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

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?

 

[Chucky]

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.

I am asking you to run the experiment yourself. Can you set it up for us and perform it? You have to be able to do that to demonstrate that your theory is right.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the 1917 paper where he introduced the cosmological constant.

So what? When did he claim a "vacuum" contained "negative pressure" and try to use a vacuum to suck a mass body apart? They aren't even related.

 

[Reality Check]

Let me ask you a philosophical question PS. What scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills?

That is easy to answer so I can answer for PS - none.
The point about your personal math skills is that:

• If you have inadequate math skills then you cannot comment on the mathematical results of people who do have them. You have no idea about the correctness of the many texbooks that do the fairly simple calculation that a positive cosmological constant results in a negative pressure. You have no idea about the correctness of the math in any scientific paper or textbook.
  You will have to rely on the math skills of people who do have the skills and cite them, e.g. the many people who must have proved that the positive cosmological constant results in a positive pressure.
• If you do have math skills adequate enough to do the calculations then do them.

 

[ben m]

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.

Listen Michael: we know you can't do any of the math associated with physics. You can't do any of the math that shows whether EU is right or wrong (it turns out to be wrong). I have done the math that shows it is wrong. IF you would do the math you will ALSO see that it is wrong---that's why we want you to do it, do you see?

If you can do something with the math that is different than what I did---different initial conditions, for example---then we could use this math to find a basis for a more-interesting discussion of astrophysics and cosmology. If you continue NOT doing the math, it appears that you will have nothing to say but the exact same things you've been saying for 5 years, i.e. the things I've already done the math on.

See? Math helps us move away from wrong things towards right things.

Ditto for cosmology. You can't do any of the math yourself, on command or otherwise. But you seem willing to guess that Sol, myself, RC, and furthermore Einstein, de Sitter, Lemaitre, Eddington, etc., screwed up this math. You're willing to guess this even in the face of an equation sitting right in front of you begging you to solve it, whereupon you will get the same answers everyone else does. If you continue NOT doing this math, you will stop repeating the stupid guesses that you've been repeating for the past five years, or the new stupid guesses that you appear to make up when cornered. If you DO do the math maybe you will move on.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?

The ignorance continues.
Einstein assumed that universe was static in 1915.
Science has progressed in the last 95 years. The evidence (since 1929!)is that the universe is expanding and that the rate of the expansion is increasing (since 1998).

Do you uderstand that 1998 happened after 1929 and that 1929 happened after 1915?

 

[ben m]

So what? When did he claim a "vacuum" contained "negative pressure"

When he hypothesized that one of the gravitational source terms, lambda, had dE/dV > 0. We're going to keep giving you that answer, MM, because that's what negative pressure means.

I would be happy to have a intelligent discussion of the subtleties of the EFE---does lambda belong on the left side of the equation (where it looks like a weird geometry, and where Einstein initially wrote it) or via trivial algebra on the right (where Zeldovich and later authors put it, and where it looks like negative pressure)?---but you have not shown any indication that you're looking for an intelligent discussion of this equation.

and try to use a vacuum to suck a mass body apart? They aren't even related.

 

[ben m]

Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?

Quite frankly, MM, given that you've ignored the other eight explanations of this, I doubt that I can help by adding a 9th.

The equation is right in front of you, exactly as Einstein wrote it. Look at it. What does the lambda term do? What does the rho term do? Add them up and what's the net effect?

 

[sol invictus]

Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?

Who are you talking to, Michael?

So what? When did he claim a "vacuum" contained "negative pressure" and try to use a vacuum to suck a mass body apart? They aren't even related.

Dear god.

 

[sol invictus]

"A vacuum".... it's actually kind of sad.

Get help, Michael. Seriously. You need to wake up and let go of physics.

If anyone sane is interested in what Einstein was thinking, here is something worth reading. Evidently in his 1917 paper he didn't bother to write down the equation I posted above, which is why he didn't immediately notice the instability (although it's still a bit surprising, since it's physically rather obvious why it's there). Regardless, very shortly after publication of his paper he certainly knew about it from de Sitter's 1917 paper (which he is quoted commenting on in a letter written in 1923).

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? IV

Be careful you aren't just letting the "consensus" convince you it's not necessary to have a empirical demonstration.

Precisely define "empirical demonstration".

Any 'controlled experiment' where your invisible friends show up and do something will do.

Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?

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. Whereas Birkeland's experiments with electricity and magnetism had all sorts of real, honest to goodness control mechanisms, you folks ignore the need for them entirely as it relates to determining cause/effect relationships. Where do I get a quantity of dark energy or inflation? How do I "control" that source in a real science experiment here on Earth?

Your little tirade is 100% irrelevant because there is not, and should not be, any requirement for a controlled laboratory experiment. It has nothing at all to do with dark energy, a cosmological constant, or the accelerating expansion of the universe.

You skipped over the relevant point of my last post:

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​

Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?

The controls of a controlled experiment are a detriment, not an advantage, in understanding most natural systems. The environment of a controlled laboratory experiment is invariably restricted to a small subset of the phenomena that occur simultaneously in nature. Controlled laboratory experiments are of limited value in understanding weather & climate because nature is simply too complex to reproduce in any physical laboratory. So, we need to observe the real weather in the real environment, nature in situ, and interpret what we see in terms of the physics we understand.

Astrophysics and cosmology work the same way. We can only understand such vast & complicated systems by observing their behavior, and interpreting what we see in the context of the physics we know. And when the physics that we know runs out, then we appeal to new physics to solve the problem. Or maybe you are going to claim now that we already know all of the physics that will ever be discovered? Your constant tirades against ever appealing to the new when the old fails is simply too stupid to respect.

And you also forgot about this:

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary

I repeat the question: Why do you insist that "empirical" demands only controlled laboratory experiments, when the rest of the world does not?

 

[Tim Thompson]

No Math Barking on This Thread!

Do you understand that 1998 happened after 1929 and that 1929 happened after 1915?

But that's math and you forgot that Mozina will not bark math on command.

 

[Tubbythin]

The controls of a controlled experiment are a detriment, not an advantage, in understanding most natural systems. The environment of a controlled laboratory experiment is invariably restricted to a small subset of the phenomena that occur simultaneously in nature. Controlled laboratory experiments are of limited value in understanding weather & climate because nature is simply too complex to reproduce in any physical laboratory. So, we need to observe the real weather in the real environment, nature in situ, and interpret what we see in terms of the physics we understand.

Not to mention the fact that lab based experiments can, at times, be less controlled than observations. How "controlled" are hadron colliders for example?

 

[Tubbythin]

The evidence (since 1929!)is that the universe is expanding and that the rate of the expansion is increasing (since 1998).

[Mildly amusing side note]
When I first read this I thought you were saying the rate of expansion started increasing in 1998.
[/Mildly amusing side note]

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

I'm still amused how someone can translate:

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?

as

So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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?

If you were debating the magnitude of voltage and impedance in a capacative circuit you would look at equations like:

v_G = (v_R² + v_C²)½

and

X_C = 1/2πfC

You would then take measurements to confirm your theory and see who is right. I don't see this as a mere demonstration of math skills; it is simply the only way to communicate about RC circuits. Similarly, regarding cosmology, you are in an arena here that involves mathematical equations. How else can you have a discussion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm still amused how someone can translate:


as

How about this one?

Notice the blue foamy bubbles are bigger on the outside than the inside? How about that diagram? Is it right or wrong?

 

[Tubbythin]

How about this one?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Casimir_plates_bubbles.svg/300px-Casimir_plates_bubbles.svg.png[/qimg]

Notice the blue foamy bubbles are bigger on the outside than the inside? How about that diagram? Is it right or wrong?

Its a bit...erm...vague.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who are you talking to, Michael?

Evidently you and ben. Einstein's constant was intentionally put there to explain a universe that neither expanded nor contracted.

Dear god.

The solar wind process accelerates mass 24/7 What does acceleration of mass have to do with "negative pressure in a vacuum"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Its a bit...erm...vague.

Only because you'd have to say 'it's wrong too' if it wasn't "vague" from your perspective. Funny how the blue stuff is everywhere in the chamber and there is simply "less of it" between the plates than on the outside. That's not very "vague" if you ask me.