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

[GeeMack]

Don't you think philosophically speaking that there should be some hope of someday empirically verifying your theory? If not, now is that different from "faith" in the "supernatural"?

Inflation seems about a hokey as any metaphysical theory because it obviously came from on human being's imagination. It's made even more hokey by the fact it's now 'dead and buried' and is beyond the ability to even effect anything in any physics experiment. That's a little too much like a dead deity theory for my tastes, but you mileage may vary.

Where do I get "dark energy" to play with? Will it ever show up here on Earth or somewhere a human being might actually "control" a recognized source in my human lifetime? If not, isn't belief in such a thing an act of faith on my part?

When does the ability to falsify and/or empirically verify a theory matter in terms of what separates "science" from "religion"? What if I lack belief in the Guthflation cult thing? Will I burn in hell or something?

That is, definitively, and argument from ignorance.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, I recall you asked a question about my mathematical understanding of physics. I would best describe my calculus skills as somewhat rusty, but I still grasp the basic concepts, and I stay a little 'active' by reading various papers. I realize we can take derivatives of equations to find tangents, and integrate equations to find areas, etc.

As it relates to the finer points of GR, edd and sol would have far better math skills, and probably teaching skills related specifically to GR than I do if all you're interested in is the pure math "explanation".

Sometimes however more than math alone constitutes "knowledge", like in our debate about Einstein's original intent of adding the constant to GR. Virtually everything that sol said about the original formula was technically true, including the fact the formula was unstable in it's original incarnation. Unfortunately however, sol's explanation didn't provide a complete "understanding" of history, in terms of Einstein's original intent and use of that constant. There's more to 'knowledge' than math alone.

It would be utterly foolish for me to believe that I have the skills to teach sol math, or teach edd math, or teach a lot of folks here about math. Math however is not the 'be-all-end-all" of human knowledge and human understanding. Sometimes a good conceptual understanding is 'better than" understanding the math.

You claim to have the qualifications necessary to understand the physics that you alone are trying to overturn. Part of those qualifications would be the ability to understand the physics quantitatively, you know, that pesky math stuff that you shun. You have never once demonstrated that you possess those qualifications.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, believe me edd, I appreciate your efforts. There's no one here who's understanding of GR theory I respect more, and no one here who's pure scientific curiosity and demeanor I respect more than you.

And just like everyone else, he said you're wrong.

[*whining, bare unsupported assertions, and arguments from ignorance snipped*]

Who, Michael, of all the professional scientists on Earth, none of whom agree with your nutty ideas on physics, who do you respect enough that if they told you you're wrong, you would accept the fact that you are wrong?

 

[sol invictus]

So if the surface of a mass object is charged negative relative to an ambient outer layer of plasma (like a heliosphere), what does that do the stress-energy tensor, and why doesn't that work to explain "expansion/acceleration" of plasma?

The surface charge of your "mass object" would create an electric field in between the surface and the layer. That electric field has a positive energy density that would contribute to attractive gravitational forces (and the deceleration of the expansion of the universe).

To make matters worse, if the plasma is distributed roughly spherically symmetrically around the mass, there will be zero electric force pulling the "mass object" out, because there will be zero field due to the plasma inside. Instead, the field of the "mass object" will pull the plasma in.

 

[ben m]

So if the surface of a mass object is charged negative relative to an ambient outer layer of plasma (like a heliosphere), what does that do the stress-energy tensor, and why doesn't that work to explain "expansion/acceleration" of plasma?

Do you understand, MM, that GR describes gravitational forces? Yes, as Sol said, you have described a situation where there is both mass energy and electric field energy density. Add them up (E = mc^2 for the mass, rho = 1/2 epsilon0 E^2 for the field) and you have the total energy density which contributes to gravitational curvature. Both of these energy terms will get weaker with expansion, so dE/dV is negative and therefore P is positive. So for the purposes of gravity, your electric field looks exactly like a small amount of additional mass. (Really, really, really small.)

OF course, GR does not tell you what the electric or magnetic forces, mechanical forces, weak interactions, or strong interactions are. That's why I kept using electromagnetic force laws to compute electromagnetic forces, remember how well that worked?

 

[Perpetual Student]

...

FYI, I recall you asked a question about my mathematical understanding of physics. I would best describe my calculus skills as somewhat rusty, but I still grasp the basic concepts, and I stay a little 'active' by reading various papers. I realize we can take derivatives of equations to find tangents, and integrate equations to find areas, etc.
...

I was not asking about your mathematical skills as such, but more specifically how well do you understand the following equation:

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

and specifically could you explain the Ricci curvature tensor in any detail? There is a very specific reason for asking that. Your answer might help shed some light on this discussion.
Unfortunately, I have only a very general understanding of the above equation even though I have an MS in mathematics. It would require a good deal of time and effort on my part to do better.

 

[DazzaD]

Don't you think philosophically speaking that there should be some hope of someday empirically verifying your theory? If not, now is that different from "faith" in the "supernatural"?

Inflation seems about a hokey as any metaphysical theory because it obviously came from on human being's imagination. It's made even more hokey by the fact it's now 'dead and buried' and is beyond the ability to even effect anything in any physics experiment. That's a little too much like a dead deity theory for my tastes, but you mileage may vary.

Where do I get "dark energy" to play with? Will it ever show up here on Earth or somewhere a human being might actually "control" a recognized source in my human lifetime? If not, isn't belief in such a thing an act of faith on my part?

When does the ability to falsify and/or empirically verify a theory matter in terms of what separates "science" from "religion"? What if I lack belief in the Guthflation cult thing? Will I burn in hell or something?

My point is this... what is empirically based and what is not?

Would you accept that Newton's Law of Gravitation has been empirically tested and observed to be a very accurate description (in the classical sense) of Gravity?

Would you then accept we could apply it to, say, two atoms separated by a small distance, say, 1000 times their radius?

Would you accept that an empirical test of Newton's Law of Gravitation might involve a calculation predicting the orbit of Mars around the Sun and then looking to see if Mars happens to be near that predicated point at some given time?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And what is that security blanket? "Empirical tests", as in "done in a lab, here on Earth". That this prop is riddled with internal inconsistencies is not a problem for MM, because they can be transformed away by waving the 'qualitative' wand over them (no lab experiment has shown that two atoms attract each other gravitationally? no worries! two atoms, 10^23 atoms, they're all just atoms!).

Thank you... exactly where I was going with my posts that MM seems to have neglected of late.

That is exactly what I was going to point out, the limitations on experimental verification of Newton's Law of Gravitation on the 'everyday' scale.

I was hoping that hitting at something he would obviously hold as 'true' might make him question all this "empirical evidence" requirement of his for any theory in physics.

Two things:

First, MM is astonishingly tenacious when it comes to not answering questions he doesn't want to answer ... and it's not only here (check out RC's loooong list of questions - on MM's own ideas - that remain unanswered), but also in fora like BAUT (where not answering questions about your Against the Mainstream idea can get you banned). And of course there are many ways to respond, without answering! So good luck with your questions.

Second, one of the many fatal internal inconsistencies (or contradictions) in MM's "empirical" approach is his arbitrary choices wrt when to declare extrapolations qualitatively different (and when to accept them). For example: there is no "in the lab" demonstration that gravity - the "force of nature" - can produce stable, (approx) spherical balls of plasma (a.k.a. stars), much less neutron stars or black holes. Yet MM is, apparently, totally comfortable that gravity, the known force of nature, can do such things (i.e. an arbitrary choice to accept an extrapolation). And, no doubt, he's also totally comfortable that binary neutron stars (and the double pulsar) behave the way they do due to gravity, the known force of nature, doing its thing in a strong (GR) field (i.e. another arbitrary choice to accept an extrapolation).

However, applications of gravity, the known force of nature described well by GR, to the universe as a whole - a cosmological constant, say - become qualitatively different, and MM demands a gram of dark energy be produced in an earthly lab (i.e. an arbitrary choice to reject an extrapolation).

(there are quite a few example of this kind of 'physics by MM fiat')

Third (I lied, three things!), the ultimate case of physics by MM fiat is the very choice of what constitutes a 'known force of nature' ... almost the entirety of modern physics requires the acceptance of its fundamentally quantitative nature - can you show that gravity, say, is a distinct, unique 'known force of nature' without any quantitative evidence? - yet, as thousands of MM posts make clear, MM does not accept this essential foundation.

(and it's not just gravity, a known force of nature; MM does not accept that electromagnetism too is only a distinct, unique known force of nature within a framework that depends totally on its quantitative foundations).

 

[sol invictus]

Just to add a little bit to that... MM believes that the sun has a solid iron surface. He believes that even though such a thing is completely impossible under the known laws of physics and thermodynamics. We're not talking about advanced concepts of cosmology or general relativity, we're talking about the most basic principles known to science (like "iron melts at a sufficiently high temperatures"), principles that have been empirically tested, refined, and thoroughly understood for centuries.

His evidence? Apparently the only "evidence" are some images that kinda look like there might be a surface. Never mind the details of how those images were taken, by what instrument, in what wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. etc. Never mind that, they kinda look like a sold surface.

Clearly, it takes a condition verging on mental illness to hold such a belief in the first place. Now add to that years, perhaps decades of arguing on the internet over this, spending countless hour after hour posting about it on message boards. What kind of person would behave that way? I don't really know the answer - but what is clear to me is that this behavior is so far from normal that MM should not be treated as one would treat a normal person.

For example, he should never be expected to understand basic physics or even the scientific method, because understanding even a little bit would clash irreconcilably with his beliefs about the sun. In situations like that cognitive dissonance makes the person in effect extremely stupid, incapable of learning or absorbing anything. The brain goes into denial to protect itself from the potentially harmful knowledge. And very, very harmful it would be in this case - if MM ever understands a little physics, he'll realize that he's wasted years and years of his life arguing for something that's total nonsense. That's a very heavy and painful price to pay psychologically, one that gets heavier and heavier the more time he spends arguing and the more invested he becomes.

So I've concluded that one simply shouldn't bother to engage him except briefly and in limited contexts. It's almost certainly impossible to get through to him, and even if one could the benefit is not very clear. The only point in debating him at all is to observe his peculiar psychology and to educate others that read the thread. That latter is a worthy cause, but it's not served by going over and over the same points.

 

[GeeMack]

Just to add a little bit to that... MM believes that the sun has a solid iron surface. He believes that even though such a thing is completely impossible under the known laws of physics and thermodynamics. We're not talking about advanced concepts of cosmology or general relativity, we're talking about the most basic principles known to science (like "iron melts at a sufficiently high temperatures"), principles that have been empirically tested, refined, and thoroughly understood for centuries.

His evidence? Apparently the only "evidence" are some images that kinda look like there might be a surface. Never mind the details of how those images were taken, by what instrument, in what wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. etc. Never mind that, they kinda look like a sold surface.

Never mind the fact that the person at LMSAL (Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab) who is responsible for the acquisition and analysis of those very images has said, very clearly and specifically, that the images do not show anything like what Michael believes they show.

This all speaks, of course, to Michael's claim to be qualified to understand and hold an informed position on the subject of dark matter, inflation, and cosmology, and his implicit claim that no professional physicist on Earth actually understands those things as well as Michael does. We are questioning those qualifications. The general consensus in all the dozens of discussions I've read and participated in, including this one of course, is that he has never once demonstrated any such qualifications.

 

[sol invictus]

This all speaks, of course, to Michael's claim to be qualified to understand and hold an informed position on the subject of dark matter, inflation, and cosmology, and his implicit claim that no professional physicist on Earth actually understands those things as well as Michael does. We are questioning those qualifications. The general consensus in all the dozens of discussions I've read and participated in, including this one of course, is that he has never once demonstrated any such qualifications.

Oh, of course. Actually it's much stronger - he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is completely unqualified to participate in any such discussion.

Not only that, he's shown that he is incapable of understanding even the most fundamental and basic arguments, an inability that I think is due to cognitive dissonance. I suspect he is a reasonably bright person when it comes to other topics, but on physics he is extremely stupid. His stupidity actually increases with the clarity of the explanation, because his brain simply will not allow him to understand something that might hurt.

The classic sign of cognitive dissonance is anger - when a dangerous idea pops up, he reacts by angrily attacking something ("magic energy fairies" or whatever). You can see that pattern play itself out over and over again in these threads.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:

You may have addressed this question elsewhere; if so, please indulge me anyway.
The known laws of gravity account for the motion of all the planets, moons, comets and asteroids in our solar system. It is my understanding that all such motions are in agreement with modern theories of gravity to an astonishing degree.
Now, you believe EM forces govern or influence astronomical observations. You often speak of plasma being accelerated by the EM forces of the sun, or something like that. You also seem to believe EM forces may account for the observations that have come to be labeled as dark matter and dark energy.
So, my question is, whey do we not measure any effect of these EM forces on all the orbiting bodies in our solar system, even in the slightest? Is it not true that Gravity accounts for all the motions we see in our solar system? If there were any EM influences on our solar system, would we not see some deviations from the predictions of the laws of gravity? How do you reconcile that fact with your theories?
Now, don't tell me about the solar wind -- it has nothing to do with my question, which is about the movement of all the planets, and other solid objects within our solar system.

 

[GeeMack]

So, my question is, whey do we not measure any effect of these EM forces on all the orbiting bodies in our solar system, even in the slightest?

Ooh! Ooh! Let me try...

[Mozina_mode]

Because we aren't looking for them and make all our measurements and calculations based on the assumption that they aren't there, of course. If we would just assume the EM forces are there, and plug their values into our existing calculations, we would easily discover that Birkeland and Alfven were right and every professional physicist on Earth is wrong, of course.

[/Mozina_mode]

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is, definitively, and argument from ignorance.

Oh the irony. You don't know what did it, therefore "dark energy did it". You pegged the irony meter on that one.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I suspect he is a reasonably bright person when it comes to other topics, but on physics he is extremely stupid.

It seems to me like your last line of defense is a "liar liar" approach that backfired miserably on you last time. I guess now all you have left is the ever infamous personal attack. Yawn......

 

[GeeMack]

It seems to me like your last line of defense is a "liar liar" approach that backfired miserably on you last time. I guess now all you have left is the ever infamous personal attack. Yawn......

It's not a personal attack to question your qualifications. If you're speaking so far outside your area of expertise that you're virtually always wrong, yet you persist in implying that you're right and all professional physicists on Earth have it wrong, you will be called out on it. Especially here on a skeptic's forum. If you don't like it, you might consider either learning a little about what you're blathering about, or stop blathering. You're expected to be a grown-up here. Whining isn't going to help.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM:

You may have addressed this question elsewhere; if so, please indulge me anyway.

Certainly.

The known laws of gravity account for the motion of all the planets, moons, comets and asteroids in our solar system. It is my understanding that all such motions are in agreement with modern theories of gravity to an astonishing degree.
Now, you believe EM forces govern or influence astronomical observations.

Well, *SOME* observations, sure. Then again if gravity is the be-all-end-all of events in space, why does the mainstream need "dark energy"?

Aren't you imposing a bit of a double standard here?

You often speak of plasma being accelerated by the EM forces of the sun, or something like that.

Well, something certain must accelerate the solar wind to a million miles an hour, and it's definitely not "gravity".

You also seem to believe EM forces may account for the observations that have come to be labeled as dark matter and dark energy.

Well, some "missing mass" is most likely contained in what Birkeland called "flying electric ions". The EM field is certainly capable of accelerating matter.

So, my question is, whey do we not measure any effect of these EM forces on all the orbiting bodies in our solar system, even in the slightest?

We don't measure aurora? That solar wind has no direct effect on Earth's weather patterns?

Is it not true that Gravity accounts for all the motions we see in our solar system?

Well, "inside" the solar system does a "fair" job, sure. Gravity however doesn't explain those million degree coronal loops, or "jets" flying off the sun. It doesn't explain the solar wind. It doesn't explain the "tail" of those comets you discussed because the direction of the tail is directly related to the solar wind processes. We do in fact measure the slight effects of the EM field on material objects inside the solar system IMO. I guess you were expecting to see a more obvious effect inside the heliosphere?

If there were any EM influences on our solar system, would we not see some deviations from the predictions of the laws of gravity?

Wouldn't that depend on the magnitude of the effect "locally''? Why wouldn't this same argument apply to 'dark energy'? Does dark energy do anything inside the solar system? Does it have an effect on the tails of comets, or the polar regions of planets inside the solar system too?

How do you reconcile that fact with your theories?

The same way the mainstream does. I assume the effect locally is somewhat limited, and tempered by the gravitational forces that are in play inside the solar system. I assume the magnitude of the effect is more pronounced over greater distances where gravity isn't such a major player, and the acceleration process is mostly related to plasma, not heavy objects.

Now, don't tell me about the solar wind -- it has nothing to do with my question, which is about the movement of all the planets, and other solid objects within our solar system.

This statement is absolutely illogical from my perspective. You want to know how the EM field manifests itself and has an effect on comets (tails) and planets (polar aurora) and in the next breath you tell me not to tell you about it. I'm afraid your trying to have your cake and eat it too by rejecting the one obvious influence of the EM field on objects inside the solar system. Where is some slight "pressure" from the solar wind that "pushes against" the physical bodies inside the solar system. The effects are minor, but obvious and visible. Compared to that mythical "dark energy", you haven't got anything to complain about IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not a personal attack to question your qualifications. If you're speaking so far outside your area of expertise that you're virtually always wrong,

BS. You can't even locate "flying stuff" in a RD image, and Tim can't even find a while light image on a CD when they are clearly marked WL on the menu! Don't even think about preaching at me about "qualifications". Your lack of observational skills is utterly appalling IMO. Whatever your skills in math, you utterly blow when it comes to "observation".

yet you persist in implying that you're right and all professional physicists on Earth have it wrong, you will be called out on it.

I expect the *IDEA* to be called out. The individual is irrelevant. I'm not the only one bitching about your managerie of invisible friends.

http://www.photonmatrix.com/bbnh/index.htm

Especially here on a skeptic's forum. If you don't like it, you might consider either learning a little about what you're blathering about, or stop blathering. You're expected to be a grown-up here. Whining isn't going to help.

You're welcome to pick on the ideas all you like. Your personal fixation on the individual is simply a pathetic excuse for not being able to produce a physical experiment where your invisible friends actually show up and do something useful.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:

Either your answers were intentionally evasive or perhaps I failed in making my question clear. I was not asking about auroras, coronal loops, weather patterns, the behavior of comet tails or the solar wind. I was asking about the orbital motion of the solid objects in the solar system. Specifically, the orbit of mars, for example, can be fully accounted for by gravity -- taking into account all the gravitational influences on mars of all the other solid bodies in the solar system. The orbit of mars is in no way influenced by any EM forces. Is that not correct?
So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?

 

[GeeMack]

BS. You can't even locate "flying stuff" in a RD image, and Tim can't even find a while light image on a CD when they are clearly marked WL on the menu! Don't even think about preaching at me about "qualifications". Your lack of observational skills is utterly appalling IMO. Whatever your skills in math, you utterly blow when it comes to "observation".

Because noooooo... you wouldn't stoop so low as to make personal attacks.

You're welcome to pick on the ideas all you like. Your personal fixation on the individual is simply a pathetic excuse for not being able to produce a physical experiment where your invisible friends actually show up and do something useful.

Your ideas suck. They are totally unsupportable. Not one single professional physicist on Earth thinks there's any merit to them. Hell, only a handful of other crackpots do. There's a reason for that. Did I mention it's because your ideas suck?

But more to the point of my previous posting, and sol's, and Tim's, and pretty much everyone who has made any comment that you mistakenly take as a personal attack... You claim to be qualified, to have some expertise in the science of physics. And since you make that claim, expect it to be challenged. You have never demonstrated that you understand physics, at all, much less to the extent that you are right about your crackpot notions while every professional physicist on Earth is wrong. Consider your qualifications challenged.