Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
You're a freaking parrot.
Click to expand...


Your uncivil personal attack is noted.

But you've ignored this question...

GeeMack said:
Hey, Michael, I asked you many posts ago if you'd have the decency to knock off the lying. It's pretty obvious to me, and pretty much everyone else too, since most other participants have stated they see your argument as dishonest, that you don't intend to honor that request.

But maybe you can tell us what logic you find in trying to support an inane crackpot conjecture or to discredit the well supported contemporary view of cosmology by lying. Do you suppose Birkeland was a liar? Alfvén? Bruce? Do you think those heroes of yours were liars, Michael? Do you suppose if they were, like you are, they'd have gotten any traction in the world of science?
Click to expand...


You see, if we could find some connection between your lies and the arguments you're trying to make, it's just possible something about your arguments would become compelling. As it is there isn't a single professional physicist on Earth who shares your oddball position on cosmology. There must be a reason why that is, the most obvious being, of course, that you're wrong. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you're not wrong, you've been wholly incapable of expressing your position in a way that any legitimate scientist accepts. Aren't you interested in finding the reason and helping to move this discussion along in a direction that you might find positive?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Your uncivil personal attack is noted.
Click to expand...

Pot's and kettles.

Aren't you interested in finding the reason and helping to move this discussion along in a direction that you might find positive?
Click to expand...

I already know the reason. Your mythical dark entities are impotent. They are imaginary and they only exist in your head. They are based on a logical fallacy called a non-sequitur fallacy. It's essentially a 'dark energy" of the gaps argument. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. If your invisible impotent entities did show up in the lab like an EM field shows up, we'd be done with this conversation. Since they don't, I get insults instead. It's just like any other pointless religious entity in that respect.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I already know the reason. Your mythical dark entities are impotent. They are imaginary and they only exist in your head. They are based on a logical fallacy called a non-sequitur fallacy. It's essentially a 'dark energy" of the gaps argument. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. If your invisible impotent entities did show up in the lab like an EM field shows up, we'd be done with this conversation. Since they don't, I get insults instead. It's just like any other pointless religious entity in that respect.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of what does and does not show up in a lab, or what is mathematically supportable physics, or what is a valid hypothesis, does not negate that empirical evidence, that scientific support, or the validity of that hypothesis. Your gross misunderstanding of what is or is not a logical fallacy does not support your argument. So far you've blustered through hundreds of posts in this 3000+ post thread without ever providing any more than arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and flat out dishonest representations of what other people are saying and the consensus position of modern cosmology. It's beginning ( :p :p :p ) to look like that's all you've got.

Hey, were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars, Michael?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No, I did not use the word "substitute". Here are the words I actually used:

"Just take any paper on MR theory, convert all the B's to E's and you'll have it."
Click to expand...
FYI: "convert all the B's to E's" means exactly the same thing as "substitute E for B" throughout. It also means exactly the same thing as "replace all the B's by E's".

Michael Mozina said:
First off I suggested you start with a paper on MR theory, not Gauss's Law. By the term "convert" I *ASSUMED* that an intelligent individual like yourself would immediately understand that you would need to USE MAXWELL"S EQUATIONS to convert from one orientation to the other (B->E). I didn't say:

"According to you, we can substitute E for B in Gauss's law for magnetism, yielding

∇∙E = 0"

If I had said "Start with Gauss's law and *REPLACE* all the B's with E's, *THEN* and only then would your statement make any sense. Since I said nothing of the sort, your statement is a strawman of your own creation. Do you see the difference between my statements and your statement Mr. Spock?
Click to expand...
Michael, you and I and virtually everyone who has been reading this thread are aware you do not even understand the mathematical notations that appear within Maxwell's equations.

That is why you are unable to explain exactly what you would like for us to think you had meant by "convert all the B's to E's". Unable to say what you'd like us to think you had meant, you can only deny the plain meaning of what you actually did say.

If you understood the mathematics or had a scientific argument, your posts wouldn't look like this:
......ignorance...imaginary "dark energy" entities...dark entity...impotent...impotent...religious sky deity...blind faith...impotent invisible entities...take it on faith...mythical magical dark energy entity...pantheon god, imaginary and impotent....pantheon god...figment of human imagination...massive confusion....non-sequitur fallacy...complete nonsense...non-sequitur...mythical magical "dark energy"...in your head....ignorance...consumer products...point at the sky...dark energy entity...completely impotent...invented...ignorance....Pointing at the sky...pointing at the sky...some pantheon god did it....non-sequitur...Zeus did it...astrology...invisible impotent entities...Zeus and astrology.

For you to lie and not acknowledge the non-sequitur fallacy of your argument shows a despicable lack of honesty and scientific integrity on your part...dark entity...all in your head...no tangible or measurable effect...sky god...entirely impotent...non-sequitur fallacy...invisible entities...impotent...human confusion...not real...figments of your imagination.

You're a freaking parrot. Yawn. Your dark energy entity has been challenged. It never showed up.

...mythical dark entities...impotent...imaginary...only exist in your head...logical fallacy...non-sequitur fallacy...invisible impotent entities...pointless religious entity...
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Demonstrate that statement empirically. Which of the empirical MR "experiments" (and I agree there are empirical experiments) require no "circuit' and no "current flow"? Which of these experiments does *NOT* involve a change in the topology of the current flow of moving charged particles?
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean?
You state that just transforming from B to E will give you a circuit representation. Parker and Lui, both actually proponents of Ej, and I, who can't care less wheter I use Ej or Bv, tell you that that is wrong. A circuit representation is a long wavelength approximation of plasma physics, not unlike MHD.

Apparently your notion of "circuit" is not the same as that of Alfvén. Apparently, you think that the electric circuit that is driving the machines is a circuit representation of the plasma physics happening inside. Have you ever actually read Alfvén's books and papers?

Naturally, all of the MRx experiments involve currents and charged particles and fields and the change of topology. However, the topology change cannot be generated by induction. There will be an induced electric field because the magnetic field is time variable, but that is that.

So, again, I have to state that there is no circuit description of reconnection, if it would exist, MM would long since have either written it down here somewhere on the board or linked to an actual paper describing it. The lack of this shows clearly that MM does not have such a model.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Quite the contrary Zig. Without it MHD theory is "too limited". Alfven taught *TWO* different methods of MHD theory, one related to the 'field' (B) orientation of Maxwell's equations, and one method related to what he called the "particle" or E orientation. You guys only do the B orientation and you utterly and completely (well almost completely) ignore the E orientation. As a result, your solutions are limited. They essentially have nothing to do with nature in the end, because in nature the E and B are inseparable.
Click to expand...

How would you know? You can't do the math yourself, how can you tell that they're inseparable? Because someone said so? Well, it's not always true. Often enough, B and E can be separated.

You're the only one that has an 'emotional need" to separate them as though they are somehow independent of one another.
Click to expand...

I've got no emotional need to do anything. And I separate E and B when the math indicates that it's valid to do so. As for what various astrophysicists actually do, well, you've yet to point to any actual flaw in their works. You keep pointing to objections by Alfven, but those are essentially objections of style. Where are the various calculations of magnetic reconnection wrong? You don't know. In fact, you have no way of knowing. Because you can't distinguish between a valid calculation and an invalid one, because doing so requires an understanding of math. And you wouldn't know anything about that, because, well, you can't do math. One wonders whether you can even do arithmetic.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
FYI: "convert all the B's to E's" means exactly the same thing as "substitute E for B" throughout. It also means exactly the same thing as "replace all the B's by E's".
Click to expand...

BS.

Michael, you and I and virtually everyone who has been reading this thread are aware you do not even understand the mathematical notations that appear within Maxwell's equations.
Click to expand...

More BS. I'm disappointed in you Mr. Spock. If you won't even cop to an obvious strawman on your part, even after it's pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Is this even an argument of just a personal attack rant?
Click to expand...

It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right? Physics requires math to actually do. Why are you even spending your time thinking about physics when you can't do math? Why do you want to talk about physics if you refuse to talk about it using any math? It's like trying to critique French literature without knowing any French.

Seriously, why are you still wasting out time, and more puzzlingly your own, on a topic you're simply not equipped to understand?
 
Ziggurat said:
It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right? Physics requires math to actually do. Why are you even spending your time thinking about physics when you can't do math? Why do you want to talk about physics if you refuse to talk about it using any math? It's like trying to critique French literature without knowing any French.

Seriously, why are you still wasting out time, and more puzzlingly your own, on a topic you're simply not equipped to understand?
Click to expand...

I believe he persists because people here indulge him and he gains pleasure from all the attention. My guess is that he boasts to his friends and family that he successfully engages a host of real scientists and prevails with his crackpot theories.
For my part, he is on "ignore" since I do not choose to be duped into indulging him in his narcissistic fantasies.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Michael, you and I and virtually everyone who has been reading this thread are aware you do not even understand the mathematical notations that appear within Maxwell's equations.
Click to expand...
More BS. I'm disappointed in you Mr. Spock. If you won't even cop to an obvious strawman on your part, even after it's pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?
Click to expand...
I'll cop to my mistakes after they've been pointed out to me, but your mere denials of my statements do not rise to the level of pointing out a mistake.

To demonstrate that I have made a mistake, I suggest you show us how the B's that appear within the following equations should be "converted" to E's:

[latex]
\begin{eqnalign*}
B_r & = & \frac{3\left[\frac{r_1(t)}{r}\right]^2}{1 + 2\left[\frac{r_1(t)}{r_0}\right]^3} \cos \theta \hbox{\ \ \ \ $r \geq r_1(t)$} \\
B_{\theta} = 0
\end{eqnalign*}
[/latex]

Those equations come from page 91 of an oft-cited paper on magnetic reconnection:

R.A.Kopp and G.W.Pneuman. Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50 (1976), 85-98.

After you have demonstrated that you yourself actually understand what you meant by "convert all the B's to E's", then and only then will we have an intellectually honest discussion of this matter.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
More BS. I'm disappointed in you Mr. Spock. If you won't even cop to an obvious strawman on your part, even after it's pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?
Click to expand...


Oh, Michael, Michael. If you won't even cop to a barrage of lies on your part, even after they're pointed out to you, how could we ever have an intellectually honest discussion?

And by the way, were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?
 
Ziggurat said:
It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right?
Click to expand...

You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not. That whole claim about EM fields being ruled out as "dark energy", yet the Casimir effect is supposed to be an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is a great example. You can't have it both ways, yet that's exactly what you're trying to do. Either you must accept that the EM field *IS* capable of producing "negative pressure" (due to say charge attraction from an external set of matter), or you must accept that the Casimir effect is not an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum", one or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too at the level of physics. That only works at the level of mathematics. The reason the physics is important is that it sets *RATIONAL LIMITS* to specific equations and you don't set them correctly. The lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum is "zero". It is physically impossible to achieve a "negative pressure' in a vacuum. You can ATTRACT things in a vacuum, but a vacuum cannot ever contain a negative pressure. If you can't figure out this stuff, why should I trust your math? You simply used a formula that was physically impossible and therefore physically meaningless in terms of empirical physics.

That same lack of a conceptual understanding of subatomic physics shows up in your great love of what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". You can't physically tell me the difference between induction and magnetic reconnection, or ordinary particle collisions in plasma. Instead you simply cling to the concept in spite of the fact that every electrical textbook on the planet points out that magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic line. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". Circuit reorientation is not "magnetic reconnection". Alfven rejected that whole concept as pseudoscience his *ENTIRE* career, yet you prattle on about it in paper after paper.

There's never a problem with your math, just a serious problem with the physics. What's the point in discussing the math when your entire physical premise is based upon a non-sequitur?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not.
Click to expand...


Where did you get your degree in physics, Michael?

Oh, and were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?
 
Michael Mozina said:
There's never a problem with your math, just a serious problem with the physics. What's the point in discussing the math when your entire physical premise is based upon a non-sequitur?
Click to expand...


Where did you get your degree in math, Michael? I'm sure I'm not the only one who is curious, because your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school child have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you posses even that level of qualification.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not.
Click to expand...

You still can't even define pressure, Michael. You haven't demonstrated that you understand any level of physics, only that you think you understand far more than you do.

That whole claim about EM fields being ruled out as "dark energy", yet the Casimir effect is supposed to be an example of "negative pressure in a vacuum" is a great example. You can't have it both ways, yet that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Click to expand...

All this demonstrates is that you don't understand the difference between virtual photons and real photons. They don't behave the same. This is bog-standard quantum mechanics, and you don't have a clue. Not surprising since you can't even get your head around frreshman physics.

Either you must accept that the EM field *IS* capable of producing "negative pressure" (due to say charge attraction from an external set of matter)
Click to expand...

The vacuum expectation value of the field is. Real photons are not. The distinction is obvious to everyone but you. You keep blaming everyone else for your willful ignorance.

The reason the physics is important is that it sets *RATIONAL LIMITS* to specific equations and you don't set them correctly. The lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum is "zero".
Click to expand...

How would you know? You don't even know what pressure is.

If you can't figure out this stuff, why should I trust your math?
Click to expand...

If you don't know the definition of pressure, why should I trust your intuition?

You simply used a formula that was physically impossible and therefore physically meaningless in terms of empirical physics.
Click to expand...

You don't know what formula I used, and wouldn't know what it meant even if it did. Because you can't do math.

There's never a problem with your math
Click to expand...

and you never use math at all. Hmmm... who's more credible...

What's the point in discussing the math when your entire physical premise is based upon a non-sequitur?
Click to expand...

Because the language of physics is math. And you can't speak the language. It's the equivalent of yelling "Frommage! Croissant! Eu de Toilette!" You're just wasting our time and yours.
 
Honesty

Could I have made myself more clear?
Tim Thompson said:
Now let me make myself clear: I think that Mozina is not capable of engaging in an honest discussion, and this is an exact case in point: He will not acknowledge that he has in fact re-defined the entire concept of "empirical" away from its common use in science, so as to conform to his own personal prejudice. He could at least drum up the minimum level of integrity required to admit it, but he can't do it. He side-steps or simply ignores the real issue ever single time. My opinion of this behavior is clear & obvious and I trust the interested reader (or lurker) understands my point, even if perhaps disagreeing with it.
Click to expand...
In his response to me (quoted in full below), does Mozina address the issue of his re-definition of "empirical"?
Michael Mozina said:
That is complete nonsense Tim. Your argument is a non-sequitur. There's no empirical connection between acceleration and your mythical magical "dark energy". The connection only exists in your head. It's no more empirically real or tangible just by virtue of giving your ignorance a "name".

EM fields are "empirical". They show up here on Earth and cause "acceleration" of plasma in real experiments with real control mechanisms. They show up in consumer products as well. You're therefore welcome to point at the sky and claim EM fields did it.

Your dark energy entity is completely impotent in the lab because its a "name" that you invented to cover up your ignorance. It's not real. It has no tangible effect on anything in the lab. Pointing at the sky and claiming your dark energy entity did it is no better than me pointing at the sky and claiming some pantheon god did it. BS. The phrase "Acceleration happens, therefore "dark energy" did it" is a non-sequitur. It's exactly like claiming "Acceleration happens, therefore Zeus did it."
Click to expand...
The answer is no. Mozina proves his own lack of honesty through his own words.
 
Tim Thompson said:
The answer is no. Mozina proves his own lack of honesty through his own words.
Click to expand...

Boloney Tim. The lack of honesty comes from you. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your ignorance isn't "tangible" simply by virtue of giving it a name, in this case "dark energy". If you were honest you would admit that your hypothetical invisible negative pressure buddies are as impotent on Earth as any pantheon god. Your dark energy is entirely impotent in the lab Tim. It has no measurable effect on anything. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your theory begins (and ends) with a complete non-sequitur; "Acceleration happens, therefore dark energy did it". You can't get your dark energy entity to accelerate squat in a lab and that's the honest truth. It's at least is impotent in the lab as Zeus.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Boloney Tim. The lack of honesty comes from you. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your ignorance isn't "tangible" simply by virtue of giving it a name, in this case "dark energy". If you were honest you would admit that your hypothetical invisible negative pressure buddies are as impotent on Earth as any pantheon god. Your dark energy is entirely impotent in the lab Tim. It has no measurable effect on anything. If you were "honest" you would simply admit that your theory begins (and ends) with a complete non-sequitur; "Acceleration happens, therefore dark energy did it". You can't get your dark energy entity to accelerate squat in a lab and that's the honest truth. It's at least is impotent in the lab as Zeus.
Click to expand...


I, and several other people here, continue to point out where your arguments are lies. And you have the audacity to lie again and say someone else is being dishonest. You can't lie to get yourself out of a lie, Michael. Were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?
 
GeeMack said:
.....because your qualifications to understand math at the level of a grade school child have been challenged.....
Click to expand...

"Squawk"

Yawn.

Your mythical negative pressure dark energy entity is impotent. It epically fails to show up in a lab like any ordinary EM field, and somehow it's all my fault......
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Michael. Were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?
Click to expand...

“Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. Despite.. this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic reconnection] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ … seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.”
Click to expand...

You tell me.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You tell me.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the senile babblings of a crazy old man. But completely and dishonestly irrelevant to the question I asked. My question is relevant to this discussion and to your argument because you're in a habit of lying to support your crackpot notions, and I'm wondering if you're using the behavior of your heroes as a precedent to do so, or if it's a strategy you've come up with on your own. From my previous posting...

GeeMack said:
You see, if we could find some connection between your lies and the arguments you're trying to make, it's just possible something about your arguments would become compelling. As it is there isn't a single professional physicist on Earth who shares your oddball position on cosmology. There must be a reason why that is, the most obvious being, of course, that you're wrong. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you're not wrong, you've been wholly incapable of expressing your position in a way that any legitimate scientist accepts. Aren't you interested in finding the reason and helping to move this discussion along in a direction that you might find positive?
Click to expand...


So much of your argument is dishonestly constructed from crackpot-style nonsense, incredulity, and ignorance. If we can determine you have some particular reason to assemble your position from a slurry of lies, maybe we can cut through the crap and figure out what you really mean and whether there's even a shred of reality behind it. So far, there doesn't seem to be.

The question is, were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?
 
a more intellectually honest discussion

Ziggurat said:
It's an argument: why do you have any confidence in your own evaluation of an advanced physics theory when you can't get basic physics right? Physics requires math to actually do. Why are you even spending your time thinking about physics when you can't do math? Why do you want to talk about physics if you refuse to talk about it using any math? It's like trying to critique French literature without knowing any French.

Seriously, why are you still wasting out time, and more puzzlingly your own, on a topic you're simply not equipped to understand?
Click to expand...
Excellent questions, but the answers were poor:
Michael Mozina said:
You have that backwards. I have confidence because at the level of physics I do understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics and it's clear that you do not.
Click to expand...
No, Michael. It is clear that you do not understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics. Most importantly, you do not understand physics because (as noted both above and below) you simply do not understand the mathematics with which real physics is expressed and done. It is also clear that your accusations of pseudoscience merely parrot Alfvén's, whose own understanding of general relativity and cosmology was so dreadful that he regarded several areas of mainstream physics as pseudoscience.

It is also clear that Ziggurat, whom you were addressing, understands the difference between pseudoscience and real physics. He has, in fact, given us the clear impression of being a professional scientist, quite possibly a physicist himself.

Michael Mozina said:
The lowest possible pressure state of a vacuum is "zero". It is physically impossible to achieve a "negative pressure' in a vacuum. You can ATTRACT things in a vacuum, but a vacuum cannot ever contain a negative pressure. If you can't figure out this stuff, why should I trust your math? You simply used a formula that was physically impossible and therefore physically meaningless in terms of empirical physics.
Click to expand...
That's all bare assertion. You don't understand calculus, so you cannot possibly understand the definition of pressure that's relevant here. If you understood the definition of pressure, the idea of negative pressure would not offend you.

Michael Mozina said:
That same lack of a conceptual understanding of subatomic physics shows up in your great love of what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". You can't physically tell me the difference between induction and magnetic reconnection, or ordinary particle collisions in plasma. Instead you simply cling to the concept in spite of the fact that every electrical textbook on the planet points out that magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic line. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". Circuit reorientation is not "magnetic reconnection". Alfven rejected that whole concept as pseudoscience his *ENTIRE* career, yet you prattle on about it in paper after paper.
Click to expand...
As documented elsewhere, Alfvén is not the world's greatest living authority on pseudoscience. Neither are you.

It's nice to see you are finally admitting that magnetic reconnectionWP is not the same thing as inductionWP. On the other hand, that business about "magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end" sounds like a poor substitute for ∇∙B=0. Although you say "every electrical textbook on the planet", I don't recall reading that prose in my copy of Purcell; you must be talking about non-calculus textbooks, written for poets. With your poets' knowledge of vector fields, why should we listen to your denunciations of magnetic reconnectionWP, no matter how emphatic?

Ziggurat said:
Because the language of physics is math. And you can't speak the language. It's the equivalent of yelling "Frommage! Croissant! Eu de Toilette!" You're just wasting our time and yours.
Click to expand...
Of course, there's no great shame in not speaking the language of physics. The shame lies in pretending to know more about physics than the native speakers and professionals.

Michael Mozina said:
Boloney Tim. The lack of honesty comes from you. If you were "honest" you would simply admit
Click to expand...
Baloney, Michael. If you were honest you would simply admit you can't handle the math. That's why you can't handle the physics.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Excellent questions, but the answers were poor:

No, Michael. It is clear that you do not understand the difference between pseudoscience and real physics. Most importantly, you do not understand physics because (as noted both above and below) you simply do not understand the mathematics with which real physics is expressed and done. It is also clear that your accusations of pseudoscience merely parrot Alfvén's, whose own understanding of general relativity and cosmology was so dreadful that he regarded several areas of mainstream physics as pseudoscience.

It is also clear that Ziggurat, whom you were addressing, understands the difference between pseudoscience and real physics. He has, in fact, given us the clear impression of being a professional scientist, quite possibly a physicist himself.


That's all bare assertion. You don't understand calculus, so you cannot possibly understand the definition of pressure that's relevant here. If you understood the definition of pressure, the idea of negative pressure would not offend you.


As documented elsewhere, Alfvén is not the world's greatest living authority on pseudoscience. Neither are you.

It's nice to see you are finally admitting that magnetic reconnectionWP is not the same thing as inductionWP. On the other hand, that business about "magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end" sounds like a poor substitute for ∇∙B=0. Although you say "every electrical textbook on the planet", I don't recall reading that prose in my copy of Purcell; you must be talking about non-calculus textbooks, written for poets. With your poets' knowledge of vector fields, why should we listen to your denunciations of magnetic reconnectionWP, no matter how emphatic?


Of course, there's no great shame in not speaking the language of physics. The shame lies in pretending to know more about physics than the native speakers and professionals.


Baloney, Michael. If you were honest you would simply admit you can't handle the math. That's why you can't handle the physics.
Click to expand...

I admire you for your efforts. All of the above is quite valid, very well said and even understandable for a layman like me. However, the sad reality is that it is a waste of your time and energy. (Accept that laymen like me do gain some further insights -- for which I thank you.)
Mozina is a delusional narcissist, who -- in spite of his lack of education -- will always be correct, have deeper insights, be wiser, be more intuitive and understand physics and cosmology better than all the physicists and cosmologists in the world. You cannot win!
 
Perpetual Student said:
I admire you for your efforts. All of the above is quite valid, very well said and even understandable for a layman like me. However, the sad reality is that it is a waste of your time and energy. (Accept that laymen like me do gain some further insights -- for which I thank you.)
Mozina is a delusional narcissist, who -- in spite of his lack of education -- will always be correct, have deeper insights, be wiser, be more intuitive and understand physics and cosmology better than all the physicists and cosmologists in the world. You cannot win!
Click to expand...
What do I know about psychology (next to nothing), but one thing that has me somewhat puzzled is why MM keeps on posting.

Despite several years' of posting, on many internet fora, MM has managed to convince precisely zero other people of the validity of his claims. In fact, the more he writes, it seems the less credible his claims appear. So why does he keep saying the same things, over and over again? I mean, why not take some time from posting, learn some basic (plasma) physics, refine the ideas, and resume posting when there's something new to say?

Then there's all the insults, non-answers, and diversions; does MM really, truly believe that such a way of writing will help readers better understand his ideas? that it will aid acceptance of them?

And then there's the math. MM has demonstrated, dozens of times, that he understands essentially nothing of the foundations of modern physics ('modern' meaning from the time of Newton, maybe Galileo). But does he, in his heart of hearts, know this? Is he actually, consciously, aware of his ignorance? I don't know, but I suspect he does.

Then why, oh why, does he keep posting?

I think PS has hit upon at least one key aspect; namely, narcissism.
 
mathematical prerequisites

Although much of the legitimate discussion in this thread has revolved around the empirical basis for Lambda-CDM theory, that theory is built upon a foundation of well-accepted theories including the theory of general relativityWP.

General relativity is notoriously difficult, partly because its primary law, known as Einstein's field equations, is expressed in the language of differential geometryWP. Although the differential geometry of hypersurfaces embedded in Euclidean space is often taught to undergraduate math majors, and undergraduates may be introduced to Riemannian manifolds, the pseudo-Riemannian geometry needed for general relativity is taught mainly at the graduate level, in courses taken primarily by PhD students in mathematics and physics. These courses are generally elective, not required; judging by the number of students who took the course when I did, at a university whose name you'd recognize, I suspect that most PhDs in mathematics and physics have never taken a course that covers the differential geometry relevant to general relativity.

As an amusing aid to appreciating the level of mathematical knowledge that would be necessary to support an informed opinion on Lambda-CDM theory, I offer these excerpts from a very nice 671-page textbook:

Jeffrey M. Lee. Manifolds and Differential Geometry. Graduate Studies in Mathematics Volume 107, American Mathematical Society, 2009.

From the preface:
There is a bit more material in this book than can be comfortably covered in a two semester course.
Click to expand...
He ain't kidding, either.

Section 13.13, "Structure of General Relativity", is the very last section of the book. It begins, on page 627, with these words:
The reader is now in a position to appreciate the basic structure of Einstein's general theory of relativity. We can only say a few words about this wonderful part of physics....
Click to expand...
You don't have to read and understand everything in the first 626 pages before you can understand enough general relativity to inform yourself about Lambda-CDM theory, but you should be skeptical when someone who never really understood freshman calculus tells you that Lambda-CDM theory is pseudoscience or woo.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Although much of the legitimate discussion in this thread has revolved around the empirical basis for Lambda-CDM theory, that theory is built upon a foundation of well-accepted theories including the theory of general relativityWP.
Click to expand...

Since GR theory in no way depends on inflation, dark energy or exotic matter, your coattail claim about GR giving your invisible stuff credibility is entirely bogus, and so are your invisible entities. They are all based on a "dark stuff of the gaps" argument and a non-sequitur fallacy. None of your mythical invisible entities show up in a lab and they are as impotent on Earth as any religious deity.

The whole fixation on my maths skills is a red herring. The problem isn't found in your math formulas, it's located in your basic fallacy laden assumptions. The claim that acceleration is "caused by dark energy" is a complete non-sequitur fallacy. There is no cause/effect between your mythical negative pressure entity and acceleration. There is an empirical cause/effect connection between acceleration and EM fields. As long as you continue to ignore these issues, what's the point of looking at the math? The whole thing is based on a logical fallacy!
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
What do I know about psychology (next to nothing), but one thing that has me somewhat puzzled is why MM keeps on posting.

Despite several years' of posting, on many internet fora, MM has managed to convince precisely zero other people of the validity of his claims. In fact, the more he writes, it seems the less credible his claims appear. So why does he keep saying the same things, over and over again? I mean, why not take some time from posting, learn some basic (plasma) physics, refine the ideas, and resume posting when there's something new to say?

Then there's all the insults, non-answers, and diversions; does MM really, truly believe that such a way of writing will help readers better understand his ideas? that it will aid acceptance of them?

And then there's the math. MM has demonstrated, dozens of times, that he understands essentially nothing of the foundations of modern physics ('modern' meaning from the time of Newton, maybe Galileo). But does he, in his heart of hearts, know this? Is he actually, consciously, aware of his ignorance? I don't know, but I suspect he does.

Then why, oh why, does he keep posting?

I think PS has hit upon at least one key aspect; namely, narcissism.
Click to expand...

It really seems to come down to two possibilities.
Either:

A. Mozina knows that he is completely out of his league here, but he is enjoying the continued attention and banter, while taking pleasure in duping so many knowledgeable people.

or

B. He is a genuinely delusional narcissist.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Mozina is a delusional narcissist, who -- in spite of his lack of education...
Click to expand...

Oh, ad ad hom fallacy and a lie. How cute. Have you actually read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven PS, or are you just arguing from a place of pure and utter ignorance? How much of Birkeland's work have you actually read? Bruce?
 
Perpetual Student said:
It really seems to come down to two possibilities.
Either:

A. Mozina knows that he is completely out of his league here, but he is enjoying the continued attention and banter, while taking pleasure in duping so many knowledgeable people.

or

B. He is a genuinely delusional narcissist.
Click to expand...

Or C, Birkeland and Alfven were right all along and your too much of a narcissist to even read their material before slandering others.
 
Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:
Although much of the legitimate discussion in this thread has revolved around the empirical basis for Lambda-CDM theory, that theory is built upon a foundation of well-accepted theories including the theory of general relativityWP.
Click to expand...
Since GR theory in no way depends on inflation, dark energy or exotic matter, your coattail claim about GR giving your invisible stuff credibility is entirely bogus, and so are your invisible entities.
Click to expand...
In the post you quoted, I made no such claim, coattail or otherwise. I noted the converse relationship: that the Lambda-CDM model depends upon GR.

Although it's been just a little over a week, you seem to have forgotten already that "one term of Einstein's field equation corresponds to dark energy". You revealed your ignorance of Einstein's field equations and their history in that other thread, and you are continuing to reveal your ignorance in this thread.

Michael Mozina said:
The whole fixation on my maths skills is a red herring. The problem isn't found in your math formulas, it's located in your basic fallacy laden assumptions. The claim that acceleration is "caused by dark energy" is a complete non-sequitur fallacy. There is no cause/effect between your mythical negative pressure entity and acceleration. There is an empirical cause/effect connection between acceleration and EM fields. As long as you continue to ignore these issues, what's the point of looking at the math? The whole thing is based on a logical fallacy!
Click to expand...
No, Michael, your mathematical errors are central to any honest discussion of your "arguments" in this (and many other) threads.

Consider, for example, what you wrote above. If Einstein's field equations describe the universe, as you have claimed to accept, then dark energy (in the form of a positive cosmological constant) generates an acceleration. That is not a fallacy. It is mathematics.

That is, after all, the reason Einstein added what we now call dark energy to his field equations: His static model needed the expansive acceleration of dark energy to oppose the collapsive gravitational acceleration of matter.

Consider another example: You were blowing smoke when you said we should "convert all the B's to E's" in papers on magnetic reconnection. When I called your bluff, you pretended to have "said nothing of the sort", and even implied that I was being dishonest by saying you had. When I suggested you demonstrate the conversion you had in mind on a very simple example that met all of your stated criteria, you simply ignored the challenge:
W.D.Clinger said:
To demonstrate that I have made a mistake, I suggest you show us how the B's that appear within the following equations should be "converted" to E's:

[latex]
\begin{eqnalign*}
B_r & = & \frac{3\left[\frac{r_1(t)}{r}\right]^2}{1 + 2\left[\frac{r_1(t)}{r_0}\right]^3} \cos \theta \hbox{\ \ \ \ $r \geq r_1(t)$} \\
B_{\theta} = 0
\end{eqnalign*}
[/latex]

Those equations come from page 91 of an oft-cited paper on magnetic reconnection:

R.A.Kopp and G.W.Pneuman. Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50 (1976), 85-98.

After you have demonstrated that you yourself actually understand what you meant by "convert all the B's to E's", then and only then will we have an intellectually honest discussion of this matter.
Click to expand...
That's not a red herring, Michael. You made the claim of your own free will. From the way you presented it, your claim was central to your argument. If you can't demonstrate what you meant, then our honest conclusion will be that (once again) you simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let's try this again. You can "see" a star. You can 'feel' the energy coming from it. You can measure it. You can move something toward that object, or around that object to measure it from various points. It exists in nature. I don't have to "take it on faith", I can watch the sun come up over the horizon every single day.
Click to expand...
Let's try this again.
  1. We can "see" dark energy in exactly the same way that we "see" a star. We detect its effects (acceleration for dark energy, light for stars.
  2. We can measure dark energy.
  3. Dark energy exists in nature.
  4. We do not jave to take it on faith. We can measure it at any time.
Michael Mozina said:
...usual mythical magical dark energy entity rant...

The statement "acceleration happens, therefore dark energy exists" is a non-sequitur fallacy, nothing more.
Click to expand...
That is dumb, MM.
No one has really stated that except possibly me when I dumbed things down in a futile attempt to get down to your approprate level of education.
The statement should be "acceleration happens (an effect), a possible set of causes for that effect is dark energy". This comes from a really simple bit of sequitur logic
  1. Assume that every effect has a cause.
  2. The measured acceleration is an effect.
  3. Thus the acceleration has a cause.
We have many hypotheses for that cause. The most parsimonious one that fits the observations is a non-zero cosmological constant in GR. There are a set of hypotheses that also involve GR (or a replacement for GR like string theory). These are collectively known as dark energy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It epically fails to show up in a lab like any ordinary EM field, and somehow it's all my fault......
Click to expand...

I don't think you've fully thought this through. Supposing dark energy did show up in a laboratory test using current equipment. What do you think that would mean for cosmological ideas of dark energy?
 
Michael Mozina said:
The whole fixation on my maths skills is a red herring. The problem isn't found in your math formulas, it's located in your basic fallacy laden assumptions. The claim that acceleration is "caused by dark energy" is a complete non-sequitur fallacy. There is no cause/effect between your mythical negative pressure entity and acceleration. There is an empirical cause/effect connection between acceleration and EM fields. As long as you continue to ignore these issues, what's the point of looking at the math? The whole thing is based on a logical fallacy!
Click to expand...


But you can't possibly know that. After all, your qualifications to understand math at the level of an average ten year old have been challenged, and you haven't been able to show that you posses any such qualifications. Your criticism is unqualified, and is therefore nonsense.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh, ad ad hom fallacy and a lie. How cute. Have you actually read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven PS, or are you just arguing from a place of pure and utter ignorance? How much of Birkeland's work have you actually read? Bruce?
Click to expand...


Many of your arguments have been shown beyond any doubt to be lies, Michael. Were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce liars?
 
In the game of snooker, if the players go through a set of moves several times in a row they can ask for a re-rack; the frame is declared null and started over.

I think this thread qualifies for a re-rack.
 
Aitch said:
In the game of snooker, if the players go through a set of moves several times in a row they can ask for a re-rack; the frame is declared null and started over.

I think this thread qualifies for a re-rack.
Click to expand...

I think Mozina qualifies for a re-rack.
 
Reality Check said:
Let's try this again.

[*]We can "see" dark energy in exactly the same way that we "see" a star.
Click to expand...

No. You observe "expansion" and you observe "acceleration", not "dark energy". That term is something you made up in your head and somehow in you mind you associate that term with "acceleration". Since you showed no cause/effect relationship between dark energy and acceleration, I can only assume that its a statement of faith on your part. It's exactly like a theist associating God with that same acceleration.

We detect its effects (acceleration for dark energy, light for stars.
Click to expand...

No. You detect light from stars and perhaps a pattern of star acceleration. You do not observe "dark energy". :) You guys really need to keep your arguments straight. :)

We can measure dark energy.
Click to expand...

No, you measure "acceleration". Never once has your dark energy entity accelerated anything.

Dark energy exists in nature.
Click to expand...

No, nature "accelerates".

We do not jave to take it on faith. We can measure it at any time.
Click to expand...

The part you 'take on faith" is your assertion that your "dark energy" entity did it. There's no connection between acceleration and "dark energy" accept in your head. There's certainly no empirical lab evidence suggesting that "dark energy" accelerates anything. That mental connection you make between your mythical 'Dark energy" entity and the observation of expansion is your "statement of faith". The simplified version of your statement of faith goes: "Dark energy causes acceleration". In terms of empirical physics, it's a non-sequitur fallacy. In terms of your "religion", it's a "statement of faith".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom