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

[Michael Mozina]

The link you provided is about a structure within our galaxy. This seems to be a systematic problem with all your evidence, which is invariably about something on the sun, within the solar system, or as in the case above, within the galaxy. The cosmic acceleration attributed to dark energy has to do with the spacial relationship among galaxies and galaxy clusters on a large scale.
So, you have still failed to demonstrate any large scale EM fields causing the observed cosmic acceleration. You references to local stuff within the solar system and even within the galaxy provide no evidence for EM fields on a cosmic scale.

I think you're "jumping ahead" a bit from my perspective, but I hear you. *IF* EM fields are prevalent in space, we should see evidence of them A) inside our solar system (close to home), B) inside our galaxy (in and around our neighborhood), C) between galaxies (on a larger scale). We should see evidence of them everywhere, not just "somewhere out there". Such energy should *NOT* be limited to one specific place or time. Indeed we see evidence of EM fields inside the solar system. We see "Birkeland currents flowing inside the galaxy on larger scales. We also see "jets" that contain high speed charged particles, IOW, "current flow" that often "daisy chain" the galaxies together.

 

[ben m]

There is no way something like that could uniformly heat the entire ICM to those kinds of temperatures.

I see you're invoking the little-known 5th law of thermodynamics, which apparently is "The only thing that heats things up is Ohm's Law".

Sorry, MM: high-velocity collisions of net-neutral objects heat things up. This is well-known from such comparatively low-energy phenomenon as, e.g., spacecraft reentering the upper atmosphere at 8 km/s. They heat up, in contradiction of your 5th Law, despite the spacecraft NOT being an electric current pushed into the atmosphere by an electric field. Matter falling into a cluster is moving at 800-1000 km/s. It hits other matter. It heats up. it heats up a hell of a lot. Additional galaxies orbiting in and through the cluster add more velocity dispersion, heating it up even more.

Good heavens. There's an interesting conversation to be had (and being had in mainstream astronomy all the time) about the details of this process. There is no interesting conversation to be had about whether or not 1000 km/s collisions can shock-heat gas te keV temperatures. I mean, do the math: 1000 km/s gives you enough kinetic energy to heat yourself up to 10 keV. What's the temperature of clusters? 5-10 keV.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Perpetual Student
This is another demonstration of Michael Mozina's inability to learn. He asked a similar question before and was pointed to the same Wikipedia article.

Ya and your "explanation" still sucks. Care to help PS answer a few of those specific questions?

 

[Reality Check]

Ya and your "explanation" still sucks. Care to help PS answer a few of those specific questions?

Done:

Here is it is in baby talk just for you:

• Big ball of plasma.
• Big ball of plasma has mass.
• Big ball of plasma collapses because of magic pully stuff (gravity).
• Plasma thingies collide and the plasma heat up.
• The increased temperature balances the pulling from the magic pully stuff.

This of course leaves out quite a bit, e.g. the role of supernovae and galactic jets!
ETA
But you probably mean the questions that betray the depth of your ignorance

Isn't that just a tad "vague"? Which smaller structures are we talking about? How does "gravitational energy get released" exactly? In what physical form does that energy get released? Flying rocks? Dust? Charged particles? Does the Earth "release" it's "gravitational energy" too and if so, how does it do that? Does the sun release it's gravitational energy? If so, how does it do that? How exactly do we get from an attractive process (curvature or force) to flying kinetic particles that head off into the ICM?

So some vaguely undefined physical objects go flying off somehow and hit stuff 24/7?

So every single atom in the ICM is somehow affected by gravity defying objects being flung randomly into space and heat the whole thing uniformly? You don't find this so called "explanation' the least bit "fishy"?

The answers are:

• The smaller structures that galaxy clusters are made of are ... galaxies (and plasma) !
  But the article should have emphasied that it is the gravitational collapse of the plasma that is a major factor in the heating.
• Gravitational energy gets released as thermal energy by collisions (see ben m's post).
• The physical form is the increased kinetic energy of the electrons and ions in the ICM.
• Really stupid question: The Earth is not a plasma.
• Dumb question: The Sun is not the ICM. But it was heated up at formation by gravitational collapse. That is how fusion started.
• We get from an attractive process (gravity) to a hot ICM because gravitational potential energy converts to kinetic energy. A high school science student would know this.
• No: Some preciecely defined "physical objects go flying off somehow and hit stuff 24/7" - the ICM.
• Really stupid quesiton: Of course every single atom in the ICM is somehow affected by gravity. There are no "gravity defying objects".

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/GAIA_files/LATEX2HTML/node135.html

Alright PS, let's extend our search for EM fields beyond the galaxy itself. Notice a couple of key points from this article:

In well-sampled cases the trajectories were found to be curved, indicating that the plasma knots are not moving ballistically. Motion on curved trajectories implies that the angle between the line-of-sight and the local velocity vector changes with time. Since the knots are moving with relativistic velocities, changes in the viewing angle also change the effective Doppler beaming and hence the observed brightness of the emitting region. In at least one object (3C 345) the motion of synchrotron-emitting plasma clouds can be described by plasma moving on a helical path. Within projected velocities of a few tenths of a mas per year, the trajectories of these knots can be traced with VLBI observations taken every few months.

There's that direct observation of an electromagnetic "helix" that we expect to find in *ANY AND ALL* current carrying filaments. These "jets" are simply directional "current flows" moving at close to the speed of light. I'll round of some articles for you later where it can be demonstrated that these "jets" interconnect many galaxies on a "string". In other words they are connect by "current flow" that flows between the galaxies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Done:
Here is it is in baby talk just for you:

• Big ball of plasma.
• Big ball of plasma has mass.
• Big ball of plasma collapses because of magic pully stuff (gravity).
• Plasma thingies collide and the plasma heat up.
• The increased temperature balances the pulling from the magic pully stuff.

This of course leaves out quite a bit, e.g. the role of supernovae and galactic jets!

That isn't an explanation, it's joke. Let's try your analogy in our solar system. Your plasma should stay stuck to the surface of the sun. Why does that solar wind come whipping off the surface at a million miles an hour?

 

[ben m]

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/GAIA_files/LATEX2HTML/node135.html

Shiva opens his eye and all Mozina threads return to the same argument.

1) Random link to mainstream paper about some astrophysical plasma, usually a small-scale one. In this case it's the innards of a jet at sub-kpc scales. Vague claim that this implies that this small plasma is an exact model for everything in the Universe.
2) Bluntly wrong statement about dark matter.
2a) (precise rebuttal which mentions dark energy)
3) Ignore rebuttal, make bluntly wrong statement about dark energy
3a) (precise rebuttal which mentions inflation)
4) Ignore rebuttal, confuse inflation with the Casimir effect, bluntly wrong statement about Casimir
4a) (precise rebuttal which mentions large-scale structure)
5) Ignore rebuttal, bluntly wrong statement about large-scale structure being some sort of giant current-carrying circuit.
6) Return to claim #1. Repeat.

 

[Reality Check]

That isn't an explanation, it's joke. Let's try your analogy in our solar system. Your plasma should stay stuck to the surface of the sun. Why does that solar wind come whipping off the surface at a million miles an hour?

It is not an analogy. It is what physically happens in a simple form that you obviously cannot understand.
Only an idiot would think that the dense Sun is comparable to a diffuse cloud of really hot plasma that is megaparsecs in size.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No we don't. Even if we don't agree on every detail, everyone except you agrees that you are wrong.

Ya, and you all believe that Alfven was wrong too and you all believe in magnetic reconnection, dead inflation entities and "dark gap fillers" of epic proportions. What can I say, but that particular appeal to popularity fallacy is irrelevant from my perspective.

We are just going around in circles now. Even some of the "newbies" on these discussions were able to tell the difference between "relative pressure" and "absolute pressure". There are no blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates TBT, and the diagram is right. There is MORE pressure/force/kinetic energy pressure from the carrier particle of EM field /(whatever you want to call it) on one side of the plate and LESS of that same thing on the other. Now you whine about the diagrams till the cows come home but it won't make them wrong. They're fine. You just refuse to acknowledge it's a "RELATIVE" pressure, not an *ABSOLUTE* measurement of the total pressure in the vacuum.

 

[ben m]

That isn't an explanation, it's joke. Let's try your analogy in our solar system. Your plasma should stay stuck to the surface of the sun. Why does that solar wind come whipping off the surface at a million miles an hour?

Galaxies and galaxy clusters do have a wind equivalent to the solar wind; it is caused "cosmic ray acceleration" and it happens wherever there are gas-gas collision shocks. The underlying physics is in the same ballpark (reconnection, turbulence, shocks) and the result is the same (a subset of particles picking up much-larger-than-thermal large kinetic energies)

So there you go.

Otherwise: why aren't galaxies just giant stars, with the same energy density and surface phenomena as giant stars? Because the same laws of physics give different results depending on the initial conditions.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, and you all believe that Alfven was wrong too and you all believe in magnetic reconnection, dead inflation entities and "dark gap fillers" of epic proportions. What can I say, but that particular appeal to popularity fallacy is irrelevant from my perspective.

We are just going around in circles now. Even some of the "newbies" on these discussions were able to tell the difference between "relative pressure" and "absolute pressure". There are no blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates TBT, and the diagram is right. There is MORE pressure/force/kinetic energy pressure from the carrier particle of EM field /(whatever you want to call it) on one side of the plate and LESS of that same thing on the other. Now you whine about the diagrams till the cows come home but it won't make them wrong. They're fine. You just refuse to acknowledge it's a "RELATIVE" pressure, not an *ABSOLUTE* measurement of the total pressure in the vacuum.

That is just really silly whining from you, Michael Mozina.
Alfven was right about most things. His personal opinion about magnetic reconnection is not supported by the scientific evidence.

There is no "RELATIVE" pressure in the Casimir effect. There is no *ABSOLUTE* measurement of the total pressure in the vacuum.

There are measurements in controlled empirical experiments (using MM-speak) of the pressure caused by the Casimir effect. Scientist know that the Casimir force is negative because they measure that the plates move toward each other. More recent experiments use a sphere and a plate and scientists see that the sphere moves toward the plate.

Pressure is defined as the force on a surface.
A force that pulls on a surface is by convention a negative force. A negative force gives a neagative pressure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Shiva opens his eye and all Mozina threads return to the same argument.

1) Random link to mainstream paper about some astrophysical plasma, usually a small-scale one.

Er, no. Evidently you aren't paying attention. I started by explaining to PS that I would expect that an all pervasive EM field (or any energy field) would show up not just "somewhere out there" where humans can never reach, but it should show up everywhere, inside out solar system, inside out galaxy and between them too. I started locally with those million mile per hour solar winds you folks can't explain even 100 years after Birkeland predicted their presence via empirical experimentation. I started with those million degree coronal loops that Birkeland simulated and imaged in his lab. I then extended that observation of current into the galaxy and then between them as well.

You're the one handwaving around about how "dark energy" is responsible for accelerating a whole universe of matter but you can't get it to accelerate a single atom in a lab. When I ask for a physical demonstration that dark energy accelerates mass, I get a snowjob and a rewind/repeat claim about how "dark evil energy did it", see my pretty math". That's not an acceptable replacement for an empirical test of concept.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, and you all believe that Alfven was wrong too

Well he was wrong about some things.

and you all believe in magnetic reconnection,

Well magnetic reconnection occurs, so yes.

dead inflation entities and "dark gap fillers" of epic proportions.

No. Those are terms you made up. Please try to remember what people have actually said and what things are childish artifacts of your own imagination.

What can I say, but that particular appeal to popularity fallacy is irrelevant from my perspective.

It wasn't an appeal to popularity. You said that we all had to come to a consensus on whether the diagram was correct or not. I said no we didn't.

We are just going around in circles now. Even some of the "newbies" on these discussions were able to tell the difference between "relative pressure" and "absolute pressure". There are no blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates TBT, and the diagram is right.

We are going round in circles because you keep talking about something that is irrelevant. The diagram is not wrong because the arrows are wrong. The diagram is wrong because the vacuum fluctuations should have nodes at the surface of the conductors.

There is MORE pressure/force/kinetic energy pressure from the carrier particle of EM field /(whatever you want to call it) on one side of the plate and LESS of that same thing on the other.

This is nothing to do with kinetic energy. It is an effect purely due to second quantization (as the wikipedia article that diagram comes from clearly states).

Now you whine about the diagrams till the cows come home but it won't make them wrong. They're fine.

Do you even know what a node is?

You just refuse to acknowledge it's a "RELATIVE" pressure, not an *ABSOLUTE* measurement of the total pressure in the vacuum.

From an article directly linked to by the article in which that diagram you love so much appears:

Because Casimir force between conductors is attractive then the Casimir pressure in space between the conductors is negative.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Isn't that just a tad "vague"? Which smaller structures are we talking about? How does "gravitational energy get released" exactly? In what physical form does that energy get released? Flying rocks? Dust? Charged particles? Does the Earth "release" it's "gravitational energy" too and if so, how does it do that? Does the sun release it's gravitational energy? If so, how does it do that? How exactly do we get from an attractive process (curvature or force) to flying kinetic particles that head off into the ICM?

Don't we have an excellent example of gravitational energy heating stuff right here in our solar system (the same system that you so love to use for EM things)? For example, Jupiter's gravity seems to heat Io quite well!

So some vaguely undefined physical objects go flying off somehow and hit stuff 24/7?

So gravity causes motion and things collide. Is that a surprise? 24/7? Should they take the weekend off?

So every single atom in the ICM is somehow affected by gravity defying objects being flung randomly into space and heat the whole thing uniformly? You don't find this so called "explanation' the least bit "fishy"?

Well, you've got me out of my element again. However, I don't find it difficult to imagine that over billions of years such an entity would heat uniformly due to the continuing motion of the particles. Do you have any specific argument against that -- other than "fishy"?

 

[ben m]

Er, no. Evidently you aren't paying attention. I started by explaining to PS that I would expect that an all pervasive EM field (or any energy field) would show up not just "somewhere out there" where humans can never reach, but it should show up everywhere, inside out solar system, inside out galaxy and between them too.

a) "You would expect". Sorry, your expectations are utterly unfounded. There is no reason for a vacuum-energy-density to show up inside our solar system; the laws that govern such things tell us that it "shows up" but only as a perturbation far too weak to see. Ditto for (so far) dark matter. Ditto for the relic neutrino background. Ditto for (so far) gravitational waves. Ditto for primordial gravitational waves.

b) "you would expect" an EM field to show up everywhere? Again, sorry, your expectation is utterly unfounded. EM fields are strong close to their sources and weaker---quite rapidly weaker---farther away. There is no physical basis for an EM field which "everywhere", and certainly not for one which causes the observed bend in the Hubble curve. (There is a physical basis to "EM fields originating from stars or galaxies and dropping faster than 1/r^2 outside them". Observations tell us that those fields are weak.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Don't we have an excellent example of gravitational energy heating stuff right here in our solar system (the same system that you so love to use for EM things)? For example, Jupiter's gravity seems to heat Io quite well!

Well, ok but tidal forces aren't exactly applicable at ICM distances.

So gravity causes motion and things collide. Is that a surprise?

Yes it's surpising, especially when you're trying to claim it heats plasma to millions of degree over *ENORMOUS* distances!

24/7? Should they take the weekend off?

Why would some distant gravitation energy uniformly heat plasma at such vast distance on such a continuous basis? The ICM is huge in terms of volume. Why would the energy release be so uniform? Why would it heat such a vast volume uniformly like that? The energy distribution would need to be continuous and it would need to cover enormous areas.

Well, you've got me out of my element again. However, I don't find it difficult to imagine that over billions of years such an entity would heat uniformly due to the continuing motion of the particles. Do you have any specific argument against that -- other than "fishy"?

Yes, it's called entropy. The whole thing should be continually cooling off.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is just really silly whining from you, Michael Mozina.
Alfven was right about most things. His personal opinion about magnetic reconnection is not supported by the scientific evidence.

Bull. You're "reconnecting" the same exact "magnetic ropes" that he referred to as "circuits". It's directly supported by evidence, starting with the fact you can't even physically distinguish it from "induction" and "circuit reconnection" at the level of actual physics. The transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the charged particle is called "induction" and it has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection".

There is no "RELATIVE" pressure in the Casimir effect.

Wrong! Relative pressure is all you have. You have "pressure" that is relative to a surface of a plate. Period.

There is no *ABSOLUTE* measurement of the total pressure in the vacuum.

Baloney. It's called a pressure gauge.

There are measurements in controlled empirical experiments (using MM-speak) of the pressure caused by the Casimir effect. Scientist know that the Casimir force is negative because they measure that the plates move toward each other.

If that were true then the geometry wouldn't matter one iota. Since you can make the force positive or negative, it can't have anything at all to do with the pressure in the vacuum, and everything to do with RELATIVE PRESSURE depending on physical geometries.

Your argument is toast for two very good reasons. No vacuum on Earth can even come close to an absolute "zero" pressure, and no vacuum on Earth ever will, so no Casimir experiment takes place in anything but a positive pressure environment. The second big flaw in your logic is the fact that the geometry matters when it comes the direction of the force and your sign can go + or - depending on the geometry.

 

[ben m]

Yes, it's called entropy. The whole thing should be continually cooling off.

Do we have to add entropy to the list of things you misunderstand? Or do we add it to the list of words you selectively misunderstand when misunderstanding it seems to confirm your preconceptions?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say nothing ever heats up. Indeed, many things do heat up, including objects colliding at high speed.

The ICM is losing energy, both by particle flow and by radiation; neither is terribly efficient at these temperatures and densities. (Hint: this thing is NOT a blackbody by any stretch of the imagination.) At the same time that energy is radiated away, new gas is falling in all the time, and existing gas is being reaccelerated in the wake of galaxies passing through again. Some energy loss, some energy gain, and you need to look at both to figure out the present-day temperature.

 

[ben m]

Baloney. It's called a pressure gauge.

Nope. Have you ever used a pressure gauge? A Bourdon tube, strain gauge, or a manometer gauge measures the kinetic-pressure difference between the interior and exterior of a test tube or cell. (Not very good for measuring a pressure which is present on both sides, like vacuum pressure. Gauges which are advertised as "absolute" just have (at best) one side pre-evacuated at the factory.) All other so-called "pressure gauges" are basically molecule-counting devices; they only measure gas density.

 

[Reality Check]

Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force and so positive pressure

Bull. You're "reconnecting" the same exact "magnetic ropes" that he referred to as "circuits". It's directly supported by evidence, starting with the fact you can't even physically distinguish it from "induction" and "circuit reconnection" at the level of actual physics. The transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the charged particle is called "induction" and it has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection".

Bull - see I can say it too !

First asked 14 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
You assert "the fact you can't even physically distinguish it [magnetic reconnection] from "induction" and "circuit reconnection" at the level of actual physics".

• What is "induction" and why is it different from electromagnetic induction?
• What is "circuit reconnection"?
• What are the sources for your assertion?

Wrong! Relative pressure is all you have. You have "pressure" that is relative to a surface of a plate. Period.

Wrong.
Pressure is never relative to anything. It is a quantity that is defined as P = dF/dA or P = = -dE/dV. The force is relative to a surface, i.e. either pushing against it (a positive force) or pulling on it (a negative force). Period.

Baloney. It's called a pressure gauge.

Baloney. Pressure is an absolute quantity - it is a number that can be either positive or negative.
But pressure gauges make relative meaurements. An absolute presure gauge measures relative to zero pressure. An absolute presure gauge measuring the Casimir pressure would give a negative number.

If that were true then the geometry wouldn't matter one iota. Since you can make the force positive or negative, it can't have anything at all to do with the pressure in the vacuum, and everything to do with RELATIVE PRESSURE depending on physical geometries.

The geometry does matter one iota. The Casimir effect between two metallic objects is always attractive. But how the force between the objects varies depends on geometry.

The materials used do change the Casimir effect from an attractive force (negative pressure) to a repulsive force (positive pressure): Measured long-range repulsive Casimir–Lifshitz forces (PDF)

Someone has not read or understood (or has a really bad case of Alzheimers !) the Casimir effect article.

Your argument is toast for two very good reasons. No vacuum on Earth can even come close to an absolute "zero" pressure, and no vacuum on Earth ever will, so no Casimir experiment takes place in anything but a positive pressure environment. The second big flaw in your logic is the fact that the geometry matters when it comes the direction of the force and your sign can go + or - depending on the geometry.

Your argument is toast.



There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum which has no relevance to the experiments for 2 reasons:

1. The vacuum is low enough that gas pressure is negligible.
2. The tiny bit of gas pressure that exists pushes on all surfaces evenly.

ETA
The really dumb point about what you said (and keep on repeating like a demented parrot) is that the Casimir force has been measured and agrees with the theory of the Casimir effect - not the theory of the pressure exerted by a gas. That rules out the Casimir force being due to your "positive pressure environment". It is actually a "really, really small positive pressure that is overwhelmed by the Casimir effect environment".

First asked 14 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
We already have this question that you are ignoring: What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments? (First asked 9 January 2010 )

So here are a couple more questions that you can ignore:
Classic Casimir experiments measure that the Casimir force is attractive and that the pressure exerted by that force is negative.
The variation of the force matches the theory.

So:

1. Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force due to the gas left in the vacuum and so positive pressure?
2. Why do Casimir experiments match the Casimir theory?