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

Wouldn't ice, in a lab, here on Earth, studied by real scientists a la Mozina, have a negative pressure as it melts and contracts? Pressure causes expansion so an implosion should yield a negative pressure.

I suppose pressure is a bit like voltage. Voltage only makes sense as a difference between two points. You may object and say that voltage could be a measurement relative to "true ground" but the fact is that true ground is extremely elusive from a measurement standpoint.
 
Tubbythin said:
No it isn't. As the Casimir effect quite clearly demonstrates.
Click to expand...

Here we go around in circles....

It is clear that you are talking rubbish. For example, Guth got a degree, a master's and his doctorate from one of (if not) the foremost institutions for physics in the world. His PhD thesis was on "was an exploration of an early model of how quarks combine to form the elementary particles that we observe". You, on the other hand, get your research from wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Oh ZING! :) Even I laughed. :)

You can appeal to authority all you like but there is no physical way in the universe to get "negative pressure' out of a "vacuum". The lowest possible energy state of the vacuum is *ZERO*, not negative infinity.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's absurd IMO. The scientific method has always included them. It's only astronomers that seem to have a tough time with the concept of a "control mechanism". It's not my fault you chose to put your faith in things you can't physically do anything with. If I asked you to "control" current flow you could install something like a simple switch to do so. It's only because you can't demonstrate DE or inflation exists, let alone "control" it, that you seem to think *MY* definition of control is "unreasonable". No other branch of science would whine about it.
Click to expand...

Hold fire there my friend.

My point is some people in this thread are giving subtly different versions of what they mean by "control" in an experiment which leads to a bit of confusion.

I dont think that point warranted that attack to be fair.

It may also interest you that I teach mathematics, physics and chemistry so I am pretty much aware, in a day to day sense, what we mean by "control" in an experimental sense.

I never said in any way, shape or form your definition was "unreasonable".


Michael Mozina said:
That particular debate/disagreement came from Guth's slight of hand where he tried to claim that space had a 'negative pressure". What did you folks propose to add to a "perfect/pure" vacuum to achieve a "negative pressure"?
Click to expand...

I misunderstand this bit.

Is it the existence of negative pressure per se that you take issue with?

Or is it the modifying of what you see as a "perfect" vaccum? (which I am sure you are well aware is a misnomer in itself).
 
PingOfPong said:
Wouldn't ice, in a lab, here on Earth, studied by real scientists a la Mozina, have a negative pressure as it melts and contracts?
Click to expand...

Be careful which ideas you try to compare, and be careful about the difference between "relative" and 'absolute". Guth specifically needs "negative pressure" from his "vacuum". That is physically impossible. All "pressure" that the vacuum might contain would point *INWARD*, into his near-singularity thingy. The lowest energy state of the vacuum is zero. It can contain no kinetic energy. A "vacuum" cannot cantain a "negative pressure" of any sort.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Pure slanderous BS. From a "math" standpoint it's just a minus sign. Anyone that has learned to add and subtract "understands" the mathematical meaning of a minus sign. It's at the level of real kinetic energy physics where his (your) argument goes to hell in a handbasket.
Click to expand...

Just a minus sign? Just?

Does that mean we neednt pay attention to it then?

So I can remove it, from say, Newtonian Gravitation and have gravity be a repulsive force with no serious issues?

Or did I take that out of context?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Now I'll HAVE to go read some of Bjarne's threads! :D

I've come across comments in a similar vein several times before (not just wrt MM), and I'm beginning to think that there might be a powerful pedagogical technique here somewhere, one that I don't recall having seen in any teacher training materials.

If there are any educators reading this, would you mind commenting? Specifically, do you know if the sort of exchange that is common in this (and other MM) thread(s) is used in a known teaching methodology (and if so, what)? Lurkers (students) certainly do seem to enjoy reading along, and they also certainly do seem to learn stuff that might otherwise be very hard to learn ...
Click to expand...

Oh it can be very useful.

People can watch and see and learn what makes a scientific debate and what is evidence. They can see others asking those "stupid" questions they themselves are too afraid to ask.

They can learn to gauge the responses and learn that some people know a lot but find it hard to communicate it well, some people who dont know much can communicate well and so forth across the spectrum.

It can be a very powerful learning tool, its just damn hard to implement formally and in a planned way!
 
DazzaD said:
Just a minus sign? Just?

Does that mean we neednt pay attention to it then?

So I can remove it, from say, Newtonian Gravitation and have gravity be a repulsive force with no serious issues?

Or did I take that out of context?
Click to expand...

Please don't mention the Casmir effect or we will get the arrows and pictures again.

:D
 
Dancing David said:
Please don't mention the Casmir effect or we will get the arrows and pictures again.:D
Click to expand...

Yes! Let's move on. What is exactly wrong with the inflation theory? I get that testing in a lab has proven elusive so far, but, as has been brought up so many times already, so have most things in theoretical physics at one time or another. So, I don't think that's grounds to dismiss it entirely. What is the *theoretical* argument against inflation theory? Where does it breakdown or seem questionable? Isn't it something already measured in the universe? (As a layman, I also get that distant measurements seem fantastic. For example, I've often wondered if the red shift indicating acceleration wasn't also caused by gravitational effects from space debris or just the effect of such a long distance; something else other than acceleration. But since I'm not formally trained in this subject, I'm pretty sure that has either been considered before or is just not relevant. That is, I think it is highly unlikely I'm going to out-think the great thinkers based on so little knowledge.:confused:)
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Thanks.

I too went from taking what MM wrote as serious attacks on what I'd been taught, what I'd learned, and what I in turn had taught (and, early on, learned a fair bit about what is essential/fundamental, what is distracting/superfluous, what is easy to explain and what not, etc), to being interested in what makes MM and his ideas tick.

Have you come across anyone similar to MM, here in the Science section of JREF Forum?
Click to expand...

Quite a few.

If you look at the few posts I have made on here most have been in replying to similar threads :)
 
Pythonic said:
Yes! Let's move on. What is exactly wrong with the inflation theory? I get that testing in a lab has proven elusive so far, but, as has been brought up so many times already, so have most things in theoretical physics at one time or another. So, I don't think that's grounds to dismiss it entirely. What is the *theoretical* argument against inflation theory? Where does it breakdown or seem questionable? Isn't it something already measured in the universe? (As a layman, I also get that distant measurements seem fantastic. For example, I've often wondered if the red shift indicating acceleration wasn't also caused by gravitational effects from space debris or just the effect of such a long distance; something else other than acceleration. But since I'm not formally trained in this subject, I'm pretty sure that has either been considered before or is just not relevant. That is, I think it is highly unlikely I'm going to out-think the great thinkers based on so little knowledge.:confused:)
Click to expand...

No you are quite right to question it.

It has been considered.

It is not as easy to tease apart as some might think.

The overall consensus is that, yes, there is a large residual component that cannot (easily) be explained away without invoking something drastic (e.g. inflation/dark energy)
 
DazzaD said:
Just a minus sign? Just?

Does that mean we neednt pay attention to it then?

So I can remove it, from say, Newtonian Gravitation and have gravity be a repulsive force with no serious issues?

Or did I take that out of context?
Click to expand...

Maybe a little. :)

Mathematically speaking, it's implications are clear enough. It's at the level of physics that it becomes just as clear that a "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" is physically impossible.

Anytime we might setup a mathematical formula we have to (correctly) understand and correctly represent the physical limits of what we are attempting to describe. While a "vacuum" could potentially achieve a "zero" energy state, from the level of kinetic energy, a 'vacuum' cannot ever become 'less than zero'. The "mathematical error' that Guth made, is by not setting a correct lower limit boundary condition to zero.

If we simply ignore that "mistake", sure the rest of his "math" related to his mythical 'negative pressure in a vacuum" works out just fine. If however we look at the physics involved in "pressures" in a "vacuum", he used an impossible boundary condition for the possible 'pressure' states in a 'vacuum'.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Maybe a little. :)

Mathematically speaking, it's implications are clear enough. It's at the level of physics that it becomes just as clear that a "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" is physically impossible.

Anytime we might setup a mathematical formula we have to (correctly) understand and correctly represent the physical limits of what we are attempting to describe. While a "vacuum" could potentially achieve a "zero" energy state, from the level of kinetic energy, a 'vacuum' cannot ever become 'less than zero'. The "mathematical error' that Guth made, is by not setting a correct lower limit boundary condition to zero.

If we simply ignore that "mistake", sure the rest of his "math" related to his mythical 'negative pressure in a vacuum" works out just fine. If however we look at the physics involved in "pressures" in a "vacuum", he used an impossible boundary condition for the possible 'pressure' states in a 'vacuum'.
Click to expand...

Ah this is quite important then.

What is the reasoning for this bottoming out of energy at zero then?

Are we allowed to invoke QM here? (which I believe you are quite happy with).

And what does this "zero" represent exactly? is it a function of a chosen scale (like zero degrees Celsius in temperature) or is it a physical property of a system (more like the Kelvin scale in temperature) or is it a mathematical countable 'thing'?
 
Pythonic said:
Yes! Let's move on. What is exactly wrong with the inflation theory?
Click to expand...

IMO, everything! It's dead. It's 'made up'. It's mythical. It's metaphysical. It's impossible to empirically demonstrate now and forever. It's faith, not science, and I know the individual that came up with it. Besides the obvious physical warts, nothing much. Other than that, it's mathematically rather attractive. ;)

I get that testing in a lab has proven elusive so far, but, as has been brought up so many times already, so have most things in theoretical physics at one time or another.
Click to expand...

The difference is that most theoretical physics (even exotic dark matter theories) have some hope of empirical vindication, if not now, somewhere in time by someone. Inflation however is dead. It's non existent. It has no effect on anything anymore according to standard theory. It's no better IMO than a mythical dead deistic religion in terms of empirical physics in the preset moment. Worse yet, Guth can not ever even hope to empirically validate inflation and thumb his nose at me, not even if we both live to be a billion years old. :)

So, I don't think that's grounds to dismiss it entirely.
Click to expand...

From my skeptical view, there's no reason to consider it anymore than I would consider any other dead deistic "god did it' "explanation".

What is the *theoretical* argument against inflation theory?
Click to expand...

Inflation is a figment of a single individual's imagination and become a popular "meme" in a subset of human scientists. :)

Where does it breakdown or seem questionable?
Click to expand...

At the level of empirical physics. It will always and forever remain "unseen" to any and all human beings.

Isn't it something already measured in the universe?
Click to expand...

No. Photons are measured. One might say homogeneity is also "measured". Guth developed (postdicted) inflation to match those measurements and it is a highly "subjective interpretation" of those measurements. There is a subtle but important difference.

(As a layman, I also get that distant measurements seem fantastic. For example, I've often wondered if the red shift indicating acceleration wasn't also caused by gravitational effects from space debris or just the effect of such a long distance; something else other than acceleration.
Click to expand...

But mainstream will crucify you for "doubting" them on this or any other "interpretation" of those same observations. :) They will insist you interpret a whole host of subjective assumptions about those measurements their way too sooner or later.

But since I'm not formally trained in this subject, I'm pretty sure that has either been considered before or is just not relevant. That is, I think it is highly unlikely I'm going to out-think the great thinkers based on so little knowledge.:confused:)
Click to expand...

It's only irrelevant if you *assume* we as a species already have almost everything about the universe all figured out. That's silly IMO. Redshift could be related to something other than expansion, but expansion is a valid empirical "interpretation" of that data. It's not expansion I have trouble with, it's the claim about the "causes" of that expansion I have a beef with.

I do however try to stay open minded about the fact that other 'interpretations' of redshift "could be" just a valid, but I personally do favor an expanding universe over a static one just like the mainstream.
 
Last edited:
DazzaD said:
Ah this is quite important then.

What is the reasoning for this bottoming out of energy at zero then?

Are we allowed to invoke QM here? (which I believe you are quite happy with).

And what does this "zero" represent exactly? is it a function of a chosen scale (like zero degrees Celsius in temperature) or is it a physical property of a system (more like the Kelvin scale in temperature) or is it a mathematical countable 'thing'?
Click to expand...

It's a "kinetic energy" thing and a "physical" thing in the final analysis. The reason for selecting zero as a 'bottoming out of energy" is directly related to the kinetic energy state of the particles in the vacuum. In other words a 'vacuum" can contain particles that move around and deliver kinetic energy from one place to another. They create "pressure" in the vacuum. When we remove all the particles and subatomic energy from the vacuum, we might achieve a "zero' kinetic energy state, and therefore a zero "pressure" in the "Vacuum", there is no way we can add or subtract anything from that zero state to create a negative kinetic energy state or a 'negative pressure" in the vacuum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's a "kinetic energy" thing and a "physical" thing in the final analysis. The reason for selecting zero as a 'bottoming out of energy" is directly related to the kinetic energy state of the particles in the vacuum. In other words a 'vacuum" can contain particles that move around and deliver kinetic energy from one place to another. They create "pressure" in the vacuum. When we remove all the particles and subatomic energy from the vacuum, we might achieve a "zero' kinetic energy state, and therefore a zero "pressure" in the "Vacuum", there is no way we can add or subtract anything from that zero state to create a negative kinetic energy state or a 'negative pressure" in the vacuum.
Click to expand...

Ah.

Thats why I wanted to be so careful that you understood some tenets of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
 
Michael Mozina said:
I do understand them and you are welcome to use them if you believe they can help your case.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the use of GR to invoke "negative pressure" in the cosmological models?

Say, in particular, a stress-energy tensor?
 
Last edited:
The lowest energy state of the vacuum is zero.
Click to expand...

Nope, Einstein found that there was a minimum energy due to virtual particles even in a vacuum. He discovered it with math mysticism way back in 1913. 35 years later, Casimir did some more math on Einstein's idea and found that it would cause two plates to attract each other. The formula predicted empirical results with a high degree of accuracy.

On nano scales, the Casimir effect tends to dominate other forces. Moving into the future, small scale nanomachine tech is going to rely on making accurate calculations of the Casimir effect. Think of it. You may be buying computers in the future that were assembled by little nano scale robots. It might even be available at Wal-Mart.

Don't feel obliged to respond to this post MM. You have plenty of people talking to you now.
 
Last edited:
May I also bring this up

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4380

for the laymen among us:


VII. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have measured the cross-correlation
between the CMB and a large range of probes of the
density in a consistent way, and have calculated their
covariance taking into account their overlapping sky cov-
erage and redshift distributions. While individual mea-
surements vary somewhat depending on how the data are
cleaned and how the covariance is calculated, the overall
significance of the detection of cross-correlations is at the
∼4 5 level.

This means we looked at a hell of a lot of stuff that other people have done, loads of different ways of "looking" at the universe, and found that they pretty much all tell the same story to a very high degree of confidence.


These observations provide important independent ev-
idence for the existence and nature of the dark energy.
The observed cross-correlations are consistent with the
expected signal arising from the integrated Sachs-Wolfe
effect in the concordance model with a cosmological con-

stant. The observed signal is slightly higher than ex-pected,
higher than the expectation from WMAP best fit
model by about 1 , thus favouring models with a lower


Chances are dark energy is not just pie in the sky but a real "thing".

. However, we do not see any significant trend for the
excess as a function of redshift, and so there is no indi-cation
of an evolving dark energy density. By combining
these results with other cosmological data, we find a gen-erally
consistent picture of the behaviour of the Universe,
which is converging towards the CDM model although
the uncertainties remain considerable. The only partial
exception to this picture is the BAO result which, even
when combined with our ISW measurement, is in slight
tension with the CDM model (at ∼1 ).

No one here is claiming its all done and dusted, but we gave our best theory a serious beating (again) and its still standing up very well.
 
I’m trying to understand MM’s thought here and the counter arguments being presented.

Pressure = Force/Area (P=F/A)

MM thinks that Pressure cannot be absolutely negative, you can only have negative differences in relative pressure.

Now has anyone ever tested the Casimir effect inside of a man-made vacuum? (a quick read of the Wiki article says yes …)

Now I’m going to define some terms, relative to the Wikipeida cartoon that has been common in this tread

Pvac = Pressure inside the vacuum (now I know that the best man-made vacuum is nowhere near the pressure of interstellar space, etc, etc).

Fcas = Casimir Force (which I understand to be attractive in this case).

Pcas = Casimir pressure = Fcas/(Area of plates)

Now in this experiment if Pvac minus Pcas is less than zero, then does that not prove that negative absolute pressures are in fact a reality?

Does experimental data like this exist? If it does, then that should put to rest MM’s argument.
 
DazzaD said:
Chances are dark energy is not just pie in the sky but a real "thing".
Click to expand...

Here is the basic flaw in his argument. The evidence suggests that changes are that "acceleration" is not just pie in the sky but a real thing. There's no one to one correlation between "acceleration" and "dark energy". That's the flaw in that particular argument.
 
DazzaD said:
Is this any good to you?

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i4/e041804
Click to expand...

It's good to me if I had any doubt the effect was 'real'. Does it help your case in any way? If so, how?

Keep in mind that even in a "vacuum" the effect is "real". The kinetic energy transfer is not between atoms in the vacuum and the plate, but between carrier particles of the EM field and the plate. All sides of all plates experience "pressure" from the particles, but pressure on the outside surfaces are "greater than" the inside. The WIKI diagrams show this two ways, in terms of an EM oriented view of QM and a "quantum foam" orientation of QM, but both show more "pressure" on the outside and "less pressure" on the inside. It's perfectly logical when you think about it.

It's not at though I am suggesting it would not occur in a vacuum or claiming that the kinetic energy transfer is between atoms and the plate. The kinetic energy transfer is between the carrier particle of the EM field and the plate, and the "pressure" is simply "greater" on the some sides and "less" on others. That's why the whole thing is related to the geometry of the experiment.

A wing on an airplane experiences similar forces. As the plane moves, it experiences "more pressure" on the bottom of the wing and "less pressure" on the top of the wing. You could write an equation to express the concept in terms of "negative pressure" on the top of the wing and it might be entirely accurate in terms of 'predicting' the flight characteristics too. It's still a "relative" pressure, not an absolute concept of pressure. Sometimes the math can be misleading if all you pay attention to is the minus sign.
 
Pythonic said:
Yes! Let's move on. What is exactly wrong with the inflation theory? I get that testing in a lab has proven elusive so far, but, as has been brought up so many times already, so have most things in theoretical physics at one time or another. So, I don't think that's grounds to dismiss it entirely. What is the *theoretical* argument against inflation theory? Where does it breakdown or seem questionable? Isn't it something already measured in the universe? (As a layman, I also get that distant measurements seem fantastic. For example, I've often wondered if the red shift indicating acceleration wasn't also caused by gravitational effects from space debris or just the effect of such a long distance; something else other than acceleration. But since I'm not formally trained in this subject, I'm pretty sure that has either been considered before or is just not relevant. That is, I think it is highly unlikely I'm going to out-think the great thinkers based on so little knowledge.:confused:)
Click to expand...

There are about fifty pages on this somewhere, the green arrows, the green arrows, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

Help help help.

;)

The basis of other causes of the redshift have pretty much been ruled out.
 
DSo said:
I’m trying to understand MM’s thought here and the counter arguments being presented.

Pressure = Force/Area (P=F/A)

MM thinks that Pressure cannot be absolutely negative, you can only have negative differences in relative pressure.

Now has anyone ever tested the Casimir effect inside of a man-made vacuum? (a quick read of the Wiki article says yes …)
Click to expand...

Of course it works in a vacuum because the carrier particle of kinetic energy in this case is the carrier particle of the EM field, not the atoms in the chamber! The "pressure" still effects all sides of the plates, just some sides more than others.

Just like in the wing analogy, that minus sign in your math formula is a "relative" pressure, not an absolute measurement of the overall pressure. The pressure is simply greater on one side of the plate and less on the other side.
 
Michael Mozina said:
There's no one to one correlation between "acceleration" and "dark energy".
Click to expand...

Can I take that statement to mean, "I agree that the data shows that the expansion of the universe is accelerating"? That would be a good first step.

But I see you are still learning how "hypotheses" work.

Dark energy is a hypothesis which provides the best explanation for the acceleration (+CMB+LSS+etc as usual) data. If there were a competing hypothesis, we would entertain it. Dark energy is, however, the only known hypothesis which predicts an accelerating Universe with the CMB/LSS/BBN that we see.

(And before you suggest "electromagnetism" as the answer: nobody ever rejected plasma cosmology "because it can't account for the cosmic acceleration that was discovered in 1999-2000". We've rejected plasma cosmology consistently since the 1970s, because it disagrees with practically everything we can see in the sky.) If you can come up with a plasma cosmology that agrees with the Hubble law, CMB temperature, CMB angular power spectrum, CMB polarization spectra, LSS, BBN, rotation curves, cluster temperatures, strong lensing, weak lensing, Sachs-Wolfe, Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and the Lyman-Alpha forest, then maybe we can ask if it has a competing dark-energy-free explanation for acceleration.)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course it works in a vacuum because the carrier particle of kinetic energy in this case is the carrier particle of the EM field, not the atoms in the chamber! The "pressure" still effects all sides of the plates, just some sides more than others.

Just like in the wing analogy, that minus sign in your math formula is a "relative" pressure, not an absolute measurement of the overall pressure. The pressure is simply greater on one side of the plate and less on the other side.
Click to expand...

Then by your logic, MM, zero cannot be real either because energy cannot be destroyed; something is always there. But I think that line of reasoning fails to realize that all measurements are comparative and not "absolute" in the sense you're using it.
 
Last edited:
DazzaD said:
Are you familiar with the use of GR to invoke "negative pressure" in the cosmological models?

Say, in particular, a stress-energy tensor?
Click to expand...

Yes, but you'll need to throw me a bone here and use it in some meaningful physical context, explain it's use, what it relates to, etc.

I've learned over the years that various individuals have slightly different viewpoints of how things started and prefer to frame things in their own way.

How about you explain your "creation" story for me and explain when and how inflation did it's thing, what the "vacuum" might apply to, what that stress energy tensor applies to, etc.

You might try something like:

In the beginning was the (hot/cold) lumpy thing that (did/did not) have mass in the form of (fill in the blank). The "vacuum" was (fill in blank) in relationship to said lumpy thing. Inflation came from (fill in blank) and did (fill in blank) to the (hot/cold) lumpy thing.....etc.

Maybe you would personally prefer to begin your tale with the "vacuum" itself. I really don't care. I just need you put something into context for me to give you a meaningful answer and understand what you are physically trying to suggest is going on with inflation, and how that applies to a negative pressure in a vacuum.
 
Pythonic said:
Then by your logic, MM, zero cannot be real either because energy cannot be destroyed; something is always there. But I think that line of reasoning fails to realize that all measurements are comparative and not "absolute" in the since you're using it.
Click to expand...

I had not really thought about it in quite that context before, but I suppose that's a fair way of looking at it. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so it must always have existed in some 'form' or another, and it will always continue to exist in some form or another.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You can appeal to authority all you like
Click to expand...
Appeals to authority are only really a fallacy when the authority appealed to is not an authority in the topic of conversation. But anyway, you said "While it is very clear that these individual understand their math *very* well, when it comes to subatomic physics, they are evidently clueless about what goes on in a vacuum at the level of kinetic energy and actual physics." However, you failed to back this up with any actual evidence. Only your blind assertion that you are correct. Baring in mind that you keep referring to what is essentially classical gas pressure to describe vacuum pressure it should be fairly obvious to anyone with even the slightest understanding of physics (ie anybody that knows the difference between a gas and a vacuum) that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

but there is no physical way in the universe to get "negative pressure' out of a "vacuum".
Click to expand...
Yes there is. As I have shown. You can say no there isn't as much as you like you're still wrong. Just like you were wrong about dark matter detectors not having control mechanisms. Just like you were wrong about the iron surface of the Sun. Just like you were wrong about the possibility of dark matter being composed of Earth sized objects. Just like you were wrong about Eddington finding the CMBR from starlight...

The lowest possible energy state of the vacuum is *ZERO*, not negative infinity.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
ben m said:
Can I take that statement to mean, "I agree that the data shows that the expansion of the universe is accelerating"? That would be a good first step.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd agree with that statement.

But I see you are still learning how "hypotheses" work.

Dark energy is a hypothesis which provides the best explanation for the acceleration (+CMB+LSS+etc as usual) data. If there were a competing hypothesis, we would entertain it. Dark energy is, however, the only known hypothesis which predicts an accelerating Universe with the CMB/LSS/BBN that we see.
Click to expand...

Fine, consider your math blatantly pilfered, and "God energy" is now your scientific/religious arch nemesis. :) How might we physically (empirically) tell the two "hypothesis" apart? ;)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Fine, consider your math blatantly pilfered, and "God energy" is now your scientific/religious arch nemesis. :)
Click to expand...

"God energy" is not a hypothesis. Its two words you just stuck together. I guess we'll have to add "hypothesis" to the list of scientific words and phrases you completely fail to grasp.
 
Tubbythin said:
Appeals to authority are only really a fallacy when the authority appealed to is not an authority in the topic of conversation. But anyway, you said "While it is very clear that these individual understand their math *very* well, when it comes to subatomic physics, they are evidently clueless about what goes on in a vacuum at the level of kinetic energy and actual physics." However, you failed to back this up with any actual evidence. Only your blind assertion that you are correct.
Click to expand...

No, I also clearly explained why it's incorrect at the level of kinetic energy and "physics". The limit of 'pressure" in a vacuum is not "negative infinity", it's "zero". No vacuum anywhere on Earth or in space is "perfect", therefore it's always "positive". A "negative pressure' from a "vacuum" is physically impossible. You can ignore that fact all you like but it is the kinetic energy of the atom/subatomic particle that provides the "pressure" and some form of positive pressure exists in every vacuum.


Baring in mind that you keep referring to what is essentially classical gas pressure to describe vacuum pressure it should be fairly obvious to anyone with even the slightest understanding of physics
Click to expand...

Um, anyone that understands even *some* physics can understand why Guth's claim is wrong and I'll keep working on you till you get it if necessary. Others will probably accept it before you finally do, but you'll eventually see that I am right. Guth chose a limit that is physically impossible. That is in fact a "mathematical" error too. Part of any good mathematical presentation of the physics must accurately describe the physical processes and "vacuums" cannot ever achieve "negative pressure". It's simply not possible. The limit of pressure in the vacuum should have been zero, not a negative number because there is no such thing as "negative kinetic energy".

Yes there is. As I have shown. You can say no there isn't as much as you like you're still wrong. Just like you were wrong about dark matter detectors not having control mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Please do not villianize me unfairly. I did not say that *ALL* dark matter detectors/experiments have no control mechanisms. I said not all of the one's I've read about have control mechanisms. Even I mentally accept the fact that LHC could make me eat empirical crow on the topic of dark matter.

Just like you were wrong about the possibility of dark matter being composed of Earth sized objects.
Click to expand...

You can't "see" a single Earth sized object outside of our solar system yet, but you want me to believe that you've accounted for every single one of them in a galaxy already? Give me a break.

I need a beer....Is it beer:30...Oh yes it is! I'll be back....
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Appeals to authority are only really a fallacy when the authority appealed to is not an authority in the topic of conversation.
Click to expand...

Er, no. It's a fallacy to *assume* that the authority figure is right only because he is a recognized authority on the topic.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I also clearly explained why it's incorrect at the level of kinetic energy and "physics".
Click to expand...
You "explained it" using gas pressure. Gas pressure is not vacuum pressure.

The limit of 'pressure" in a vacuum is not "negative infinity", it's "zero".
Click to expand...
No it isn't. You can say that as many times as you like. It doesn't make it true.

No vacuum anywhere on Earth or in space is "perfect", therefore it's always "positive".
Click to expand...
The second clause does not follow from the first.

A "negative pressure' from a "vacuum" is physically impossible.
Click to expand...
You can say that as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true.

You can ignore that fact all you like
Click to expand...
Its not a fact. its your assertion. The only way you've tried to back it up is by talking about what is essentially gas pressure in a container. The vacuum is not a gas and it is not in a container. Therefore your defence is utterly invalid.

but it is the kinetic energy of the atom/subatomic particle that provides the "pressure"
Click to expand...
It is not. Not in a vacuum.

and some form of positive pressure exists in every vacuum.
Click to expand...
Again, blind assertion, no evidence to back it up.

Um, anyone that understands even *some* physics can understand why Guth's claim is wrong and I'll keep working on you till you get it if necessary. Others will probably accept it before you finally do, but you'll eventually see that I am right.
Click to expand...
Even if Guth IS wrong you are still completely wrong.

Guth chose a limit that is physically impossible. That is in fact a "mathematical" error too. Part of any good mathematical presentation of the physics must accurately describe the physical processes and "vacuums" cannot every achieve "negative pressure". It's simply not possible.
Click to expand...
Once again. This is a blind assertion. Please stop making blind assertion. If you want to discuss vacuum pressure, please discuss the properties of a vacuum. Please stop talking irrelevant stuff about gas pressure. Its analogous to saying "Newton's law of gravity of a force law, threfore all forces are governed by Newton's law of gravity".

The limit of pressure in the vacuum should have been zero, not a negative number because there is no such thing as "negative kinetic energy".
Click to expand...
Vacuum pressure has nothing to do with kinetic energy. Therefore your argument is completely invalid.

Wait a minute. Please do not villianize me unfairly. I did not say that *ALL* dark matter detectors/experiments have no control mechanisms. I said not all of the one's I've read about have control mechanisms. Even I mentally accept the fact that LHC could make me eat empirical crow on the topic of dark matter.
Click to expand...
Which dark matter detectors have you read about that don't have control mechanisms. Please produce a list.

You can't find "see" a single Earth sized object outside of our solar system, but you want me to believe you've accounted for every single one of them already. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Got any more straw going spare there? I never said we could account for everyone. But we can certainly say they don't contribute significantly to the "missing mass budget". Myself and others have already clearly explained why this is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom