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

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sol invictus said:
That doesn't work for several reasons that ben covered nicely.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

You can make it more complicated if you like. You're never going to get it isotropic without violating the Copernican Principle.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would the stars get pulled along if the expansion around them was isotopic?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that no, we can't.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
sol invictus said:
That doesn't work, because the universe is neutral.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Tubbythin said:
Why would the stars get pulled along if the expansion around them was isotopic?
Click to expand...

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.
 
90% Stars

Michael Mozina said:
The "trick" is that only a tiny fraction of the matter of the universe is actually contained in stars.
Click to expand...
Not likely.
As I have already pointed out ...
Tim Thompson said:
90% of the baryonic mass of a spiral galaxy is stars.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Relative to what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
sol invictus said:
Michael, if matter weren't neutral on average there would be a gargantuan electric field everywhere in space.
Click to expand...


[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]
 
Michael Mozina said:
I was simply noting that we could achieve "some" redshift pattern everywhere we look
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ben m said:
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."
Click to expand...


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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You keep also claiming the solar wind is "neutral", but it dumps tons of energy into the Earth's atmosphere
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

"There is a glowing LED on my stereo. LEDs operate on a DC current. I therefore conclude that my house is not neutral."
 
ben m said:
Michael Mozina said:
You keep also claiming the solar wind is "neutral", but it dumps tons of energy into the Earth's atmosphere
Click to expand...
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:
Click to expand...

"There is a glowing LED on my stereo. LEDs operate on a DC current. I therefore conclude that my house is not neutral."
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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?
 
Perpetual Student said:
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?
Click to expand...


de·lu·sion [di-loo-zhuhn] noun - 1. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In your opinion, what is the "strongest" "overwhelming scientific evidence" against EU theory?
Click to expand...

I have never seen an "EU theory" which had any content other than "Let's discard the possibility of new physics and daydream that E&M does the job."

The strongest evidence against every individual EU theory claim is this: fact that the observed accelerations are utterly incompatible (in magnitude, direction, velocity-independence, species independence, etc.) with the accelerations that EM force laws (or particle winds) are capable of exerting. In a nutshell: real-world electromagnetism simply doesn't predict the things you daydream that it predicts. Every time you have said "look at thus-and-such in the data, EM forces can do that"---you have always been guessing wrongly about what EM forces can do.
 
ben m said:
I have never seen an "EU theory" which had any content other than "Let's discard the possibility of new physics and daydream that E&M does the job."

The strongest evidence against every individual EU theory claim is this: fact that the observed accelerations are utterly incompatible (in magnitude, direction, velocity-independence, species independence, etc.) with the accelerations that EM force laws (or particle winds) are capable of exerting. In a nutshell: real-world electromagnetism simply doesn't predict the things you daydream that it predicts. Every time you have said "look at thus-and-such in the data, EM forces can do that"---you have always been guessing wrongly about what EM forces can do.
Click to expand...

I find it particularly amusing that these EU folk are the ones screaming about how the mainstream ignores EM and yet they are the ones that are completely incapable of understanding the Maxwell's equations and the real basics - like whether the effects of an electric or magnetic field are the same or different for negatively and positively charged particles.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In your opinion, what is the "strongest" "overwhelming scientific evidence" against EU theory?
Click to expand...

See ben m's calculations from a few days ago (below). You have not directly addressed these calculations. You've been asked directly about these calculations and you've only been able to respond with unconvincing, hand-wavy replies.

As I stated before, I find Ben's work to be a very comprehensible beat-down of the EU theory. I think it is your job to refute all or part of this with EU theory before you can change my mind. Otherwise, I believe there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" against EU theory.

ben m said:
The Sun's magnetic dipole moment is 10^22 T-m^2. Sounds big, huh?

The force on a magnetic field is F = grad (m.B). It's the magnetic dipole moment times the gradient of the B field (not the field magnitude) and the gradient drops as the 3rd power of the distance from sources. Given the structure of the galaxy, any possible gradient term has to have a 1/r^3 in it---where r is the distance to the Galactic Center of 8 kiloparsecs. Let's imagine (absurdly) that the Galactic center is such a powerful magnet that it puts out a 1T field near the Sun. Sorry, that gives you a gradient force of 10^22/10^61 = 10^-39 Newtons. Let's be more generous and put the "attracting" magnet right in the Solar neighborhood, a parsec away. F = 10^22/10^49 = 10^-27 N. Sorry, that's enough force to make one small bacterium orbit the galaxy.

In other words: gradient forces are good for the bumping-around of close together objects, and just about as weak as you could possibly imagine for long-distance forces. Anyhow, given that the Sun's B field reverses every 11 years, the Sun would spend 11 years getting attracted to something and 11 years getting repelled. Try again.

Or don't try again. This is exactly what I meant when I said "you cannot possibly find an E&M model that actually describes the Milky Way". I meant that you can try each of the known equations of E&M and none of them will work. Not one by one, not in any combination.

We've ruled out Coulomb's Law on net solar charge. We've ruled out the Lorentz force law on the solar dipole. What else do you have? Lorentz force on the net charge (sorry, same problem as Coulomb)? Electric dipole in a electric field gradient? Nope. Photon pressure? Nope. THAT'S IT. Anything else you add to Maxwell's Equations is either (a) smaller or (b) the product of your imagination.
Click to expand...
 
ben m said:
I have never seen an "EU theory" which had any content other than "Let's discard the possibility of new physics and daydream that E&M does the job."

The strongest evidence against every individual EU theory claim is this: fact that the observed accelerations are utterly incompatible (in magnitude, direction, velocity-independence, species independence, etc.) with the accelerations that EM force laws (or particle winds) are capable of exerting. In a nutshell: real-world electromagnetism simply doesn't predict the things you daydream that it predicts. Every time you have said "look at thus-and-such in the data, EM forces can do that"---you have always been guessing wrongly about what EM forces can do.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true from my perspective Ben. EM fields can and do cause plasma to accelerate. I showed you "a" way to generate "a" consistent redshift process between different objects using the EM field. Yes, it's a very limited example because unless the acceleration is consistent on all axis, it doesn't explain everything we observe. If we try to balance acceleration and velocity in each direction, we'd need on almost omnidirectional particle/EM field. I can't explain all the details yet, but I can definitely see how an EM field could cause a continuous plasma acceleration process, and I can see how that field strength could change over time.

I've never seen "dark energy" accelerate a single atom Ben. Why should I believe it even exists, or that these acceleration/velocity patterns have anything at all to do with mythical "dark energies"?
 
GeeMack said:
de·lu·sion [di-loo-zhuhn] noun - 1. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.
Click to expand...

You mean like that fact you can't get "dark energies" to accelerate a single atom, and you can't even tell us where it comes from? Talk about delusions. You don't have a single empirical leg to stand on.
 
ben m said:
I have never seen an "EU theory" which had any content other than "Let's discard the possibility of new physics and daydream that E&M does the job."
Click to expand...

You pegged the irony meter on that one since you "daydream" about a new form of physics related to "dark energies" and simply discard physics entirely.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's simply not true from my perspective Ben. EM fields can and do cause plasma to accelerate.
Click to expand...

And you still don't understand. The reason EM fields cause "plasma" to accelerate is that F = qE + qv x B, and F = ma, so within a plasma (ions, dust, electrons) where q is large and m small, you can get large accelerations from small forces; since q has two possible signs force act in both directions, leading to complex and characteristically short-range interactions. I already showed you how the same laws can not cause stars or galaxies to accelerate.

You're still guessing that it will work using vague mental pictures, NOT using the actual laws of E&M. Your guesses are still wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You pegged the irony meter on that one since you "daydream" about a new form of physics related to "dark energies" and simply discard physics entirely.
Click to expand...

You're the one discarding physics Michael. You've not done a single physical calculation.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You mean like that fact you can't get "dark energies" to accelerate a single atom, and you can't even tell us where it comes from? Talk about delusions. You don't have a single empirical leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

If you think dark energy is a bad hypothesis, why don't you propose a better one?
 
Tubbythin said:
You're the one discarding physics Michael. You've not done a single physical calculation.
Click to expand...
No, you discarded physics because you discarded empirical physical experiments. "Dark energies" are not "physics", they are "make believe" energies. All you see is a pattern of acceleration at worst case, but "dark energies" have nothing to do with that pattern of acceleration because "dark energy" can't accelerate a single atom.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I just did Ben. It's not "perfect", not by a long shot, but it's a hell of a lot better than "my make believe invisible energy friend did it".
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is far worse than "not perfect", it is 100% ruled out already. I gave you the numbers, are you just pretending I didn't?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No, you discarded physics because you discarded empirical physical experiments.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Empirical physics gave us Maxwell's equations and physical experiments have supported Einstein's theory of general relativity. You are the one who is butchering both of these.

"Dark energies" are not "physics", they are "make believe" energies.
Click to expand...
What are "dark energies"?

All you see is a pattern of acceleration at worst case, but "dark energies" have nothing to do with that pattern of acceleration because "dark energy" can't accelerate a single atom.
Click to expand...
Again, what are dark energies?
 
As a an interested layman reading and following as many of the links given as I've had time for: how about all of the evidence Mr. Mozina?

It just seems to me that the way to understand something is to start with the most recent, complete results and then work backwards to find where something fails. But not having the mathematical talents to understand the mechanics intimately all I might do is root for what seems most logical to me from the sidelines. Why do you treasure a few papers written decades ago, before half of what is known of modern physics was understood? If I wanted to argue Alan Guth's theory of inflation, I could not do so until I could understand the equations he used, found a mistake, and then proved it to him. If one can't do the math to even look for a mistake, how can their interpretation be argued at all? One cannot truly understand the mechanics. At best, one has only incomplete analogies to work from. Analogies by nature cannot be completely correct.
 
Last edited:
Chucky said:
As a an interested layman reading and following as many of the links given as I've had time for: how about all of the evidence Mr. Mozina?
Click to expand...

Well, while there is "evidence" of "acceleration", there's no evidence "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that observation of acceleration. While there is "evidence" of a relatively homogeneous layout of matter, again, there is absolutely no physical evidence that "inflation" had anything to do with that observation. There's no physical connection between "observation" and the "cause" because being assigned to that observation by the mainstream. There is evidence we can't account for all the mass in a galaxy. Again, there is no physical evidence that any of that missing mass is contained in exotic material.

It just seems to me that the way to understand something is to start with the most recent, complete results and then work backwards to find where something fails. But not having the mathematical talents to understand the mechanics intimately all I might do is root for what seems most logical to me from the sidelines.
Click to expand...

This debate isn't ultimately about "mathematics" or mathematical talents. Its about "physics" and their physical inability to link "acceleration" with "dark energy" that blows their claim. It's the physical inability to get "inflation" to exist in nature that makes me "lack belief in inflation". It's their physical inability to produce any "dark matter" that is at issue here. They'd love you to believe this is about math, but it's about physics, specifically their inability to physically and empirically demonstrate their claims. You don't need math skills to ask for a physical demonstration that a car running on electricity actually "accelerates". Seen anything run on "dark energy"?

Why do you treasure a few papers written decades ago, before half of what is known of modern physics was understood?
Click to expand...

Because the mainstream *STILL* can't explain things like solar wind, something that Birkeland "predicted" over 100 years ago!

If I wanted to argue Alan Guth's theory of inflation, I could not do so until I could understand the equations he used, found a mistake, and then proved it to him.
Click to expand...

There weren't any mistakes in his "equations". His mistake was assigning math formulas to invisible, dead stuff. It's like trying to find a mathematical mistake in an equation describing the number of invisible elves that fit on the head of a pin. The math isn't the problem or the issue.

If one can't do the math to even look for a mistake, how can their interpretation be argued at all?
Click to expand...

That isn't the case, nor is it even relevant since my beef isn't with the "math" in the first place.

One cannot truly understand the mechanics. At best, one has only incomplete analogies to work from. Analogies by nature cannot be completely correct.
Click to expand...

I've had a number of years of calculus so I can follow along in terms of the math. It's not however a mathematical problem in the first place, it's a *PHYSICAL PROBLEM* because they can't physically demonstrate their claim. Their only recourse is now to attempt to convince you that if you (or I) only knew more math we would "get it" and we would not need to see an real experimental evidence of their claim. What they never want you to see is that their problem isn't in the math. The problem is that they "made up" a fudge factor for their mathematical models. In fact they created a model that is 96% metaphysical fudge factor, and only 4% actual physics.

It's just like my analogy about how many invisible elves fit on the head of pin. *IF* you accept the existence of invisible elves *and* you accept the properties I assign to them (their size for instance), *THEN* the math is fine. *IF* however you insist I demonstrate the existence of invisible elves and the properties I have assigned to my mythical entity, my whole show fall apart. In this case, their math is fine. They just cant produce the physics to demonstrate that dark energy exists, or that it causes acceleration in the patterns they claim. Other than that small flaw, it's about as good of any theory as the number of invisible elves fit on the had of a pin, and the math is just about as useful.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Your hypothesis is far worse than "not perfect", it is 100% ruled out already. I gave you the numbers, are you just pretending I didn't?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just ignoring you pretending that your contrived "numbers" are definitive or that the single model I presented is the only one that might ever have value. Just because I can't adequately explain it yet with empirical physics does not give you the right to stuff the gaps of my ignorance (or yours) with "dark energy"!
 
Tubbythin said:
Not at all. Empirical physics gave us Maxwell's equations and physical experiments have supported Einstein's theory of general relativity. You are the one who is butchering both of these.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one peddling what Alfven called "pseudoscience", and I'm not the one trying to stuff invisible metaphysical friends into a variation of "blunder theory" and trying to pass it off as "General relativity theory". Look in the mirror my friend. That's the guy butchering GR theory and MHD theory.

What are "dark energies"?
Click to expand...

They are figments of your collective imagination.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I'm not the one peddling what Alfven called "pseudoscience",
Click to expand...
Why should I care what Alfven called it. The world has moved on. Get over it.

and I'm not the one trying to stuff invisible metaphysical friends into a variation of "blunder theory"
Click to expand...
Neither am I. I don't even know what "blunder theory" is.

and trying to pass it off as "General relativity theory". Look in the mirror my friend. That's the guy butchering GR theory and MHD theory.
Click to expand...
Nope.

They are figments of your collective imagination.
Click to expand...
Funny that. Considering that it was something YOU made up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom