What is Dark Energy? II
... Birkeland ... His model PREDICTS and *EXPLAINS* a method of particle acceleration. You observe "acceleration". How you know these things are "unrelated"? You don't! You *ASSUME* they are unrelated. ... That "acceleration" is most likely due to EM fields too. You don't want to hear it, but that is a fact. The EM field is *THE* most likely culprit if we're trying to explain an acceleration of a plasma universe.
This is not true. It was not true the first time you said it, it is not true this time, and I predict that it will not be true next time you say it.
Empirical observation proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that classical electromagnetism is ruled out as a putative cause for the observed cosmological acceleration. See, e.g., ...
From September 12, 2010
Curiously, "dark energy" picked up that peculiar monicker by virtue of being, well, dark. Cosmic rays, all of which are charged particles, are not dark. You said that, according to Birkeland, their mass inside the galaxies, was greater than the mass of the stars, a claim trivially ruled out by orders of magnitude, by virtue of the scientifically time honored practice of observation. Likewise, observation limits the cosmic ray sea to a sub-observable threshold. However, in the scenario you describe, entire galaxies (109 to 1012 solar masses) are pulled along and even accelerated by all these cosmic rays. The electromagnetic emission from those cosmic rays cannot avoid being "blinding", so to speak, and yet we see nothing. Furthermore, they have to produce an amazingly spherically symmetric acceleration, so that opposite ends of the universe are accelerated exactly the same. How does your dark sea of cosmic rays mange to pull that off? And finally, if the cosmic rays are pulling all of these galaxies along, then they must be losing copious amounts if energy (accelerating 1010 solar masses to a substantial fraction of the speed of light requires a great deal of energy, in case you hadn't noticed). So either they will run out of cosmic poop really fast, or they are being all pooped up by something to regain all that lost energy. What is that something?
In short, neither of these ideas stands up to even modest scrutiny. They are ruled out strongly both by observation and by well known basic physics. It's "back to the drawing board" for thee & they dark ideas.
From February 9, 2010 ...
Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To saying that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.
The
one and only reason that Mozina has ever given, to support the claim that cosmological acceleration must be of classical electromagnetic origin, is that electromagnetic fields are measurable in controlled laboratory experiments. Yet he chooses to ignore the fact that the cosmological acceleration of the universe is not consistent with laboratory electromagnetism. So here is
Mozina's Big Chance (MBC) ...
A Challenge for Michael Mozina: In a controlled terrestrial laboratory experiment, recreate a galaxy of stars, dust, neutral gas and plasma, with a dynamic spiral structure. Then accelerate that galaxy, through the exclusive use of electromagnetic fields, to a speed of 1,000 km/sec without in any way altering the shape & form of the galaxy, particularly not altering the spiral patterns. If you cannot so that, or at least describe in technical detail how the experiment should be done, then by your own standard, your hypothesis cannot be "empirical", since it cannot be replicated in a controlled laboratory experiment.
Now, having laid down the gauntlet and challenged Mozina, let me finish with this ...
Dark energy, like dark matter, is an unknown in cosmology. We know it is there because we can see how it effects the universe in the form of an accelerated expansion, but we don't know what it is. However, just as is the case for dark matter, even if we don't know what it is, we know what it is not. Physics recognizes the existence of 4 and only 4 fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force (with the caveat that general relativity does not recognize gravity as a genuine force, treating it as geometry). So which of these 4 is dark energy? It can't be either the weak or strong force, they are extremely short range forces that show up only over nuclear distances, roughly 10-15 meters. It can't be gravity as we know it because gravity is attractive not repulsive. And it can't be classical electromagnetism, as illustrated in my posts above (electromagnetic fields are not at all "dark" in any sense). At once we see that all of the known forces are ruled out by observation.
Mozina keeps claiming that we only assume that cosmological acceleration is due to mysterious "dark energy", but have no empirical reason for doing so. But is claim is ignorant, and by virtue of his ignorance, it is wrong. As a matter of real fact, real empirical observations (
empirical, not
mozperical) solidly rule out all 4 of the classical known forces in physics. Nothing that we already know can possibly be the cause for cosmological acceleration of the universe and that is
knowledge not
assumption.
!) makes you into a dishonest person. So now we know that you have been lying about Birkeland's work for at least a year on this forum and for many years on other forum.
