

 

[ben m]

How about this little gem sol? When did Einstein claim that a 'vacuum' had "negative pressure"?

For the love of God MM---what other pressure would it have? The CC is in there as a constant energy density (LOOK AT THE EQUATION YOURSELF) with dE/dV > 0 (TAKE THE DERIVATIVE YOURSELF). That's the beginning, the middle, and the end of what we mean by "negative pressure", as we've been saying since day one. You don't need to look for tea leaves in the literature to figure it out.

Any other meaning you give to the word "pressure"---"momentum transfer from particles hitting a wall" etc.---is utterly irrelevant in the context of gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong". Notice a pattern emerging here?

That is idiotic Michael Mozina.
Tubbythin is stating that this specific diagram (that you are obssessed with) in Wikipedia is drawn incorrectly.

 

[sol invictus]

How about this little gem sol? When did Einstein claim that a 'vacuum' had "negative pressure"?

In the 1917 paper where he introduced the cosmological constant.

How's that equation coming, Michael? By the way, why haven't you just checked for yourelf what the sign of the pressure is? Just compute [latex]$T_{\mu \nu}$[/latex] for a cosmological constant and look at it. It's trivial (it really is trivial, it takes one line).