• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mister Earl said:
I remember reading something once (and bear with my here, my memory can be horrible at times) about the theoretical model of the 11-dimensional universe. It stated something along the lines of "The reason gravity is so weak is because it's actually being generated from / bleeding into another dimension within the 4 that we can directly observe." Couldn't something like that account for dark energy as well? If gravity is the localized warping of spacetime due to mass, couldn't dark energy be kind of a polar opposite of gravity? Interacting with the universe non-locally (everywhere at once) and instead of contracting and bending space, it's speeding up and/or causing inflation? There's a neat symmetry to it, if you kind of squint at it and hop on one foot.
Click to expand...

It's called M-Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
 
The observed acceleration is spherically symmetric. Therefore, the source driving it must be spherically symmetric as well. You posit that this source is external to the observable universe, meaning that it must form a shell around our observable universe. But for both electromagnetism and gravity, a spherically symmetric shell source has no effect inside the shell. Which means that if the observed acceleration is driven by something outside the observable universe, it's NOT acting through gravity or electromagnetism. So your alternative requires not only a source which we can't observe, but a force which is completely unknown.
Click to expand...

The bold part above is quite clear intuitively, and I believe the mathematics required to demonstrate it would be very straightforward.
Is there a chance that Mozina could possibly get it? If he does, I may be tempted to take him off "ignore."
 
Ziggurat said:
[...]

What would you like to name your new force, Michael?
Click to expand...
How about Mozforce?
And when can we expect to see it in a lab?
Click to expand...
About the same date we can expect to see Mozplasmas and Mozodes in the lab, along with Mozeparation, a Mozwind, and so on.

Ah, the joys and delights of Mozpericism, where none of Mozina's pantheon of deitites need ever show up in any lab! :p
 
Ziggurat said:
By George, he might actually have it!

I spoke too soon. What you're suggesting is no longer the Casimir effect. Once again, Michael: virtual photons don't behave the same way real photons behave. Real photons always produce positive pressure.
Click to expand...

An EM field is an EM field Zig. They aren't 'different' in any way. What are you claiming is the carrier particle of *ANY* EM field?

There's no point in going any further until you answer that question.
 
Ziggurat said:
The observed acceleration is spherically symmetric. Therefore, the source driving it must be spherically symmetric as well. You posit that this source is external to the observable universe, meaning that it must form a shell around our observable universe. But for both electromagnetism and gravity, a spherically symmetric shell source has no effect inside the shell.
Click to expand...

So if I charge the material in the center of that shell negatively and charge the inside that shell positively, nothing will happen?
 
Perpetual Student said:
The bold part above is quite clear intuitively, and I believe the mathematics required to demonstrate it would be very straightforward.
Is there a chance that Mozina could possibly get it? If he does, I may be tempted to take him off "ignore."
Click to expand...

If I had a nickel for every time I'd had the same thought ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
An EM field is an EM field Zig. They aren't 'different' in any way.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. The Casimir effect measurements demonstrate that you're you're, in a lab, here on earth.

What are you claiming is the carrier particle of *ANY* EM field?
Click to expand...

Photons, obviously. But virtual photons and real photons don't behave the same. That should be obvious. Hell, it's pretty much a tautology.

There's no point in going any further until you answer that question.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting over a year for you to define pressure, and you still can't.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So if I charge the material in the center of that shell negatively and charge the inside that shell positively, nothing will happen?
Click to expand...

Oh, that will definitely produce a field. But inside the shell, it will be the same field that you would get if you had the central charge and no shell at all.

You'd know this if you understood Freshman physics. But you don't. And you don't even know that you don't know.
 
Does Michael Mozina think that the universe is sandwiched between 2 metallic plates

Michael Mozina said:
Ben, even *if* we do that, you *MUST* cop to the fact that an *ATTRACTION* to an external mass/EM field (which is what you're really talking about) would also lead to an accelerating universe! You can't have it *BOTH WAYS*!
[/uqote]
That is stupid MM. Read the post.
Ben is not talking about the unoprobable void theories.
Ben is talking about the experimentally verified general relativity and that fact that the stress-energy tensor includes energy and -dE/dV (pressure!)

Michael Mozina said:
The fact your trying to eliminate the EM field because it doesn't cause "negative pressure" and yet your also using that same EM field as an example of "negative pressure" says volumes! Your whole belief system is self conflicted at the level of physics.
Click to expand...
Liar.
We have actually eliminated the EM field because it exerts a positive pressure on cosmological scales.
When an EM field is between 2 metallic plates there is a tiny negative pressure that drops off as the fourth power of the separation.
The universe is not sandwiched between 2 metallic plates.
Can you understand this simple fact?

Your whole belief system is self conflicted at the level of physics.

Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, that will definitely produce a field. But inside the shell, it will be the same field that you would get if you had the central charge and no shell at all.

You'd know this if you understood Freshman physics. But you don't. And you don't even know that you don't know.
Click to expand...

I understand what works in the lab and Birkeland already demonstrated that it works. You're aren't fooling anyone. The force you're looking for is called "charge separation". It's not new. It's been lab tested in for over 100 years.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I understand what works in the lab and Birkeland already demonstrated that it works. You're aren't fooling anyone. The force you're looking for is called "charge separation". It's not new. It's been lab tested in for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

I can't say for EM off the top of my head, but if there were a perfect sphere of matter, no matter how thick, gravity is completely neutral for any location within the sphere. Zero.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Man the mental gymnastics are intense. You're claiming that the EM field produces negative pressure, and also claiming you can rule out the EM field because it does *NOT* produce negative pressure. Which is it?.
Click to expand...
Man the stupidity is intense.
There is no way that anyone with 2 brain cells could get that out of
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
No, it wouldn't. This is Freshman physics, Michael. Your understand of it is quite clearly wrong, and it's leading you to conclusions which are similarly misguided.

I've already addressed this. Laboratory experiments here on earth demonstrate that the Casimir effect produces negative pressure, AND that this pressure will be irrelevant on cosmological scales.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
One more time for the delusional
  • An EM field that is not between two parallel metallic plates exerts positive pressure.
  • An EM field that is between two parallel metallic plates exerts negative pressure. This is small and drops off as the fourth power of the separation between the plates.
If someone were insane enough to think that the universe is sandwiched between 2 parallel metallic plates then the separation means that the pressure will be irrelevant on cosmological scales.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I understand what works in the lab and Birkeland already demonstrated that it works. You're aren't fooling anyone. The force you're looking for is called "charge separation". It's not new. It's been lab tested in for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Way to not address anything I said. You can separate the charge all you want to, it still won't do what you want it to. The shell theorem applies to electromagnetism, Michael. The force for cosmological acceleration CANNOT come from charges outside the visible universe. You have provided no evidence or argument for how the shell theorem can be violated. You don't even seem to comprehend what it is and what it means.
 
Of course it was quite simple to find someone who has done the demonstration:

Field Inside a Spherical Shell

This turns out to be surprisingly simple! We imagine the shell to be very thin, with a mass density kg per square meter of surface. Begin by drawing a two-way cone radiating out from the point P, so that it includes two small areas of the shell on opposite sides: these two areas will exert gravitational attraction on a mass at P in opposite directions. It turns out that they exactly cancel.



This is because the ratio of the areas A1 and A2 at distances r1 and r2 are given by : since the cones have the same angle, if one cone has twice the height of the other, its base will have twice the diameter, and therefore four times the area. Since the masses of the bits of the shell are proportional to the areas, the ratio of the masses of the cone bases is also . But the gravitational attraction at P from these masses goes as , and that r2 term cancels the one in the areas, so the two opposite areas have equal and opposite gravitational forces at P.


In fact, the gravitational pull from every small part of the shell is balanced by a part on the opposite side—you just have to construct a lot of cones going through P to see this. (There is one slightly tricky point—the line from P to the sphere’s surface will in general cut the surface at an angle. However, it will cut the opposite bit of sphere at the same angle, because any line passing through a sphere hits the two surfaces at the same angle, so the effects balance, and the base areas of the two opposite small cones are still in the ratio of the squares of the distances r1, r2.)
Click to expand...

FROM THIS LINK Take a look at the accompanying diagram, and see for yourself Mozina!
 
Michael Mozina said:
I understand what works in the lab and Birkeland already demonstrated that it works. You're aren't fooling anyone. The force you're looking for is called "charge separation". It's not new. It's been lab tested in for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

You have a positively charged spherical shell in zero gravity.

Take a negatively charged particle and put it inside the spherical shell.

What will happen?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom