Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

Tubbythin said:

Except this is totally false. There are thousands upon thousand of papers on electromagnetic phenomena in astronomy.

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as they don't use Alfven's "circuit" orientation, is that it?

Not particularly. He's not published any work since 1955. I prefer to keep my science references up to date wherever possible.

Click to expand...

IMO the whole history of the theory matters. It's interesting to see how Einstein used and described a non zero constant, and it's useful to know he put it back to zero again. The "Dark energy" brands of GR theory are not a step forward IMO, they are metaphysical kludge to what is otherwise a beautiful empirical theory.

IOW, your objection is a semantic one.

Click to expand...

No, it's a "conceptual" one. The mainstream has the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse in terms of solar physics. We can't easily measure electrical fields, but we can easily measure magnetic fields at a distance. The mainstream sees a distant magnetic field and *IMAGINES* it is doing all the work. It would be like looking at a lightening discharge in the Earth's atmosphere from a distance, seeing it involved powerful magnetic fields and calling it "magnetic reconnection"! It's stupid. Electrical currents create x-rays and even gamma ray's in the Earth's atmosphere. The discharges in Saturns atmosphere are many times more powerful that the discharges in our atmosphere. We see those same discharges in the solar atmosphere and you folks call them "magnetic reconnection' events! That's what's really pathetic.

Magnetic lines form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They don't form as "reconnecting" lines! That's bizarre 'pseudoscience" and it forever be "pseudoscience" no matter how many papers get written and published on this topic. You guys cannot even distinguish between MR theory and induction/particle collisions in plasma. It's another example of "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab (except when *CIRCUITS* show up.

No. Prior to the first second or so the Universe was in such a hot state that photon energies exceeded nuclear binding energies by orders of magnitude (actually orders of orders of magnitude). There is no way nuclei could have existed at this time.

Click to expand...

So it is in fact a "creation" story since you are claiming that all matter was "created" from a "hot state"? How do you even know that all matter and energy were even within say 100,000 light years from each other before "expanding" again? Have you ever read Alfven's "bang" theory? You keep trying to tap dance around that "creation" concept but you're intentionally and explicitly claiming that all matter was "hot", it was too "hot" for matter to exist as we know it, and matter was "created" later.

Reality Check said:

You have learnt nothing
There is the empirical evidence that dark matter and dark energy exist.

Click to expand...

No. At *BEST* case there is *subjective* evidence of "expansion" and "acceleration", and "missing mass", none of which have anything to do with your mythical entities.

Tim Thompson said:

No. I have already given you the list of papers ...

Click to expand...

You have failed to demonstrate any sort of empirical link between "dark energy" and the CC Tim. Whatever the "cause" it has absolutely nothing to do with your mythical entities because your mythical entities are entirely "made up". You might suggest that papers you cited demonstrate "acceleration", but never did you demonstrate that "dark energy" can accelerate anything! See the (giant empirical gaping empirical hole) problem yet?

Reality Check said:

You have a personal belief that these cannot exist and so have taken the utterly ridiculous and illogical step of redefining the English language to suit yourself. This has been pointed out to you for months over hundreds of posts in several thread in this forum for years over thousands of posts in hundreds of threads on several forums. It is probably that this has been mentioned to you over the many years that you have been posting in forum. Thus ridicule is the appropriate answer.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Michael Mozina said:

You have failed to demonstrate any sort of empirical link between "dark energy" and the CC Tim. Whatever the "cause" it has absolutely nothing to do with your mythical entities because your mythical entities are entirely "made up". You might suggest that papers you cited demonstrate "acceleration", but never did you demonstrate that "dark energy" can accelerate anything! See the (giant empirical gaping empirical hole) problem yet?

Click to expand...

Your failure to understand Tim's answer doesn't negate his explanation nor cause it to cease to exist.

Michael Mozina said:

If so, it would necessarily need to achieve infinite density. The Pauli exclusion principle prohibits that from occurring.

Click to expand...

You are still wrong: A gravitational singularity does not mean infinite density. That is just the way singularities are popularized for the lowest common denominator.
You cannot say anything about the density at a singularity. It is where the theory breaks down.

You need to learn some physics: the Pauli exclusion principle does not exclude high densities. It provides a pressure that gravity can overcome. See degenerate matter.

Michael Mozina said:

If so, then it's not a point and not a "singularity" since it has a finite volume.

Click to expand...

And you are almost right !
If we add QM to GR then it is possible that singularities will not occur. Whether the volume of the black hole mass stops at a Planck length is a bit speculative since the Planck length is just a unit in the system of Planck units.

Where you go wrong is that GR as is still has singularities .

Michael Mozina said:

These religions are always so "confusing" because there isn't any actual agreement in the final analysis, except perhaps "we don't know".

Click to expand...

Your ignorance of what science is is not confusing.
There is agreement in the final analysis. It is just that scientists are willing to admit that "we do't know".

Michael Mozina said:

There no actual way for matter/energy to achieve infinite density so a "singularity" is completely out of the question.

Click to expand...

That is one silly arvix paper MM. Still no no signs of having being published since 2005 and still no citations.

Manuel's remarks in the article are strange.

“You should find a hole there, not a huge outpouring of energy and light,” Manuel insists. “If black holes exist at the center of galaxies, stars should be falling in -- instead of explosively moving away from the center.”

Click to expand...

So we look at the center of out galaxy and what do we see:

• No "huge outpouring of energy and light".
• Stars "falling in" - or at least gas in an accretion disk (no one expects to see actual stars faliing into a black hole or even onto a neutron star).
• ~4 million solar masses in a volume that fits inside the orbit of Mercury.

And where did Manuel get that idea that stars are explosively moving away from the center of galaxies? I hope that this is just an inaccurate description of galactic jets.

The really nasty aspect of the pre-print is that it includes your delusion that running difference images of the corona show "mountain ranges" of a solid surface below the photosphere of the Sun. That has been debunked many times in other threads.

Michael Mozina said:

No. At *BEST* case there is *subjective* evidence of "expansion" and "acceleration", and "missing mass", none of which have anything to do with your mythical entities.

Click to expand...

No. At *ANY* case there is *objective* evidence of "expansion" and "acceleration", and "missing mass", all of have scientific terms, i.e. inflation, dark energy and dark matter.
This is the basic fact that you cannot comprehend.

According to your personal redefintion of empirical to suit your own "non-faith in the unseen", stars are "mythical entities" : Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist? !

Michael Mozina said:

You have failed to demonstrate any sort of empirical link between "dark energy" and the CC Tim. Whatever the "cause" it has absolutely nothing to do with your mythical entities because your mythical entities are entirely "made up". You might suggest that papers you cited demonstrate "acceleration", but never did you demonstrate that "dark energy" can accelerate anything! See the (giant empirical gaping empirical hole) problem yet?

Click to expand...

You are just continuing to display your ignorance here Michael Mozina - but then you have being doing this for many years so why should we be surprised .

Dark energy is the term for whatever causes the rate of expansion of the universe to accelerate as determined by the empirical evidence. By definition dark energy is the cause. See the giant gap in your understanding, Michael Mozina?
One more time:
Scientists then look at what dark energy could actually be. They rule lots of stuff (such as EM fields) because they are physically impossible. They are left with the physically possible. One of the physically possible things is the cosmological constant. No one is stating that it is the actual cause because the evidence is not strong enough.

If you have some deep seated psychological aversion to the phrase "dark energy" then just replace it with "whatever causes rate of expansion of the universe to accelerate as determined by the empirical evidence".

According to your personal redefintion of empirical to suit your own "non-faith in the unseen", stars are "mythical entities" : Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist? !

Well, it isn't by definition. It could be something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

The problem with what Michael is suggesting is that if gravity does work broadly in the way we think it does, then there is no possible way that dark energy if it exists couldn't cause acceleration, any more than it would be possible to have non-gravitating mass.

It would be more accurate to say that dark energy by definition has to produce acceleration if it exists, but that isn't to say that the acceleration we observe is by definition down to dark energy.

Due to Michael's religious insistence on using words and phrases differently than they are normally used by intelligent English speaking people, and his refusal to define his terms in a way that anyone else can reasonably understand, it looks like it's time to bring back the list. This list was started in another thread, but applies here just as readily. More so, in fact, because his continued evangelizing is actually an excellent example of the religious fervor among crackpots and wannabe scientists, the subject of this thread.

GeeMack said:

Several more words and phrases are added to the list below, words and phrases that Michael uses but isn't willing/able to define. There are over 250 terms now. Using terminology and refusing to define it like this is dishonest, equivalent to lying.

Michael applies meanings different than the common usage for the words and phrases that he puts in quote marks. Below is an ongoing list of terms which he has surrounded with quotes but is so far unable or unwilling to define. Until he can define these terms, all of his arguments using any of them amount to meaningless nonsense.

Click to expand...

The list...

edd said:

Well, it isn't by definition. It could be something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

Click to expand...

I did give the impression that the cause is a physical cause like the CC example. As you state, the cause (but still by definition ) could be a problem of GR on large scales.

W.D.Clinger said:

There are two ways of speaking about it.

Black holes contain a singularity. That's the usual way of speaking, because we're looking at the black hole from far away, so it looks to us as though the black hole begins at its event horizon (Schwarzschild radius).

We can also speak of the singularities as black holes. That's a common way of speaking when the focus is mathematical rather than astronomical, but I think it's a source of confusion because most people don't understand the mathematical definition(s) of singularities in spacetime.

When relativists/cosmologists/mathematicians use spherical coordinates to describe the black hole using Einstein's theory of relativity, the event horizon turns out to be what is called a coordinate singularity: an accidental singularity that can be repaired by changing the mathematical description to use a less familiar system of coordinates. The singularity at the heart of a black hole is an essential singularity: it cannot be repaired by going to a new set of coordinates or by extending the spacetime manifold in any way that would satisfy the mathematical constraints on spacetime.

From your earlier post:

In Einstein's theory of general relativity, a singularity is not a mathematical point because it isn't a point of the spacetime manifold at all.

It is reasonable to expect the spacetime singularities of non-quantum GR to disappear once we have a good quantum theory of general relativity. If so, then the singularities of today's theory will probably correspond (in that future theory) to a region of quantum spacetime whose dimensions are on the order of a Planck length, as you suggested. At the moment, that's just speculation. We don't know.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

tusenfem said:

Please let it be noted that MM ignores a linked-to mainstream astrophysics paper that actually does use circuit theory.

Click to expand...

He's not ignoring it, it's just that it doesn't exist!

MM's religious beliefs are very clear on this point, such research has only been done by Saint Birkeland, Saint Bruce, Acolyte Peratt, and Godhead Alfven (possibly also by High Priests Scott and Thornhill). As only Acolytes and High Priests remain, it is only they who can decree whether certain research is in accord with dogma; so until they do, at best what you provided a link to is heresy (but mostly it simply does not exist).

Come on Mozina, the equation below is so fundamental to this discussion, it should be quite easy for you to describe the meaning and significance of each term, its overall impact and in what manner it supports your theories (since you do say you are in agreement with GR):

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

Perpetual Student said:

Come on Mozina, the equation below is so fundamental to this discussion, it should be quite easy for you to describe the meaning and significance of each term, its overall impact and in what manner it supports your theories (since you do say you are in agreement with GR):

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

Click to expand...

OMG! If you want to study Einstein Field Equations, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

I'm not your math mommy.

tusenfem said:

Please let it be noted that MM ignores a linked-to mainstream astrophysics paper that actually does use circuit theory.

Click to expand...

Which *ONE* was that?

Which one in particular uses *CIRCUIT ENERGY* to describe the entire energy in the system as Alfven did?

DeiRenDopa said:

He's not ignoring it, it's just that it doesn't exist!

MM's religious beliefs are very clear on this point, such research has only been done by Saint Birkeland, Saint Bruce, Acolyte Peratt, and Godhead Alfven (possibly also by High Priests Scott and Thornhill). As only Acolytes and High Priests remain, it is only they who can decree whether certain research is in accord with dogma; so until they do, at best what you provided a link to is heresy (but mostly it simply does not exist).

Click to expand...

The irony of course is that unlike your "religions", belief in plasma physics requires no faith in the "unseen" (in the lab). We don't actually have much a of hierarchy although we all recognize those who's work correctly describes and explains the behaviors of plasmas in the lab (and in space).

Birkeland's work can be (and should be) completely reproduced in a the lab. It works in the lab. It's not dependent upon forces and energies that fail to show up on Earth. Alfven was in fact given a Nobel Prize for his work in MHD theory and he applied that theory to the topic of space. Only a complete idiot would ignore his work entirely in favor of what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience", when there is no empirical support for such a claim without "circuits".

To this day, and probably for long time too, you continue to remain ignorant of the circuit energy that generates solar flares, aurora, etc. About the only electrical thing you've actually figured out is the aurora involves current flow. The fact of the matter is that Birkeland's empirical methods put him *at least* a 100 years ahead of the mainstream's understanding of events in space. You're still playing catch up.

edd said:

Well, it isn't by definition. It could be something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

The problem with what Michael is suggesting is that if gravity does work broadly in the way we think it does, then there is no possible way that dark energy if it exists couldn't cause acceleration, any more than it would be possible to have non-gravitating mass.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. That's a giant "if" IMO edd. The same could be said for "God energy" too, no? *IF* it exists and works just like your imagined "dark energy" works, God energy could also exist. That's the problem with "if's" that are related to intangible (in the lab) entities.

There has never been a "cause/effect" demonstration of "dark energy" causing the acceleration of even a couple of atoms in the lab. What makes you think it's going to cause the acceleration of an entire physical universe?

It would be more accurate to say that dark energy by definition has to produce acceleration if it exists, but that isn't to say that the acceleration we observe is by definition down to dark energy.

Click to expand...

But couldn't we say the same thing for 'God energy', or "magic energy"? What is the empirical difference between those "ifs"?

Reality Check said:

I did give the impression that the cause is a physical cause like the CC example. As you state, the cause (but still by definition ) could be a problem of GR on large scales.

Click to expand...

Ya, and it could be *anything* in the final analysis. It could be absolutely anything that prevents you from actually "explaining" that acceleration, including a blind ignorance related to your irrational hatred and fear of all things electrical in space. That's the problem RC. You folks really don't know the cause.