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

[sol invictus]

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.

That doesn't work for several reasons that ben covered nicely. But it also doesn't work on a more basic level. What exactly is this cosmic analogue of the solar wind? It can't be literally a wind, because the energy required to accelerate galaxy clusters is so gargantuan that the wind would have to be ridiculously dense and powerful. It can't be an EM field for reasons thoroughly explained many times.

It has to be some kind of force field, something that's weak on short scales but can build up over very long times and distances and exert enormous force on large structures. The only force we know of that has those properties is gravity, and the only models (that I know of) that can explain the cosmic acceleration with gravity are spherically symmetric models or models with dark energy. So you're back to square one.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That doesn't work for several reasons that ben covered nicely.

In a highly simplified model, yes, the redshift pattern (particularly related to acceleration) wouldn't necessarily be isotropic or completely uniform. I was simply noting that we could achieve "some" redshift pattern everywhere we look (no blueshifted objects), and continuous acceleration from the EM field. The positive or negative "pressure" state is totally irrelevant. Constant acceleration is possible with an EM field.

But it also doesn't work on a more basic level. What exactly is this cosmic analogue of the solar wind?

On a large scale, they're composed of cosmic rays and "current flows" within the plasma itself. At the local level you see it get "condensed" into a region that is relative small, like the solar atmosphere, and the effects of all those external factors play a significant role in local events.

It can't be literally a wind, because the energy required to accelerate galaxy clusters is so gargantuan that the wind would have to be ridiculously dense and powerful. It can't be an EM field for reasons thoroughly explained many times.

I think you and Ben are on the wrong track when trying to figure out a way to accelerate a star with a single force like that. The "trick" is that only a tiny fraction of the matter of the universe is actually contained in stars. All you need to do to move the stars, is move the EM field (expand it) and the plasma and "flying electrons and flying electric ions" that make up the bulk of the mass and energy of the universe. The tiny little mass contained in the stars will naturally follow (gravitationally and otherwise) the rest of the mass contained in those "flying ions". You don't have to move the stars themselves, just all the plasma and the cosmic rays.

It has to be some kind of force field, something that's weak on short scales but can build up over very long times and distances and exert enormous force on large structures.

Well, in the sense that much of the movement locally is due to the movements of plasma and ions elsewhere, that's exactly what's happening IMO.

The only force we know of that has those properties is gravity, and the only models (that I know of) that can explain the cosmic acceleration with gravity are spherically symmetric models or models with dark energy. So you're back to square one.

Gravity isn't a force of acceleration however, so you'll need to look beyond gravity for an answer. That energy density you described is working against gravity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Try this analogy sol....

If we move all the "other" matter in the universe (other than the stars) the gravitational effect of that change will cause the stars to follow along, not only due to local EM influences, but due gravitational effects related to the movement of all the rest of that matter. It's not one the EM field "pushing" against the star directly, is the combined effect of accelerating all the other matter in the universe that causes the stars to follow along.

 

[Tubbythin]

In a highly simplified model, yes, the redshift pattern (particularly related to acceleration) wouldn't necessarily be isotropic or completely uniform.

You can make it more complicated if you like. You're never going to get it isotropic without violating the Copernican Principle.

 

[Tubbythin]

Try this analogy sol....

If we move all the "other" matter in the universe (other than the stars) the gravitational effect of that change will cause the stars to follow along, not only due to local EM influences, but due gravitational effects related to the movement of all the rest of that matter. It's not one the EM field "pushing" against the star directly, is the combined effect of accelerating all the other matter in the universe that causes the stars to follow along.

Why would the stars get pulled along if the expansion around them was isotopic?

 

[sol invictus]

In a highly simplified model, yes, the redshift pattern (particularly related to acceleration) wouldn't necessarily be isotropic or completely uniform. I was simply noting that we could achieve "some" redshift pattern everywhere we look (no blueshifted objects), and continuous acceleration from the EM field.

Except that no, we can't.

The positive or negative "pressure" state is totally irrelevant. Constant acceleration is possible with an EM field.

No, it isn't - and regardless, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe isn't constant.

On a large scale, they're composed of cosmic rays and "current flows" within the plasma itself. At the local level you see it get "condensed" into a region that is relative small, like the solar atmosphere, and the effects of all those external factors play a significant role in local events.

I think you and Ben are on the wrong track when trying to figure out a way to accelerate a star with a single force like that. The "trick" is that only a tiny fraction of the matter of the universe is actually contained in stars. All you need to do to move the stars, is move the EM field (expand it) and the plasma and "flying electrons and flying electric ions" that make up the bulk of the mass and energy of the universe. The tiny little mass contained in the stars will naturally follow (gravitationally and otherwise) the rest of the mass contained in those "flying ions". You don't have to move the stars themselves, just all the plasma and the cosmic rays.

That's completely impossible. The reasons have been explained to you over and over again. Matter in the universe is neutral on average. An electric field would move positive ions one way and negative ions the other, and have no effect on stars. A magnetic field can't accelerate anything (or rather, it can only accelerate things in the direction transverse to their motion, which is nothing like a Hubble expansion).

Gravity isn't a force of acceleration however, so you'll need to look beyond gravity for an answer. That energy density you described is working against gravity.

No, you've badly misunderstood. That energy by itself does absolutely nothing. Without gravity it is literally meaningless (because non-gravitational physics cares only about energy differences). It's the gravity of that energy that causes the acceleration.

If we move all the "other" matter in the universe (other than the stars) the gravitational effect of that change will cause the stars to follow along, not only due to local EM influences, but due gravitational effects related to the movement of all the rest of that matter. It's not one the EM field "pushing" against the star directly, is the combined effect of accelerating all the other matter in the universe that causes the stars to follow along.

That doesn't work, because the universe is neutral. We keep telling you this - there's an enormous difference between gravity and EM in the universe, and it's that matter is EM neutral (because there are as many positive as negative charges) but has a huge net "charge" under gravity (because everything ordinary has positive energy, and energy is gravitational charge).

 

[Michael Mozina]

That doesn't work, because the universe is neutral.

Relative to what?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

You keep also claiming the solar wind is "neutral", but it dumps tons of energy into the Earth's atmosphere via a "magnetic rope", which is defined as a current carrying plasma filament according to Alfven. From Cosmic Plasma:

However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why would the stars get pulled along if the expansion around them was isotopic?

At very large scales it may be isotropic, but inside something like a galaxy, it's going to be affected by the mass layout of everything around the stars, not just the stars themselves and they will remain all gravitationally bound together.

 

[Tim Thompson]

90% Stars

The "trick" is that only a tiny fraction of the matter of the universe is actually contained in stars.

Not likely.
As I have already pointed out ...

90% of the baryonic mass of a spiral galaxy is stars.

The stellar mass fraction for elliptical galaxies is bound to be higher, since they are notably free of dust & gas compared to spiral galaxies. So the baryonic mass of the low redshift universe is bound to be of the order of 90% stars, a far cry from a "tiny fraction", since the baryonic mass of a galaxy cluster is dominated by the mass of the galaxies. And the baryonic mass of the intracluster (between the galaxies) medium is likely to be dominated by stars, as more & more intracluster stars are being discovered.

Aside from that, I think that "mass of the universe" is a potentially misleading concept. After all, the universe exists in both space & time; the high redshift universe is arguably not there at all "now", but an image of the past universe carried to us in light from objects that have since then evolved into other forms. We know that the star formation rate in the universe has taken a nose dive, down by about a factor of 100, since redshift 3 (about 11.5 billion years ago). It is likely that the mass of the universe, at any given time, has been dominated by stars at least since then, and more so as we get closer to the present day universe. Assuming an age of the universe of roughly 14 billion years, that implies the mass of the universe, at any given time, has been dominated by stars ever since the universe was roughly 2.2 billion years old.

I think it evident that the stellar fraction of the universe was a "tiny fraction" of the baryonic mass only for a "tiny fraction" of the age of the universe.

 

[sol invictus]

Relative to what?

Relative to the fundamental unit of charge.

Michael, if matter weren't neutral on average there would be a gargantuan electric field everywhere in space. We'd know about it. Moreover we can just take matter/plasma/whatever in the lab and check its charge. It's zero.

This is E&M 101. It's probably the most basic fact about electromagnetic phenomena.

None of your links/quotes has any bearing on this. And again, even if matter weren't neutral your idea would still fail completely, because positive and negative ions would accelerate in opposite directions in an electric field, and in circles in a magnetic field.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar Wind is Neutral

You keep also claiming the solar wind is "neutral", ...

The number of electrons is equal to the number of protons, averaged over a volume greater than a debye sphere. That makes it neutral on average.

 

[GeeMack]

Michael, if matter weren't neutral on average there would be a gargantuan electric field everywhere in space.

[MM_Mode]

But there is. There is a "gargantuan electric field" everywhere in space. Alfvén said so. Birkeland said so. And I said so!

[/MM_Mode]

 

[ben m]

I was simply noting that we could achieve "some" redshift pattern everywhere we look

We are not looking for models which predict "some" redshift pattern. Models with "some" redshift pattern are a dime a dozen. All of them are wrong except for the ones that predict the redshift we actually observe, i.e. isotropic in all directions and accelerating.

On a large scale, they're composed of cosmic rays and "current flows" within the plasma itself.

What plasma? The tenuous, ultra-low-density plasma in between galaxy clusters? Sorry, that plasma is not pushing on massive objects. I have mentioned Newton's Law several times---perhaps you remember it. If you have some tenuous plasma exerting a force on a galaxy, then the galaxy is exerting the same force back on the plasma. It's the plasma that will move out of the way, not the galaxy.

I think you and Ben are on the wrong track when trying to figure out a way to accelerate a star with a single force like that.

Can we get this in an incontrovertible form? "I, Michael Mozina, agree with mainstream scientists that the mismatch in q/m means that E&M forces cannot directly accelerate stars, even though they're made of plasma, and all of my 5 years' worth of arguments to the contrary were wrong. (signed) Michael Mozina." We might want to print that out so it doesn't get forgotten at a convenient time and re-argued for another five years.

You don't have to move the stars themselves, just all the plasma and the cosmic rays.

OK. We have a nice clean observation of exactly what happens when a bunch of huge, external plasma-based EM forces start whipping through a galaxy. This is not a big secret, it has been posted repeatedly.


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html

That's data, MM. That's two galaxy clusters---each carrying a cloud of your favorite substance, intracluster plasma. The clusters collided, generating large forces between the plasmas. Look how that worked out: EM forces on the diffuse intracluster plasma made the plasma stop (red). Did the stars and galaxies stop along with the plasma? Nope, there go the stars and galaxies on their merry way---and all of the mass goes with them (blue). The intracluster plasma does not exert forces on stars. It doesn't exert large EM forces because it can't; it doesn't exert large gravitational forces because (compared to dark matter) there's not all that much of it. We never expected it to, neither Newton nor Maxwell nor Alfven tell you it should, and the data tells you it doesn't.

You have no argument to the contrary except "I really really honestly can picture it all in my head and I want it to look like the solar wind."

 

[ben m]

Gravity isn't a force of acceleration however, so you'll need to look beyond gravity for an answer. That energy density you described is working against gravity.

The energy density we describe has effects which work against Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity, discovered in 1687, turns out not to be correct. The correct theory of gravity is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

The energy density we describe, and the acceleration that results, are perfectly normal aspects of the actual correct theory of gravity. Einstein described this himself---vacuum energy would cause acceleration, according to the only known theory of gravity.

Can you get this straight, please? The repetition is tiresome.

 

[GeeMack]

You have no argument to the contrary except "I really really honestly can picture it all in my head and I want it to look like the solar wind."

Which is the foundation of pretty much all of Michael's arguments, and, to point out the logical fallacies involved, is wishful thinking supported by incredulity and ignorance.

 

[ben m]

You keep also claiming the solar wind is "neutral", but it dumps tons of energy into the Earth's atmosphere

A "ton" of energy? 5x10^14 joules? Perhaps you're unacquainted with the orders of magnitude we deal with in astronomy. The Sun radiates 10^26 joules per second worth of photons, mostly in the optical and IR (of which the Earth intercepts 10^17 per second) and another 10^25 joules per second of neutrinos. The Earth's kinetic energy is 6x10^33 joules. 10^14J is not "oh, wow, what a powerful phenomenon", 10^14J is "wow, what a pretty aurora".

via a "magnetic rope", which is defined as a current carrying plasma filament according to Alfven. From Cosmic Plasma:

"There is a glowing LED on my stereo. LEDs operate on a DC current. I therefore conclude that my house is not neutral."

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You keep also claiming the solar wind is "neutral", but it dumps tons of energy into the Earth's atmosphere

A "ton" of energy? 5x10^14 joules? Perhaps you're unacquainted with the orders of magnitude we deal with in astronomy. The Sun radiates 10^26 joules per second worth of photons, mostly in the optical and IR (of which the Earth intercepts 10^17 per second) and another 10^25 joules per second of neutrinos. The Earth's kinetic energy is 6x10^33 joules. 10^14J is not "oh, wow, what a powerful phenomenon", 10^14J is "wow, what a pretty aurora".

via a "magnetic rope", which is defined as a current carrying plasma filament according to Alfven. From Cosmic Plasma:

"There is a glowing LED on my stereo. LEDs operate on a DC current. I therefore conclude that my house is not neutral."

MM response, in 3, 2, 1 ...

[MM mode]

But ben, 6x10^33 joules is only *19* times greater than 5x10^14 joules! Sure that's a bit "smaller", but it's certainly still in "the same ballpark".

Thanks for confirming that your house is not neutral; Birkeland's terrellas were not neutral either.

[/MM mode]

 

[ben m]

Thanks for confirming that your house is not neutral

Hey, the power company never said it wanted its electrons back---it's not like there's a 5 cent deposit. So I keep them in my garage.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hey, the power company never said it wanted its electrons back---it's not like there's a 5 cent deposit. So I keep them in my garage.

From where they find their way into a magnetic flux rope (a.k.a. a "magnetic flux rope", or a rope of "magnetic flux", or ...), travel back to the Sun (surfing upstream against the wind), and become available to power the Sun ... just as Birkeland predicted 100 years ago, and demonstrated with his terrella (though he didn't spot the electrons sneaking back to the Sun - not the "Sun" - it was Alfvén, in Cosmic Plasmas, who worked that out - on his trip to Norway).

 

[Perpetual Student]

I don't get it! Why and how does MM retain the belief in his EU/PC theories in spite of such overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary?