Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

Once again we come back to this "EU/PC theory" (or is it "PC/EU theory"?).

Once again, you return to asking me questions without giving me any answers to the questions I have put to you about your personal beliefs. Why do you figure I owe you any answers when you blatantly refuse to participate in an actual two way conversation?

IIRC, you, MM, are on record as saying that Birkeland himself did not use the term, and that it was not actually invented until (well?) after his death.

I'm not sure what all terms he and his associates (it wasn't only Birkeland) might have called their theories. They were however the first to create EU/PC "experiments" in a practical and real sense. That is what personally attracts me to their theories, and to EU/PC theory in general. I also appreciate Bruce's contributions and Alfven's contributions as well. I would however personally suggest that these three groups/camps/whatever represent the "core" elements of "PC/EU" theory. I think most proponents would recognize these three groups as being of primary relevance to EU theory.

You may have associated Alfvén with "EU/PC theory" before, in this thread, but AFAIK this is the first time that you have claimed such a strong link ("his EU/PC theories").

From the perspective of mathematics, Alfven's formulas and teachings represent what you're looking for in a theory, i.e. math. From the perspective of *physics* (something that I prefer), Birkeland and his associates did some very impressive work on this subject. I guess it depends on what you prefer in a theory, the math or the physics as to which reference I would cite, but both would rank highly, as would Bruce and his students/proponents.

Now it is easy enough to check that Alfvén used the phrase "plasma cosmology", and it is equally straight-forward to describe the core components of his ideas and why they have been falsified; an example of normal science.

Guth's theory was falsified too. So what? One or two or many ideas from all or some of Bruce's, Alfven's, Birkeland's work may have in fact been "incorrect". There are however elements of their work that is absolutely correct. That is typical of all science and all scientists.

Where it starts to get beyond science is applying a term to Alfvén's work that he neither used nor can be used without distortions or worse.

Have you even read "Cosmic Plasma"? Yes or no?

But perhaps I am simply ignorant. If so, my ignorance is easily dispelled - can you point to the publication(s), and the place in those publications, by Alfvén, where the term "EU/PC theories" or "Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theories" is used?

I'm assuming by this comment that you're fixating on verbiage instead of fixating on the lineage and the science. Yes or no did Alfven cite Birkeland's work?

I'm really bored of your dime store analysis. You have no interest in an open and honest two way conversation or you'd answer my questions about how you justify "lack of belief' in inflation, and how you figure the party got started without it. How big was the physical universe prior to expansion? How about answering some of my questions for a change?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's really kinda sad you are basing your entire knowledge of the Casimir effect from an illustration.

Why are you ignoring this completely legitimate explanation? Why does it jive with Wiki's diagram?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32380

The quantum Casimir effect comes about because a vacuum always contains fluctuating electromagnetic fields. Normally these fluctuations are roughly the same everywhere, but two close conducting surfaces set “boundary conditions” that limit the number of allowed field frequencies between them. Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed. The result is that the total field inside a gap between conductors cannot produce enough pressure to match that from outside, so the surfaces are pushed together.

Did Michael Mozina write or create any of these "explanations"?

 

[temporalillusion]

And that sentence doesn't disagree with what these guys are saying, that you think it does is telling.

Did you read the sentence before it?

Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed.

On the wikipedia page it takes this basic premise, then derives the formula for the pressure between the plates from that premise. And the result is a negative pressure.

You've said you agree with the wiki page, but you've said that that pressure formula is incomplete, so please show where the derivation is wrong, or show how the basic premise from the source which you chose is wrong.

Doesn't the fact that the sources that you yourself choose only support your position if you take one or two sentences out of the whole but other sentences in those same sources undermine you tell you anything at all?

 

[GeeMack]

You've said you agree with the wiki page, but you've said that that pressure formula is incomplete, so please show where the derivation is wrong, or show how the basic premise from the source which you chose is wrong.

He agrees with the picture on the wiki page. It's excellent because there are some blue arrows without labels, so he can make them mean anything he wants! With a scientific approach like that, he could use a couple NASA satellite images to prove the Sun has a solid iron surface. But even Michael wouldn't be that stupid... uh... would he?

 

[Reality Check]

Simple physics questions for Micheal Mozina

Oops:
Missed the now daily demonstration of Micheal Mozina's ignorance of basic physics .

Outstanding questions for MM from me:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
First asked 26 March 2009
I know that these are absurdly simple questions that a high school student could answer but that should just make it easier for you .

Here is a simpler situation: Consider these 2 scenarios

1. A force F pushes on a surface that has an area of A.
2. A force F pulls on a surface that has an area of A.

What is the pressure in these 2 scenarios?
​

If you do not know what pressure is or cannot use the standard defeinition of pressure that then have a guess at:

Is the pressure positive or negative in each of the 2 scenerios?
​

Originally Posted by Reality Check
First asked 1 April 2009
Now prove your assertion (that the Casimir effect is air pressure) by showing the the air pressure between 2 parallel plates exerts a pressure that varies as the fourth power of the distance betwen the plates (as shown experimentally).
For a genius like you this should be simple. But given your track record with questions I will timestamp this question.

I will add the outstanding questions that other posters have asked:

Asked 2 April 2009 (and many times before)

• What is your definition of pressure (citations please) that only allows pressure to be positive?
• What is the error in the derivation of the pressure of the Casimir effect that leads to the pressure being negative?
• And a bonus question: Why do scientists actually measure a negative pressure?
  (since you have problems with infinity as in your recent posts, replace it by 10¹⁰¹⁰ pascals!)
  Originally Posted by sol invictus
  Here's a paper measuring Casimir pressure. Note the sign of the result (see e.g. Figure 1), and the functional form (which shows that the pressure tends to minus infinity as the cavity shrinks - which in MM's world means the pressure outside must be +infinity).

 

[The Man]

Michael,

This is like using the rubber sheet analogy to explain General Relativity. It's a simple enough explanation for 8th grade kids... "The marble follows a geodesic towards the bowling ball". Well, that's a fine and dandy description using a visual aid. What it does not do is explain the real physics (something you claim folks here don't understand).

It's really kinda sad you are basing your entire knowledge of the Casimir effect from an illustration.

It's embarrassing that you are ridiculing folks that actually understand the physics behind the Casimir effect based on a illustration.

Let me try a different approach (in the same vein as Sol is attempting).

Certainly you would agree with the inverse square law for such things as radiation and gravity. Double the distance, divide the intensity or force (respectively) by 4... triple the distance, divide by 9, and so on.

There's a common phrase used when infinities are used. "Tends towards". Obviously, when discussing distances, infinities can not be reached. The whole Zeno paradox thing. So, for gravity and electromagnetism, the increasing distances "tend" towards infinitity.

The Casimir effect is quite opposite and exponentially stronger based on quadratics (empirical, laboratory experiments have defined this to be quite accurate) . Double the distance (closer this time), the measured force is 8 times stronger... triple, 12 times stronger. As the two plates "tend towards" infinitesimally close, you measure an infinite force pushing on the plates.

What this does not imply is an infinite pressure. If you have an infinite pressure, then it is ALWAYS infinite despite the distance of the plates. Obviously, this is not the case.

Now, if you were arguing against a negative 'force', I would agree with you. Force is an act of applying 'work'. Pressure is an, entirely, different beast. Both postive and negative pressures apply 'positive' forces.

Now, you might argue that the pressure inside the plates tend towards zero and thus "any" pressure outside the plates will tend toward infinity. The flaw in this argument is that the pressure outside the plates do not change.... the boundary conditions outside the plate remain constant. It's the boundary conditions inside the plates that are changing.

If the force outside is increasing, then the pressure inside is negative in order to conserve the energy of the system.

I think the problem with this whole conversation is defining the difference between force and pressure.

I've had a few captain and cokes... I hope I made sense. I sounded good in my head


Edited some terrible quadratics...

Well unfortunately, derekmcd, this is the concept that MM appears unable to comprehend, because it goes against what most of us might consider to be ‘common sense‘. Quantum mechanics has consistently shown its predilection for not being attributable to what most would consider ‘common sense‘, but it works. Our whole technological society it based upon this knowledge of ‘uncommon’ sense. By trying to put things in terms that we can relate to our own common experiences we actually step backwards in scientific development. Certainly the universe behaves in a predicable manor, that so far has been experimentally demonstrated. That the universe behaves in ways that one might ascribe as being contradictory to what most might believe as ‘common sense’ has also been experimentally demonstrated. The Casimir effect is just one example (Bacardi Select and Seven is my current and preferred libation).

 

[The Man]

He agrees with the picture on the wiki page. It's excellent because there are some blue arrows without labels, so he can make them mean anything he wants! With a scientific approach like that, he could use a couple NASA satellite images to prove the Sun has a solid iron surface. But even Michael wouldn't be that stupid... uh... would he?

In that, GeeMack, we have the scientific approach of the EU/PC proponents arguing on these threads. Take a picture, quote or paper and make whatever you want of it.

 

[edd]

That's rather a low blow coming from you actually. I also offered you folks a perfectly good verbal explanation of this idea which evidently you also simply dismiss with a handwave. Nothing like ignoring the last 30 years of research into QM with a handwave.

Yes, you do a rather good job of that don't you?

edit: For which I apologise for showing my frustration. But you have not exactly demonstrated an understanding of the situation. If you do have an understanding, please go back and deal with the point about how the energy between the plates changes. Note again, as I've said before, that this is quite critical for dealing with the topic of this thread, and ignoring it is deeply unwise.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I really don't get it. Why does a person who must by now realise he is completely out of his depth continue to slag off the people to show him how he is consistently wrong.

But he doesn't realize that he's completely out of his depth. It may be that he can't realize it. He truly believes that his hare brained notions are correct. He is actually convinced that every last professional scientist in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and related scientific endeavors are unable or unwilling to know his truth. He thinks most of them, including nearly everyone he's engaged in conversations on various forums, are just not intelligent enough to get it.

He has a crazy idea that those who do get it aren't going to make waves for fear of losing funding and damaging their potential to make a living. He believes there is an international conspiracy to squelch the real science, to preach the status quo regardless of the facts. He sees himself as a potential hero to the world of science whose job it is to break down that wall of resistance and educate the unwashed masses.

(bold added)

I think there's more than a grain of truth in that, GM.

It puzzled me for a while why MM would state that EU/PC theory is just the application of MHD and GR to the universe as a whole (that's a paraphrase, from memory) yet seem, almost in the same breath, completely oblivious to core aspects of standard cosmology ... which is based on GR!

The penny began to drop with the TimT-MM exchange re what Birkeland wrote, followed by MM's comments about scaling wrt a Yohkoh soft x-ray image and a Birkeland photograph; and 'case closed' came with the posts on the Casimir effect, the WP article, etc. To quote a recent temporalillusion post (there are several others which make the point equally clearly):

And that sentence doesn't disagree with what these guys are saying, that you think it does is telling.

Did you read the sentence before it?

Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed.

On the wikipedia page it takes this basic premise, then derives the formula for the pressure between the plates from that premise. And the result is a negative pressure.

You've said you agree with the wiki page, but you've said that that pressure formula is incomplete, so please show where the derivation is wrong, or show how the basic premise from the source which you chose is wrong.

Doesn't the fact that the sources that you yourself choose only support your position if you take one or two sentences out of the whole but other sentences in those same sources undermine you tell you anything at all?

Interestingly enough, he doesn't understand that if he were right about any of the jazz he spews, he has proven wholly incapable of making a convincing case to anyone else. In all the years Mozina has been jabbering this nonsense, not a single legitimate, professional scientist has yet said, "Aha! I see it now. Michael is right. Let's pitch in and help him do the math necessary to support it!" Not a single professional scientist agrees with his wacky conjectures. And he has the audacity, the sheer arrogance, to think the problem lies with other people not understanding him. Not for a moment has he, or will he ever, stop to think that since no legitimate scientist on Earth agrees with him, it most likely means he's just plain wrong.

There's an interesting corollary: if MM were to be right, and if a paper or three were to be published showing that, it is almost certain that MM himself would not understand it ... unless it included a summary with nothing but cartoons, images, and words (no math). In fact, this hypothesis could be tested, by writing a pair of mock papers ...

 

[temporalillusion]

he could use a couple NASA satellite images to prove the Sun has a solid iron surface. But even Michael wouldn't be that stupid... uh... would he?

What, what? MM thinks the sun has a solid iron surface?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I would say the domain name gives it away, don't you?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/


I have to say that the above posters get it right: I've seen nothing from MM that gives any impression that his physics has left the elementary-school level. Above all, he is very focused on atoms and the like; pressure is little molecules banging away at a surface, temperature is little molecules vibrating away and so forth. With that kind of understanding, things like negative pressure or negative temperatures become absurdities.

Of course, to those who have actually read thermodynamics at a university level, there's nothing particularly strange about either of these things, and even things like magnetic monopoles or negative mass are perfectly concievable even if we haven't found them. So far.

 

[temporalillusion]

I would say the domain name gives it away, don't you?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

Wow.. just.. wow.

It's like the face on mars sites.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Iron Sun

What, what? MM thinks the sun has a solid iron surface?

Yes. Michael Mozina's webpage: The Surface of the Sun
Oliver Manuel's webpage: The Sun is a Ball of Iron
Both Mozina & Manuel have argued strenuously that the sun is mostly, or simply solid iron. Manuel has a PhD in nuclear chemistry as I recall, and is retired from the faculty of a university in Missouri, though I can't recall which one. The idea has been extensively argued elsewhere and should be exiled to a thread of its own rather than complicating this one.

 

[dogjones]

I haven't finished this thread yet at all (phew! it's a longun alright!) but I do have some questions that don't look as if they were answered. And I can't help thinking that given the small amount of time I have to read this every day, the thread could keep expanding faster than I can read it, much like that cliche of all the people in china not being able to walk past you because they keep being born and stuff. So apologies if they have been dealt with. So then:

Waaaaaaaaaaaay back in this thread, it was suggested that the universe could be infinite in every direction.

If the universe is infinitely extended in every direction, then how could it have once been smaller than a pinhead, migrating to, erm, grapefruit size, and now be infinite? Is it mathematically possible to go from pinhead to infinity in a finite amount of time, say, 13 billion years or so? I don't see how.

There was another question I have about the Big Unit HooHah, but thinking about it, that's best left for another thread. So that's what I'll create.

 

[sol invictus]

If it's infinite now, it was infinite all the way back to the big bang. In cosmologies like that the universe gets denser as you go back, and more highly curved, and the part that would be observable if anyone were there to look gets smaller.... but the whole thing is always infinite.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Michael Mozina's webpage: The Surface of the Sun
Oliver Manuel's webpage: The Sun is a Ball of Iron
Both Mozina & Manuel have argued strenuously that the sun is mostly, or simply solid iron.

Not quite. Micheal knows that it can't be completely iron because it would be too heavy. Instead, he thinks it's an iron shell, with hot, high-pressure plasma inside keeping it from collapsing. When I pointed out that regardless of the internal pressure, it would still be unstable and collapse inwards, he linked to a YouTube video showing that in zero gravity you can make a spherical shell of water by injecting a ball of water with air. It was rather amusing, though completely illogical. But then, Michael can only think in pictures, so a picture of a spherical shell means spherical shells must be stable. The fact that gravity is irrelevant and surface tension is not in one case and vice versa in the other never crossed his mind.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the universe is infinitely extended in every direction, then how could it have once been smaller than a pinhead, migrating to, erm, grapefruit size, and now be infinite? Is it mathematically possible to go from pinhead to infinity in a finite amount of time, say, 13 billion years or so? I don't see how.

To follow up on what Sol said, although the entire universe might be infinite, we can only see a finite part of it. So if you take the part that we can see (the visible universe) and follow it back in time as it shrinks, then at some point it becomes the size of a grapefruit, etc. The universe as a whole would still be infinite, but the part we now see would have been quite tiny lo those many years ago.

 

[temporalillusion]

And all the other visible universes would each be the size of a grapefruit, and there would be an infinite number of them, etc..

Thanks, that's a great way of illustrating it, I constantly get asked "how can an infinite universe expand, if it's infinite there's nothing for it to expand into." Of course even if it's finite it's not "expanding into anything", but that's how those conversations usually go lol.

 

[Dancing David]

mumble mumble, darn infinity, mumble mumble

 

[dogjones]

So when we talk about the big bang/inflation etc, ALL we mean is our visible universe? By 'multiverse' do we mean the other visible universes? Would there have been multiple bangs?

If so, this is rather difficult for me to understand. We observe our universe expanding, extrapolate back in time, and get to the grapefruit. Fine. But suppose we are (instantaneously) transported 7 billion light years in a certain direction, and observe again. I imagine we will observe the same properties, extrapolate back in time, and get to the grapefruit. But this grapefruit overlaps with the other grapefruit we've observed. 7 billion light years or so worth of it. Assuming we could do this on to infinity, then we have an infinite number of overlapping grapefruits... isn't this a bit of a problem?