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

[sol invictus]

I think it should be noted that your statement is true only in a closed system. For instance, a greater concentration of matter beyond our visible sliver of the universe might act to accelerate matter. Likewise other forces of nature might work as well, they just need to be acting from the outside.

The starting point for modern cosmology is the assumption that the earth is not in an especially unusual place in the universe. That assumption plus our observations imply that the universe is close to homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (the scales on which the overall expansion is dominant). And in fact that's all that's necessary for my statement to hold - the system doesn't need to be "closed", it just needs to be homogeneous and isotropic.

You are correct that there are alternatives to dark energy, like that the earth is very near the center of a spherically symmetric (isotropic) but not homogeneous matter distribution. At least to me, that model is far less palatable than simply including a CC, which one expects to be present anyway based both on classical GR and quantum mechanics. But until the spherical model can be tested with data that's just an opinion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what? Those theories have been shown to be incorrect. The "original Big Bang theory", if by that you mean "the EFE with lambda=0", does not agree with cosmology data.

So essentially the answer to PS's questions is: "Yes, acceleration requires extra energy".

Are you ever going to comment on the fact that electromagnetic forces cannot be contributing to this or any other large-scale acceleration?

Why should I? You've made no serious to understand my beliefs related to externally driven acceleration, so what's the point?

 

[Reality Check]

I think it should be noted that your statement is true only in a closed system. For instance, a greater concentration of matter beyond our visible sliver of the universe might act to accelerate matter. Likewise other forces of nature might work as well, they just need to be acting from the outside.

At last you get something right !

The "greater concentration of matter beyond our visible sliver of the universe" is the LTB model that was mentioned yesterday by edd and others.

Only gravity works in this model - other known forces of nature such as EM do not work. Remember that on cosmological scales the universe is neutral so there is nothing for EM forces to act on. You might get around this by making the EM forces really, really big so that they can influence electrons and ions. But then the EM forces become really, really easy to detect.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have a question for you sol....

I recall handing you a paper on replacing "dark energy" with an EM field, and I recall you finding a flaw it in. Did you ever consider "fixing" that flaw, or was it somehow (physically) beyond repair? If so, can you recall *WHY* it's beyond repair?

 

[Michael Mozina]

At last you get something right !

The "greater concentration of matter beyond our visible sliver of the universe" is the LTB model that was mentioned yesterday by edd and others.

Only gravity works in this model - other known forces of nature such as EM do not work. Remember that on cosmological scales the universe is neutral so there is nothing for EM forces to act on. You might get around this by making the EM forces really, really big so that they can influence electrons and ions. But then the EM forces become really, really easy to detect.

Hell, you can't "detect" them when they heat the solar atmosphere to tens of millions of degrees and generate million mile per hour solar wind! When it comes to electrical currents in space you're willfully blind.

 

[sol invictus]

I have a question for you sol....

I recall handing you a paper on replacing "dark energy" with an EM field, and I recall you finding a flaw it in. Did you ever consider "fixing" that flaw, or was it somehow (physically) beyond repair? If so, can you recall *WHY* it's beyond repair?

It can't be fixed. There's a very simple and general reason why EM fields cannot provide acceleration. it's the same reason that ordinary matter cannot either. Acceleration requires negative pressure - in fact it requires a pressure that's sufficiently negative that it counterbalances the associated energy density (you need p<(-1/3)\rho). But it's trivial to prove that EM energy doesn't satisfy that condition (and cannot under any circumstances). The things that can give you acceleration are more exotic than that. The classic example is positive vacuum energy from quantum fluctuations, but there are others.

The error in that paper was something really elementary, I forgot what exactly. Something like including a gauge mode (with a wrong sign kinetic term) in the energy.

 

[Reality Check]

So essentially the answer to PS's questions is: "Yes, acceleration requires extra energy".

Yes essentially the answer to PS's question is: "Yes, acceleration requires extra energy" in the LBT model. That extra energy is the gravitational potential energy of the extra matter outside of the visible universe.

Why should I? You've made no serious to understand my beliefs related to externally driven acceleration, so what's the point?

As far as I can see, you have never presented an externally driven acceleration belief until today and that seems to be driven by the mention of the LBT model.
I could be wrong - please provide a link to the post where you state that your cosmological EM fields are generated outside of the visible universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Acceleration requires negative pressure

The solar wind is not operating on negative pressure, and the sun accelerates material all day every day. I don't follow your logic.

 

[Reality Check]

Hell, you can't "detect" them when they heat the solar atmosphere to tens of millions of degrees and generate million mile per hour solar wind! When it comes to electrical currents in space you're willfully blind.

Hell, we can and do detect them when they (EM forces) heat the solar atmosphere to tens of millions of degrees and generate million mile per hour solar wind! When it comes to science you're willfully blind

I hope that you are not idiotic enough to think that stellar physics has any application to cosmology. The word stellar should give you a clue.

 

[Reality Check]

The solar wind is not operating on negative pressure, and the sun accelerates material all day every day. I don't follow your logic.

Actually you just cannot read your own posts
sol invictus is talking about the dark energy that you mention in your post not the solar wind.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I have a question for you sol....

I recall handing you a paper on replacing "dark energy" with an EM field, and I recall you finding a flaw it in. Did you ever consider "fixing" that flaw, or was it somehow (physically) beyond repair? If so, can you recall *WHY* it's beyond repair?

It can't be fixed. There's a very simple and general reason why EM fields cannot provide acceleration. it's the same reason that ordinary matter cannot either. Acceleration requires negative pressure - in fact it requires a pressure that's sufficiently negative that it counterbalances the associated energy density (you need p<(-1/3)\rho). But it's trivial to prove that EM energy doesn't satisfy that condition (and cannot under any circumstances). The things that can give you acceleration are more exotic than that. The classic example is positive vacuum energy from quantum fluctuations, but there are others.

The error in that paper was something really elementary, I forgot what exactly. Something like including a gauge mode (with a wrong sign kinetic term) in the energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I hope that you are not idiotic enough to think that stellar physics has any application to cosmology. The word stellar should give you a clue.

Er, it's a "working example" of continuous acceleration of matter. If we aren't going to look to nature to find working examples, what are we doing, playing "make believe"?

 

[sol invictus]

The solar wind is not operating on negative pressure, and the sun accelerates material all day every day. I don't follow your logic.

Again, isotropic but not homogeneous distributions can cause an outward acceleration that could explain what we see, if the earth were at the center and the distribution had the right characteristics.

But if the solar wind was distributed throughout space homogeneously and isotropically (as we expect everything in the universe to be on large scales) it wouldn't cause acceleration (any more than the gas in a room causes things floating in it to accelerate in some particular direction).

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

1. Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
   First asked 7 January 2010
   Note that baryonic mass includes all the things you have mentioned, e.g. rocks, planets, electron, ions, plasma, black holes, etc.
2. Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
   First asked 8 January 2010
3. What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
   First asked 9 January 2010
4. Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
   First asked 12 January 2010
5. Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force and so positive pressure?
   First asked 14 January 2010
6. What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy?
   First asked 14 January 2010
7. What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies?
   First asked 14 January 2010

Some of Michael Mozina's debating tactics that reveal the depths that he has to descend to because he has no science to backup his claims:

• Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem?
• Do you see how ridiculous this "Z evil Y" habit of yours makes you seem?
• How do you expect anyone to take you seriously whan you write so childishly ("blunder theory", etc.)

Answered questions:

1. Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
   Birkeland made a rough calculation on page 721 of his 1908 book of the average density of matter that is not in stars.
   That calculation was correct at the time given the knowledge of the universe. The calculation is wrong now since we know more about the universe.
2. A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
   Is seems that MM cannot answer these simple questions on pressure other than regurgitating his usual Casimir effect is "relative pressure" from atoms. So I answered it for him in as simple a manner as possible. He still cannot understand it.

P.S.

• There are 31 outstanding questions dating from July 2009 here mostly about your dumb Iron Sun idea as well as a couple of questions that you "asnwered" with your usual unsupported assertions.
• You had a dark matter = rocks idea in this thread and outstanding questions about it. That list is moot because the idea is obviously wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Er, it's a "working example" of continuous acceleration of matter. If we aren't going to look to nature to find working examples, what are we doing, playing "make believe"?

The orbit of the Earth is also a working example of continuous acceleration of matter.
Why are you ignoring it?

ETA
If you are persisting in your cosmological EM fields = dark energy idea then it is you who is playing "make believe".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again, isotropic but not homogeneous distributions can cause an outward acceleration that could explain what we see, if the earth were at the center and the distribution had the right characteristics.

I don't think it necessarily has to be at the center of the distribution, it simply has to be somewhere in the acceleration stage.

Solar wind particles do continue to drift further and further apart from their solar wind neighbors (particles that left the surface at roughly the same time) over time. Some particles might have a similar trajectory, but over some long period of time, any deviation in trajectories leads to a ever growing distance between particles. As long as the acceleration process is constant, even particle ahead of us are moving faster and away from us, and particles that left later are moving slower and getting further apart. Everything visible would still have a redshift from our vantage point.

 

[GeeMack]

Hell, you can't "detect" them when they heat the solar atmosphere to tens of millions of degrees and generate million mile per hour solar wind! When it comes to electrical currents in space you're willfully blind.

So all the professional physicists on Earth are willfully ignorant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So all the professional physicists on Earth are willfully ignorant.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

No, not all of them.

 

[ben m]

Why should I? You've made no serious to understand my beliefs related to externally driven acceleration, so what's the point?

Not only do I understand your beliefs, I took your beliefs and used Maxwell's Equations and Newton's Laws to evaluate them, something you are unable to do yourself. My conclusion was that you believe in a hypothesis which disagree with the data.

 

[ben m]

Everything visible would still have a redshift from our vantage point.

You are incorrect. Even in your oversimplified model of the Solar Wind---one where its radial velocity is accelerating, as would be the case for a Coulomb's Law driven electrostatic force---any observer co-moving with the wind will see a different expansion along the axis that points to the Sun, versus in the plane perpendicular to that axis. This observer will see non-isotropic expansion AND non-isotropic acceleration of that expansion.

Do you need me to do the math for you? Last time I did the math showing that you were wrong, you ignored it.

 

[ben m]

As long as the acceleration process is constant, even particle ahead of us are moving faster and away from us, and particles that left later are moving slower and getting further apart.

My last post states that you don't seem to understand the directions of force and acceleration vectors. The earlier posts whose math you are ignoring all argued that you don't understand the magnitudes of electromagnetic forces either.

To reiterate: the stars/galaxies that we observe "accelerating" away from us would be doing so, if your model were correct, under an acceleration of order 10^-11 m/s/s. Please tell me which electromagnetic force law you think can accelerate a star at 10^-11 m/s/s.

(Don't get this confused with the acceleration of solar wind protons. It is very easy to state an EM force law which will accelerate a proton to 10^6 m/s as in the solar wind---one microvolt per meter would be plenty, if you want to use Coulomb's Law. The calculation for stars is DIFFERENT because the charge to mass ratio is different.)