Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
It does not. I offered to let you folks use mass rather than energy and your side balked at that idea too.
Click to expand...

No. First off, it was me, not my "side". Second, I told you why that substitution was pointless and stupid, and you didn't have any response. And third, if you do use that substitution, you will not end up with the ideal gas law. Because the ideal gas law does indeed ignore relativity. It breaks down for relativistic particles (which is part of why it doesn't work for radiation pressure). The quantum issue is a little more subtle: you can derive it using the quantum energy states (using the definition of pressure I gave earlier), but you need to use Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, not Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein, so it definitely ignores aspects of quantum mechanics.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. First off, it was me, not my "side".
Click to expand...

It was *you* doing all trash talking and insisting on a mathematical description of pressure in a vacuum. The moment I handed you a valid option, you got all huffy and puffy and refused to consider it. You didn't like the second one either.

Second, I told you why that substitution was pointless and stupid, and you didn't have any response.
Click to expand...

It is not "pointless" or "stupid" if we're talking about the "pressure" of a "vacuum". What was "pointless and stupid" was comparing a vacuum to "liquids". The only reason you balked at my suggestions is that it becomes clear that with no mass, you have no pressure.

And third, if you do use that substitution, you will not end up with the ideal gas law. Because the ideal gas law does indeed ignore relativity. It breaks down for relativistic particles (which is part of why it doesn't work for radiation pressure). The quantum issue is a little more subtle: you can derive it using the quantum energy states (using the definition of pressure I gave earlier), but you need to use Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, not Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein, so it definitely ignores aspects of quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

The QM issue is *directly related to a persistent, all pervasive EM fields in the vacuum and the carrier particles for the EM field. It is a *force*, not a "pressure" and it never become negative either. All the "blue arrows" would be pointing directly at Guth's singularity thingy and would act to *push it together*, not pull it apart. There is no such thing a "negative pressure".

You folks still have not acknowledged that the Casimir *force* is a *force* that is unrelated to "pressure". There is "kinetic energy" conveyed the by the force of the carrier particles of EM field, but it is ultimately unrelated to "pressure". The existence of primordial and pervasive EM field would only hurt Guth's inflation process, it would not, and could not help it. Instead of having a true "zero" pressure from a pure vacuum, Guth's near singularity thingy will experience a slight positive pressure from the level of QM. In no way will Guth ever get "negative pressure" out of a vacuum, not even at the level of QM. All he might get is moving particles inside some primordial field bombarding his singularity and putting "pressure" on it. In other words it would only be "kinetic energy in motion" slamming into his "heat" thingy from all sides.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You folks still have not acknowledged that the Casimir *force* is a *force* that is unrelated to "pressure".
Click to expand...

What do you mean by pressure in the sentence? a) gaseous pressure b) atmospheric pressure c) something else?

So you have your blue arrows in your diagram. They are pointing in opposite directions. What are the signs on each of those vectors? Positive or negative?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You folks still have not acknowledged that the Casimir *force* is a *force* that is unrelated to "pressure". There is "kinetic energy" conveyed the by the force of the carrier particles of EM field, but it is ultimately unrelated to "pressure". The existence of primordial and pervasive EM field would only hurt Guth's inflation process, it would not, and could not help it. Instead of having a true "zero" pressure from a pure vacuum, Guth's near singularity thingy will experience a slight positive pressure from the level of QM. In no way will Guth ever get "negative pressure" out of a vacuum, not even at the level of QM. All he might get is moving particles inside some primordial field bombarding his singularity and putting "pressure" on it. In other words it would only be "kinetic energy in motion" slamming into his "heat" thingy from all sides.
Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understand what's supposed to be happening. At inflation there is no "outside" for particles to be coming from to be impinging on some supposed singularity (inflation happens after any singularity, if there's a singularity at all).

Also the pressure itself is not acting by hitting things and causing them to move in the cosmological context (not least as there's no outside for them to be coming from in order to hit something). You do understand the role pressure has in relativity, don't you?
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not a definition of pressure at all. Under any conditions. Even for an ideal gas. How can you still not get such a basic fact straight?
Click to expand...

Baloney. As it relates to *atoms* at the atomic level, it's a perfectly valid way to determine the asymptote for "pressure" in a vacuum. It isn't "negative infinity", it's "zero". We can then look at the subatomic energy spectrum if you like, but as it relates to "pressure" in a vacuum, it's a perfectly valid definition. You just don't like it because it demonstrates that the asymptote for pressure is zero, not "the negative energy state of a whole physical universe".

Hell, it can even give the radically WRONG pressure, as in the case of radiation pressure (which is not the Casimir effect -
Click to expand...

This is simply "kinetic pressure" at the level of subatomic physics. There's nothing "magical" going on at the subatomic scale, it's still kinetic energy in motion.

I'm talking real photons).
Click to expand...

Evidently those would necessarily be coming from the heat object rather than the "vacuum around the heat object". How exactly did all that "heat" get out of Guth's thingamabob again if not via photons coming *from* it?

Radiation pressure inside a sealed enclosure will scale as T4 (Reif, Thermal Physics), not as T, so the ideal gas law is rather obviously wrong, and at sufficiently high temperature, radiation pressure will always dominate gas pressure.
Click to expand...

The radiation pressure as you call it is simply kinetic energy in motion because we live inside an electric universe. Where's that radiating energy coming from in Guth's theory? What form of energy are we discussing as it relates to Guth's theory? Are you depending upon a giant external EM field? Are you sure you aren't EU theorists in Lambda "drag"?
 
edd said:
I don't think you quite understand what's supposed to be happening. At inflation there is no "outside" for particles to be coming from to be impinging on some supposed singularity (inflation happens after any singularity, if there's a singularity at all).
Click to expand...

Is there any mass at this point? Guth doesn't seem to imply this to be the case. What *holds* his "heat" exactly? How does it "supercool" if not by releasing photons?

Also the pressure itself is not acting by hitting things and causing them to move in the cosmological context (not least as there's no outside for them to be coming from in order to hit something).
Click to expand...

So what is *causing* this "pressure" you're describing if there is no "outside" and no way for anything from the "outside" to have any effect on it?

You do understand the role pressure has in relativity, don't you?
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue how it applies until you have "mass" in some "form".
 
Michael Mozina said:
It was *you* doing all trash talking and insisting on a mathematical description of pressure in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Well, no. What I insisted on was a universal definition of pressure.

The moment I handed you a valid option, you got all huffy and puffy and refused to consider it.
Click to expand...

I did consider it. And I told you why, in detail, it was awkward and pointless, starting with the fact that relativistic mass is an outdated and redundant concept. All you did was change the calculation from one in terms of energy to one in terms of relativistic mass, which is redundant with energy. So although the two versions were formally equivalent, I detailed why your form was inferior for performing actual calculations. You did not actually contest that.

It is not "pointless" or "stupid" if we're talking about the "pressure" of a "vacuum".
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Relativistic mass is redundant with energy. In most situations it's easier to work with energy directly rather than with relativistic mass.

What was "pointless and stupid" was comparing a vacuum to "liquids".
Click to expand...

Oh, but I'm not comparing them. I'm using liquids to demonstrate that you have no clue about what pressure actually means.

The only reason you balked at my suggestions is that it becomes clear that with no mass, you have no pressure.
Click to expand...

Oh, is that what you thought you were doing? Sorry, I really didn't think you'd be so clueless, but I guess I should have known better by now. Well, this is rather obviously wrong, because you've confused rest mass with relativistic mass (one of the reasons I prefer not to ever use relativistic mass). Radiation pressure is the perfect counter-example: no rest mass, plenty of relativistic mass, and you get pressure. So apparently you didn't even have a clue about what your substitution meant.

The QM issue is *directly related to a persistent, all pervasive EM fields in the vacuum and the carrier particles for the EM field. It is a *force*, not a "pressure"
Click to expand...

A force that's applied over an area, and that force is proportional to the area that it's applied over. Divide out that area, and you get a constant, which is...
(wait for it)...
Pressure!

Who'da thunk? As those intro textbooks repeatedly point out, pressure is force per area. So the EM field is indeed applying a pressure. And whether you want to consider ordinary radiation pressure or the Casimir effect, you CANNOT substitute mass for energy in my pressure equation unless you use relativistic mass. But the EM field can (and does) indeed have relativistic mass, so your contention that my definition of pressure leads to zero pressure for a vacuum is wrong.

There is no such thing a "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

Once again, yes there is. Whether or not a vacuum can support negative pressures is a different question, but negative pressures are absolutely real. Again, liquids. Yes, yes, liquids aren't the same thing as vacuums, but your repeated failure to understand that liquids can have negative pressure demonstrates that you don't know what pressure is.

You folks still have not acknowledged that the Casimir *force* is a *force* that is unrelated to "pressure".
Click to expand...

It's a force applied over an area. Divide out that area, and what do you get? A pressure. Seems pretty obviously related to me. And my intro physics textbook says the same thing. In fact, when calculating the pressure of a liquid at depth, it starts out with calculating a force, then derives the pressure from that.

Really, Michael. Don't bother trying to figure out the quantum mechanics of all this. You're still hopelessly clueless about what pressure means, even in a Newtonian context.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Until Guth has mass, how does "relativity" apply again?
Click to expand...

Well I think I can reasonably take that to be a 'no' in answer to my question of whether you understand.

temporalillusion - broadly speaking the source of gravity in GR is not purely mass. This is to be expected given what we know of the equivalence of mass and energy, but in more detail the source of gravity in GR is the energy-momentum tensor, aka stress-energy tensor. One component of that is the energy density (again not just mass but all the energy) and it also has terms including stresses, momentum in each direction, energy fluxes and, of course, pressure.

In a cosmological situation we make the (very good) simplifying assumption that everything is a perfect fluid - this takes out all the momentum terms, energy fluxes and all stresses and just leaves us worrying about density and pressure.

We can take that, with Einstein's equations and some assumptions like the universe is the same everywhere and looks the same in every direction and use equations of state for each component of our universe (which relate something's energy density to its pressure) and come out with equations to describe how the universe changes over time.

In one of those equations you'll see the pressure is still there quite explicitly - and it implicitly affects the others through the equations of state.

The pressure is acting in these equations in a purely gravitational manner. This is not a physical impact resulting from the pressure acting on some plate - it's all gravity at work here.

This is fairly clear if you think about what a cosmological constant is supposed to be doing. It's supposed to be making the universe accelerate. This is quite counter to what a box filled with a negative pressure substance is supposed to be doing. The actual pressure on the walls of the box would then be pointing inwards trying to make the box contract. This is not what is happening cosmologically though.

As I mentioned before but MM has apparently not picked up in his last post (edit: at time of starting to write this - posted again since) - there is no outside here for the pressure to be acting from or against. It's not pressure at work in the same way it's at work in a balloon or indeed in the Casimir plate experiment - it's a common misunderstanding that the early universe expanded because it was hot and at high pressure and it's somehow forcing outwards as a result. This is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Baloney. As it relates to *atoms* at the atomic level, it's a perfectly valid way to determine the asymptote for "pressure" in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Yup. You don't understand the definition of "definition". Regardless of the ideal gas law's utility in determining pressure, it IS NOT how anyone DEFINES pressure. And you've shown no sign that you've got any clue about how to define pressure.

It isn't "negative infinity", it's "zero".
Click to expand...

So? It only describes an ideal gas. It does not describe radiation pressure, or anything else besides an ideal gas.

We can then look at the subatomic energy spectrum if you like,
Click to expand...

Yes, let's do that. How can you calculate the pressure from the Casimir effect using the ideal gas law? Hint: you can't. Oh, but you think that's not a pressure, even though it's a force applied over an area. OK, how about ordinary radiation pressure? Can we use it to calculate that? Well, no. Photons are relativistic particles. The ideal gas law is valid only for nonrelativistic particles. They've got the wrong energy/momentum relationship, so it will not work. If you care, I can go through the math, but you seem allergic to math.

The radiation pressure as you call it is simply kinetic energy in motion because we live inside an electric universe. Where's that radiating energy coming from in Guth's theory?
Click to expand...

We're not at a point yet where we can discuss this meaningfully, because you still don't understand what pressure is, or how to define it.
 
Here you go.....

http://singularityhub.com/2009/01/08/nanoscale-levitation-repulsive-casimir-force-verified/

The *geometry* of the objects determines the direction of force. The article has a link to a paper on this topic. The "force" does not cause "negative pressure", otherwise that levitation trick would not be possible. It is simply a "force" created by the carrier particles of the EM field. There is simply "kinetic energy in motion" at the level of the EM field. There is no such thing as "negative pressure", just "objects in motion" that convey kinetic energy, or not. Even if there was no EM field influence, the asymptote for "pressure" at the atomic and subatomic scale is "zero". It can never be "negative" because there is always kinetic energy in motion inside even the best "vacuums" on Earth, both at the level of atomic "pressure" and 'subatomic force".
 
Last edited:
edd said:
As I mentioned before but MM has apparently not picked up in his last post (edit: at time of starting to write this - posted again since) - there is no outside here for the pressure to be acting from or against. It's not pressure at work in the same way it's at work in a balloon or indeed in the Casimir plate experiment - it's a common misunderstanding that the early universe expanded because it was hot and at high pressure and it's somehow forcing outwards as a result. This is not the case.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't confuse the poor boy. He can't even sort out what pressure means in a purely classical Newtonian context, you can't possibly expect him to understand what you're talking about.
 
edd said:
This is fairly clear if you think about what a cosmological constant is supposed to be doing. It's supposed to be making the universe accelerate. This is quite counter to what a box filled with a negative pressure substance is supposed to be doing. The actual pressure on the walls of the box would then be pointing inwards trying to make the box contract. This is not what is happening cosmologically though.
Click to expand...

What is "happening" cosmologically in an acceleration process of a mostly plasma universe, and the *most likely* force/field that could have such an influence would be the EM field. There is no such thing as "dark energy" and "dark energy" has no effect on plasma, whereas MHD theory describes the mathematical processes of the effects of the EM field on plasma.

As I mentioned before but MM has apparently not picked up in his last post (edit: at time of starting to write this - posted again since) - there is no outside here for the pressure to be acting from or against.
Click to expand...

Then there can be no "negative pressure" in the vacuum to "balance out" anything in Guth's theory.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Oh, don't confuse the poor boy. He can't even sort out what pressure means in a purely classical Newtonian context, you can't possibly expect him to understand what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Oh right. You can't even distinguish between "pressure" and "force" and somehow it's all my fault now? Of course the fact that geometry is directly related to the direction of that force blows your whole show out of the water, but you're evidently in pure denial of that point.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What is "happening" cosmologically in an acceleration process of a mostly plasma universe, and the *most likely* force/field that could have such an influence would be the EM field. There is no such thing as "dark energy" and "dark energy" has no effect on plasma, whereas MHD theory demonstrates the mathematical processes of the effects of the EM field on plasma.
Click to expand...
This is not a way to defend yourself from the point I was making. I was describing the derivation of standard cosmological models in quite broad circumstances and explaining the role of pressure within them, regardless of whether they actually represent the real universe.

It's entirely valid within the context of GR, entirely general including universes with no negative pressure constituents and it was a point put forward to highlight your lack of understanding of the role pressure has in gravity.

You might choose to argue that it isn't representative of the universe as we see it but it does highlight that you don't understand the standard model and are therefore in a poor position to criticise it. It is also a concern given that I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that EU proponents accepted GR as a good description of gravity.
 
edd said:
This is not a way to defend yourself from the point I was making. I was describing the derivation of standard cosmological models in quite broad circumstances and explaining the role of pressure within them, regardless of whether they actually represent the real universe.
Click to expand...

But this whole conversations is specifically related to me criticizing Guth's definition of a negative pressure in a vacuum to "balance" his "expansion process". It's not physically possible to have "negative pressure' in a "vacuum".

It's entirely valid within the context of GR, entirely general including universes with no negative pressure constituents and it was a point put forward to highlight your lack of understanding of the role pressure has in gravity.
Click to expand...

IMO you're still missing the whole point of what I've been trying to explain to you about pressure. The "kinetic energy" transfer at the subatomic level could indeed "push" a universe apart, whereas your side's notion of "negative pressure" involved in the Casimir effect, would not and does not work to even explain all the various geometric effects of the Casimir effect.

The only reason the Casimir effect occurs in the first place is because we live inside an electric universe with lots of kinetic energy flowing through it at all times.
 
Hold all of your horses, everyone! Does MM still think that the Casimir force asymptotes out at one atmosphere (10^5 N/m^2)? If so, who cares whether he thinks this arises from a negative pressure or a positive pressure? Who cares whether he thinks it does or does not represent a vacuum energy density? If you're arguing with a Kennedy assassination theorist who thinks that Kennedy died in Ford's Theater while watching "Our American Cousin", you don't start by explaining the detailed bolt mechanics of the Carcano rifle.

Let's start over, MM.

  • You want to model the Casimir force as an external "gas". OK, that's a hypothesis we can work with. Pick an equation of state and we'll go with it.
  • Calculate the energy density of your gas: pick a small box of it and calculate the integral of P*dV like you would for any gas. You get some number in energy/volume units. Good so far.
  • Now that you have an *energy density*, you have an alternative way of calculating the pressure: use that energy density to define a Hamiltonian, and now the pressure has to be the generalized force which corresponds to "volume" as the generalized coordinate. Try this out on your box of ideal gas and you'll see that it works. This is a very good definition of pressure.
  • There's one thing about your hypothetical gas which makes it inappropriate for the real-world Casimir force: its pressure decreases as the gas expands. If you filled the Universe with your hypothetical gas, then let this gas "drive" your hypothetical Casimir-like force, you'll find that the Casimir force was twice as strong 1 Gy ago (since the Hubble flow indicates that that gas was packed into a smaller volume)---and this hypothetical Casimir force will get weaker in the future as the Hubble flow makes your gas expand further. So the "naive" gas hypothesis is wrong, but maybe we've learned something that will let us generate a new hypothesis.
  • Your new hypothesis is an ideal gas with P = constant or perhaps n/V = constant---it basically tries to keep the Casimir force equation independent of the Hubble Constant. Do whatever you need to to make this new equation-of-state work. But you will write down an equation-of-state for this new hypothesis.
  • Take this new, Casimir-like equation of state and plug it through the Hamiltonian definition of pressure. What do you get? Negative pressure. Uh oh.
  • The easiest way out is to argue that this must be the *wrong* definition of pressure and it's just a mathematical trick. But you will look into a GR textbook and find that, no, the Hamiltonian generalized-pressure is the *only* way that pressures ever find their way into GR.
  • The next way out is to argue that maybe the Casimir force isn't constant in time. But then you're talking about something with no relation to the QED *vacuum* calculations which yield that force. You can certainly hypothesize about some new particle-force which isn't constant in expanding space, but not here.

Anyway. That's negative pressure for you. Discuss.
 
Last edited:
edd said:
It's not even an asymptote mate.
Click to expand...

Er, ok. It's a "lower limit" at it's minimum.

The key point is that a vacuum can *only* contain positive kinetic energy and "positive" pressure. Guth's theory is DOA because it requires something that is physically impossible, specifically "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". The *lowest possible pressure state* of a vacuum is "zero" pressure, and it can never, ever, ever, ever, contain or ever reach "negative pressure". There is a constant flow of kinetic energy through the vacuum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I've defined "pressure in a vacuum", twice for you now.
Click to expand...

Oh, but that wasn't even my question. I asked how to define pressure, not how to define it in a vacuum. I want a universal definition that I can apply anywhere, any time. That's why we use the same word under different conditions: it means the same thing.

And what, exactly, were those "definitions" you gave? Well, one was just a parroting of my definition with a substitution you didn't even understand, because you can't tell the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. And the other one was just the ideal gas law. But this is simply ridiculous: the ideal gas law describes pressure (and only approximately), it does not and cannot define pressure. I thought I was just being flippantly cynical when I told Sol that you didn't know the definition of "definition", but apparently not.
 
edd said:
temporalillusion - broadly speaking the source of gravity in GR is not purely mass. <snip>
Click to expand...

Thank you! I had a sense of what you mean (in that gravity includes all forms of energy), but interesting about stresses and momentum etc.. makes sense though.

EDIT: Well in abstract it makes sense, the math, well I'm 16 years removed from my electronics degree, and while I did get into some pretty good math I'm not in an industry where I exercise my math, so it's depressingly weak now. I would really like to take some courses in University or online at some point on this stuff.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The key point is that a vacuum can *only* contain positive kinetic energy and "positive" pressure. Guth's theory is DOA because it requires something that is physically impossible, specifically "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". The *lowest possible pressure state* of a vacuum is "zero" pressure, and it can never, ever, ever, ever, contain or ever reach "negative pressure". There is a constant flow of kinetic energy through the vacuum.
Click to expand...


You keep saying this, or something very much like it, again and again, Michael. And you're saying it to a handful of people who quite clearly know way more about physics than you do, and who are obviously more capable of explaining themselves. Yet you persist in trying to preach your "truth" no matter how thoroughly they continue to mop the floor with you.

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong? Guth himself? Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?

And if you're so convinced that the modern consensus view of cosmology is so wrong, and you're so right, why is it that you've proven totally inept at explaining your position in such a way that other people in the field might understand? Are you maybe just inept at physics, inept at communicating your position, or is it maybe something else? Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out? How do you explain your utter failure to make any progress in either debunking modern physics or getting your conjecture accepted into the mainstream?
 
GeeMack said:
So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong? Guth himself? Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?
Click to expand...

He seems to be under the utterly deluded impression that external literature actually agrees with him. Eg Wikipedia and his reference to Boyer. Both of which entirely contradict what he has been trying to claim. Oh yeah, he thought Einstein agreed with him too:rolleyes:.
 
GeeMack said:
You keep saying this, or something very much like it, again and again, Michael. And you're saying it to a handful of people who quite clearly know way more about physics than you do, and who are obviously more capable of explaining themselves. Yet you persist in trying to preach your "truth" no matter how thoroughly they continue to mop the floor with you.

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong? Guth himself? Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?

And if you're so convinced that the modern consensus view of cosmology is so wrong, and you're so right, why is it that you've proven totally inept at explaining your position in such a way that other people in the field might understand? Are you maybe just inept at physics, inept at communicating your position, or is it maybe something else? Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out? How do you explain your utter failure to make any progress in either debunking modern physics or getting your conjecture accepted into the mainstream?
Click to expand...
FWIW ...

... as I said in an earlier post, MM seems to have been very active in internet discussion fora this last year or so; a user with the name "Michael Mozina" can be found in many such fora.

While the quick skim I did of some of these is far from a valid sample, it would seem that in at least several other fora MM ends up in much the same sort of situation as you outline, GeeMack (maybe Derek can weigh in on this too?).
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, ok. It's a "lower limit" at it's minimum.

The key point is that a vacuum can *only* contain positive kinetic energy and "positive" pressure. Guth's theory is DOA because it requires something that is physically impossible, specifically "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". The *lowest possible pressure state* of a vacuum is "zero" pressure, and it can never, ever, ever, ever, contain or ever reach "negative pressure". There is a constant flow of kinetic energy through the vacuum.
Click to expand...

I think we all agree that empty space has energy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demands it. I, personally, wouldn't refer to it as having kinetic energy. But that's just me.

I asked previously, but you must have missed it. I'll ask again.

Could you describe for me how recent experiments measure the equivalent of one atmospheric pressure in an evacuated chamber?

You claim it to be kinetic energy.

What physical particles are pushing the plates together? What particles, in this evacuated chamber, are transferring momentum to the plates?

Please be as descriptive as you are capable of. Simply stating "the all pervasive EM field" is not good enough.

Keep in mind... I am fully aware that man-made vacuums created in a laboratory can not be 100% evacuated of all real, physical particles (at least not yet).

What I want to know is what physical manifestation you believe is occurring.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
FWIW ...

... as I said in an earlier post, MM seems to have been very active in internet discussion fora this last year or so; a user with the name "Michael Mozina" can be found in many such fora.

While the quick skim I did of some of these is far from a valid sample, it would seem that in at least several other fora MM ends up in much the same sort of situation as you outline, GeeMack (maybe Derek can weigh in on this too?).
Click to expand...

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Just replace "creationists" and "evolution" with "EU proponent" and "cosmology".

Sadly, the space dot com forum has been going through some rough times over the last year. I might be able to dig up the threads, but it would really be a waste of my time. It's just a repeat of every other forum he has participated in. There's definitely a common theme amongst most threads he participates in. One of which is that he doesn't understand math.

Although, there is one exception. A member there actually bought Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" and wrote a brief synopsis on it in. The conclusion was that MM doesn't even understand that which he promotes.
 
derekmcd said:
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Just replace "creationists" and "evolution" with "EU proponent" and "cosmology".
Click to expand...

Er, no. From the standpoint of empirical physics you have that completely backwards. Just replace "creationist" with "Lambda-CMD proponent" and "the empirical physics of EU theory" in the place evolution. Whereas Lambda-worshippers *cannot* empirically demonstrate *any* of their claims in a lab, Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago and you *still* can't figure them out. You guys wouldn't know "empirical physics" if shocked you for breakfast and hit you in the head for lunch.

Sadly, the space dot com forum has been going through some rough times over the last year.
Click to expand...

Of course I've been posting on that forum for over three years.

I might be able to dig up the threads, but it would really be a waste of my time. It's just a repeat of every other forum he has participated in. There's definitely a common theme amongst most threads he participates in. One of which is that he doesn't understand math.
Click to expand...

No, it only demonstrates that I don't "bark math on command" for anyone on any .com forum anymore. I believe I did that one time I for Nereid, and it was a complete waste of my afternoon. I created a cool spreadsheet and everything and all I got was a handwave and it changed absolutely nothing. What's the point of doing "math" when the problem you're having is at the conceptual level of kinetic energy and physics? There's no possibility of "negative pressure in a vacuum", just "kinetic energy flowing through the vacuum".

Although, there is one exception. A member there actually bought Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" and wrote a brief synopsis on it in. The conclusion was that MM doesn't even understand that which he promotes.
Click to expand...

Er, all that conversation actually demonstrated is that the individual who I finally *shamed* into buying that book could not distinguish between: A) A cosmology theory B) A solar theory C) The opinions of an individual on both topics. FYI the individual in question was the one who'd only been at that forum for less than a year. What does that tell you?
 
GeeMack said:
You keep saying this, or something very much like it, again and again, Michael. And you're saying it to a handful of people who quite clearly know way more about physics than you do, and who are obviously more capable of explaining themselves. Yet you persist in trying to preach your "truth" no matter how thoroughly they continue to mop the floor with you.
Click to expand...

They apparently "mop the floor" with "inflation" and "dark evil energy" and "dark voodoo matter" and "negative pressure" in a pressurized chamber. That's not physics, that's pure religion and irrational belief. What faith they have in things they *cannot empirically demonstrate*.

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong?
Click to expand...

You could point me to a product that used "inflation" to do something useful, or "dark energy" or even throw me a bone and show me some evidence of SUSY particles, anything! I'd settle for any *PHYSICAL* thing you've got. Like a creationist, you can't demonstrate *anything* "physically". It's all pure faith in mathematical mythos. "In the beginning inflation created the heavens and the earth......and died. Look, here's the math!" What a *stupid* religion.

Guth himself?'
Click to expand...

I don't think he'd survive the "inflation killed the monopoles" claim frankly.

Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?
Click to expand...

And if I handed you a list of theologians who might sway your belief about religion, who would you pick? All I'm looking for is a wee bit of "physics".

And if you're so convinced that the modern consensus view of cosmology is so wrong, and you're so right, why is it that you've proven totally inept at explaining your position in such a way that other people in the field might understand?
Click to expand...

Er, why was Birkeland so damn inept at convincing the mainstream about cosmology in his day? Galileo? Alfven? Bruce? Since when was science judged by what, a month's worth of open debate?

Are you maybe just inept at physics, inept at communicating your position, or is it maybe something else?
Click to expand...

Why don't creationists give up their gig when you point out they can't empirically demonstrate their claims in controlled experiments? I don't know why people put *faith* in things they cannot demonstrate, or why they cling to those beliefs even when they can't demonstrate them and I show them that they can't demonstrate them. People do weird things like cling to Chapman's theories for 50+ years rather than listen to Birkeland. I don't worry about why people cling to their irrational beliefs and I'm not attached to the fruits of my empirical efforts.

Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out?
Click to expand...

Er, no. Someone understood the Casmir effect and even made the blue arrows point the right directions and everything. Evidently not *all* the physics of the world are as inept at physics as this group.

How do you explain your utter failure to make any progress in either debunking modern physics or getting your conjecture accepted into the mainstream?
Click to expand...

Why didn't Alfven have a greater effect? Why didn't Einstein convince everyone in a month? Come on. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
Michael... any chance you could answer my question in regards to the physical manifestation of the Casimir effect?

As for the pigeon playing chess remark, I'll let the readers of the thread decide who's characterization is more appropriate.

My comment on space dot com going through some rough times has to due with the two transitions to new forum software they have attempted in the last year. You're getting defensive where you need not be.

And, you did not "shame" anyone into buying a book... that is a twisted perspective on your part. Which should come as no surprise to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. From the standpoint of empirical physics you have that completely backwards. Just replace "creationist" with "Lambda-CMD proponent" and "the empirical physics of EU theory" in the place evolution. Whereas Lambda-worshippers *cannot* empirically demonstrate *any* of their claims in a lab, Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago and you *still* can't figure them out. You guys wouldn't know "empirical physics" if shocked you for breakfast and hit you in the head for lunch.
Click to expand...

And you don't seem to understand that cosmological observations (the kind of empirical physics that's really really really important for cosmology) supports LCDM and utterly dismantles EU.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. Someone understood the Casmir effect and even made the blue arrows point the right directions and everything. Evidently not *all* the physics of the world are as inept at physics as this group.
Click to expand...

Ah. So you're still arguing on the "the diagram in Wikipedia is a bit vague and so I think it might support my assertions (even though my original assertion was that it was due to neutrinos and stuff) so the actual article which thoroughly contradicts what I've been trying to say and all the peer reviewed literature and everyone else in this thread must be wrong and I must be right" line I see. You do realise Michael, the only one you're fooling is yourself?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. From the standpoint of empirical physics you have that completely backwards. Just replace "creationist" with "Lambda-CMD proponent" and "the empirical physics of EU theory" in the place evolution. Whereas Lambda-worshippers *cannot* empirically demonstrate *any* of their claims in a lab, Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago [...]
Click to expand...


No, he didn't. Pretty much his only concern was the aurora effect. He made some pretty little pictures that looked to you like some other stuff on the Sun. By your methodology Birkeland proved that Saturn is a hollow brass ball and the rings are glowing electrons...

saturnrings.jpg

I'm sure everyone here would agree, Michael, that anyone who would claim to be doing real science that way, you know, by making things up because it looks like something in a picture, is a complete idiot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom