To the best of my knowledge, the EFE's are still completely relevant in a world entirely devoid of matter. In fact, in the early bit of our Universe, you can largely ignore the effects of matter and just consider radiation.
Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
To the best of my knowledge, the EFE's are still completely relevant in a world entirely devoid of matter. In fact, in the early bit of our Universe, you can largely ignore the effects of matter and just consider radiation.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That's not true at all. It is you that seem to be in hardcore denial of the overall implication of "vacuum energy". Any "energy" that is still present in the vacuum is related to particle kinetic energy that is still flowing in and through the vacuum, specifically the carrier particle of the EM field in the case of the Casimir effect. It can also take the form of kinetic energy of the neutrino as we now know from active experimentation.
That particle kinetic energy flowing through the "vacuum", puts "pressure" on all surfaces inside the chamber, every side of every plate, everything it "hits". It's still particle kinetic energy, be it a photon, a neutrino, a carrier particle of the EM field, etc. It's still kinetic energy, and it will and always *MUST* create "positive pressure".
Now QM does also allow us to treat our "non zero" point as a "zero point" for the purposes of mathematical and physical experimenation, but again, it's a "relative zero" energy point, not an "absolute zero", because we are technologically incapable of blocking every neutrino, removing every EM field, removing every atom and photon from the chamber. That "relative zero" is the "best we can do" in terms of creating a physical experiment.
The vacuum itself is different than the particles and carrier particles flowing through it. The vacuum is "nothing". The particles of kinetic energy (EM carrier particles as well) still flow inside every vacuum. The vacuum itself has no energy other than the kinetic energy of the particles that flow through it.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Radiation of what?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
This wouldn't be so funny from my perspective were the arrows for force/pressure not pointing inward toward the plates, even on the inside of the plates. That is of course exactly how those diagrams should look since the particle kinetic energy is still present everywhere inside the chamber and it still has an effect on all sides of all surfaces. The kinetic energy "pressure' is still "greater' on the outside and "less" between the plates, and nowhere inside the chamber can actually experience a "zero" pressure. All kinetic energy will and can be transferred to something.
There is no such thing a 'negative kinetic energy', so Guth's limit should have been zero, not negative infinity. He used that negative magic to 'pull' his thingy apart. It's therefore not a "small little problem".
I'm not sure what you are asking.
The Einstein field equation describes spacetime. It is the only equation anyone knows that seems to correctly describe spacetime. In it, the curvature of spacetime (R_mu_nu + 1/2 g_mu_nu R) is shown to depend on on the stress-energy tensor (T_mu_nu). The stress-energy tensor is whatever energy densities happen to be lying around. Weak equivalence principle experiments have proven (to great precision) that gravity treats all possible forms of energy as equivalent---rest mass energy, photon energy, nuclear binding energy, chemical bonding energy, etc.---all get lumped together as "positive energy density" in the stress-energy tensor.
If the vacuum has an energy density, it needs to go there too. Observations of the motion of matter in the cosmos, i.e. the Hubble curve, are consistent with there being a constant, positive vacuum energy density of 10^−29 grams/c^2 per cm^2 in the stress-energy tensor, alongside the positive but thinning-out-during-expansion matter energy density of about 2x10^28 grams/c^2 per cm^2.
Other than its effect on the curvature tensor, this energy density is not pushing or pulling on anything.
See all the positive numbers, MM? Positive vacuum energy density is called "dark energy". Negative pressure is another term for it which encompasses the not-thinning-out-during-expansion behavior. It goes on the "source" side of the GR equation because that is how GR works. It happens to result in acceleration because that's how the Hamiltonian works out, although it might seem counterintuitive.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
- Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
First asked 7 January 2010 - Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
First asked 7 January 2010
Note that baryonic mass includes all the things you have mentioned, e.g. rocks, planets, electron, ions, plasma, black holes, etc. - Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
First asked 8 January 2010 - A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
First asked 8 January 2010
(but a continuation of the various displays of your inability to grasp the concept of negative pressure in other threads since April 2009) - What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
First asked 9 January 2010
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
I have genuinely tried to follow your reasoning here, but your responses really appear to be those of one with a closed mind. You agree that we see an acceleration. You agree that energy is required for acceleration.
From Wikipedeia:
You clearly do not have any "known" form of energy (that can be demonstrated) to propose as an alternative explanation. I think you know that, if there were one, astronomers and cosmologists would be considering it.
Can't you see that this is how science is done? When we observe a phenomenon, we consider all known mechanisms to explain it -- after we rule all those out, we look for new (heretofore unknown) mechanisms and then try to demonstrate their existence. That is precisely what is happening here.
Frankly, your continued baseless flailing away at dark energy comes across as the stubborn blindness of a religious zealot. I'm sorry to say that unless you can come up with a concrete alternative or admit that dark energy theories are worthy of serious consideration, whatever small regard I may have had for your views will vanish and this conversation is over.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What is wrong with the derivation of the pressure of the Casimir Force
Michael Mozina, Does this post:
That is
First asked here on 11 January 2010
(but a continuation of the various displays of your inability to grasp the concept of negative pressure in other threads since April 2009)
Michael Mozina,
What is wrong with the derivation of the pressure of the Casimir Force between parallel metallic surfaces that gives negative force per unit area?
The result is:
The force is negative, the force per unit area is negative and thus the pressure is negative.
Michael Mozina, Does this post:
mean that you accept that the Casimir effect is real?
That is
- We can work out what the pressure of the Casimir Force between parallel metallic surfaces is and
- Do the controlled empirical experiments, e.g. Measurement of the Casimir Force between Parallel Metallic Surfaces, that actually measure negative pressure.
First asked here on 11 January 2010
(but a continuation of the various displays of your inability to grasp the concept of negative pressure in other threads since April 2009)
Michael Mozina,
What is wrong with the derivation of the pressure of the Casimir Force between parallel metallic surfaces that gives negative force per unit area?
The result is:
(emphasis added)The Casimir force per unit area Fc / A for idealized, perfectly conducting plates with vacuum between them is
where
(hbar, ħ) is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, a is the distance between the two plates. The force is negative, indicating that the force is attractive: by moving the two plates closer together, the energy is lowered. The presence of
shows that the Casimir force per unit area Fc / A is very small, and that furthermore, the force is inherently of quantum-mechanical origin.
The force is negative, the force per unit area is negative and thus the pressure is negative.
To re-emphasize: the Casimir force is a negative pressure that exerts an ordinary electromagnetic force-per-unit-area.
Dark energy is a positive energy density whose only "force" is gravitational.
Since it doesn't exert any mechanical forces, the only thing worth saying about dark energy's "pressure" is to ask whether the energy density increases, decreases, or stays the same as the Universe expands.
A hot gas, in an expanding universe, thins and cools. This is a decreasing energy density which (unsurprisingly) tells you that the gas had positive pressure.
A bath of photons or radiation, in an expanding universe, redshifts and becomes less intense. This is a decreasing energy density which (unsurprisingly) tells you that the radiation had positive pressure.
Vacuum energy, in an expanding universe, has a constant volumentric energy density. This is the opposite of what positive-pressure gases do, and it turns out to look like negative pressure.
That's not true at all. It is you that seem to be in hardcore denial of the overall implication of "vacuum energy". Any "energy" that is still present in the vacuum is related to particle kinetic energy that is still flowing in and through the vacuum, specifically the carrier particle of the EM field in the case of the Casimir effect.[/Qote]
You can say that as much as you like. Its not going to make any less wrong. You have provided not one jot of evidence to support this assertion.
That's a joke right?
A photon doesn't have kinetic energy
The mean free path of a neutrino is something like a light year of lead (its somewhat energy dependent but its a nice ball ark figure). I did a rough calculation before of the rate of plate/neutrino interactions and got something like one per year. How do you think an interaction rate of one per year can have any effect?
That's the photon. You've already had that one.
You've not actually listed anything of any note.
Its nothing to do with kinetic energy so your final clause is utterly meaningless.
This is true but irrelevant.
The quantum vacuum is anything but nothing.
This is completely false and in conflict with the whole of QFT. Unless you have an alternative to QED, QCD etc then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
This wouldn't be so funny from my perspective if you weren't making a claim that was completely at odds with the whole of quantum mechanics based on a badly labeled, poorly captioned diagram from wikipedia.
You still don't get it do you? Vacuum pressure bares as much resemblance to kinetic pressure as kinetic pressure does to the pressure exerted by elephants.
Vacuum pressure is nothing to do with kinetic energy.
No.
He didn't use any magic. He, unlike you, can tell the difference between two things as completely different as kinetic and vacuum pressures.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Inflationary cosmology & science
However, it is fair to say that I have learned in a more general sense. Mozina's arguments are usually pretty transparent, and almost always incredibly wrong. But it still takes some work to come up with good responses. So, in order to respond effectively I have had to review the literature, and study areas of physics that I have not studied before. Not much real study is needed to see through most of Mozina's arguments. But as a result I am more familiar, for instance, with the physics of magnetic reconnection (a field I knew essentially nothing about before Mozina introduced it). I already knew a fair amount about inflation before Mozina tackled the topic, and needed to learn no more really to see through his arguments against it, which in fact require him to deny the validity of science altogether, though he will either not admit it, or is intellectually incapable of understanding. I do try to present arguments as clear as I can.
After all, consider the definition of the word "empirical", from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism
That definition of "empirical", which everyone except you uses is exactly what makes inflationary cosmology, dark matter & dark energy empirical. You, however, re-define the word for your own personal use, eliminating all reference to "observation" and replacing it with "controlled laboratory experiment". As you see science, no natural observation in the field can ever be "empirical" because it is not controlled. This is the root of why you are wrong. It is a necessary consequence of your position that science, as it is practiced by scientists around the world, is specifically invalid because it is not restricted to controlled laboratory experiments. This is the corner you have painted yourself into, and as long as you keep denying the validity of natural observation, you will remain extremely wrong.
The essential key to understanding the practice of science, the "scientific method" if you will is simply this: observational verification of an hypothesis. There you have it. As long as the hypothesis and all applicable observations are mutually & logically consistent with one another, the the process & results are scientific. Period. Since that exactly describes the process by which we infer the presence and properties of dark matter & dark energy, and since that is the process by which we derive models of inflationary cosmology, there is no hope for any argument that they are in any way unscientific.
Do mind that I am not claiming that any of these things are "correct", only that they are "scientific". One can be both scientific and wrong. If you want to argue that these ideas are wrong, have at it, but plenty of real scientists are already well ahead of you there. But if you are going to continue too argue that the ideas are not scientific, then we can relegate your ideas to the intellectual dust-bin.
All of this is from many pages back, and I am sure there is much to talk about in the intervening material. And I see we are repeating all the nonsense about the Casimir effect. Some things never change. But I have found better things to do of late, and gathered up quite a bit of work to do (don't think that just because you retire you stop working, it's just that now I can be much pickier about the allocation of my labor). I can't keep up the furious pace, but will try to hang in there and make noise when I can.
I have learned nothing at all within the limits you specify, "in terms of the case MM seems to be trying to make." I did learn early on, a long time ago, that Mozina is not rational and therefore not capable of rational discussion. I see no reason to believe that things have changed at all along those lines, over what must now be a few years I guess.
However, it is fair to say that I have learned in a more general sense. Mozina's arguments are usually pretty transparent, and almost always incredibly wrong. But it still takes some work to come up with good responses. So, in order to respond effectively I have had to review the literature, and study areas of physics that I have not studied before. Not much real study is needed to see through most of Mozina's arguments. But as a result I am more familiar, for instance, with the physics of magnetic reconnection (a field I knew essentially nothing about before Mozina introduced it). I already knew a fair amount about inflation before Mozina tackled the topic, and needed to learn no more really to see through his arguments against it, which in fact require him to deny the validity of science altogether, though he will either not admit it, or is intellectually incapable of understanding. I do try to present arguments as clear as I can.
And this is why I try to post as clearly as I can. Mozina himself is quite hopeless, that much is obvious. But there are others who are not, and they can benefit as Clinger has here, if they are confronted with a shrill complainer on one side (Mozina, for instance) and calmer, sane voices on the other side (the rest of the world, for instance). I like to think that Clinger & others benefit from seeing rational arguments for science.
Your bias has absolutely nothing at all to do with empirical science. It is a 100% religious bias that is so strong and so distinct that you will, and in fact do, deny the validity of science altogether. You have no empirical argument to produce, none at all. Inflationary cosmology, dark energy & dark matter, on the other hand are 100% empirical in origin since the fact that they exist, and all of their proposed properties, are derived from or constrained by observation of nature. Since you routinely & always reject all observations of any kind which do not conform to your personal, purely religious bias, you can have no support from empirical science.
After all, consider the definition of the word "empirical", from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism
That definition of "empirical", which everyone except you uses is exactly what makes inflationary cosmology, dark matter & dark energy empirical. You, however, re-define the word for your own personal use, eliminating all reference to "observation" and replacing it with "controlled laboratory experiment". As you see science, no natural observation in the field can ever be "empirical" because it is not controlled. This is the root of why you are wrong. It is a necessary consequence of your position that science, as it is practiced by scientists around the world, is specifically invalid because it is not restricted to controlled laboratory experiments. This is the corner you have painted yourself into, and as long as you keep denying the validity of natural observation, you will remain extremely wrong.
The root of this criticism is wrong. Guth did not simply "assume" that "all matter and energy was contained in a single clump". Rather, a clever fellow named Stephen Hawking proved conclusively that it must be so, if general relativity is the correct theory of space-time. That's a pretty good reason for making the "assumption". But perhaps more importantly, the "postdiction" is exactly what science is supposed to do and it is often the only thing that science can do, so once again we find you staunchly denying the validity of science at a very fundamental level. You just don't get it and probably never will. You have no comprehension what the word "science" really means, or what the practice of science really entails. So let me clue you (and more importantly our valuable lurkers) in.
The essential key to understanding the practice of science, the "scientific method" if you will is simply this: observational verification of an hypothesis. There you have it. As long as the hypothesis and all applicable observations are mutually & logically consistent with one another, the the process & results are scientific. Period. Since that exactly describes the process by which we infer the presence and properties of dark matter & dark energy, and since that is the process by which we derive models of inflationary cosmology, there is no hope for any argument that they are in any way unscientific.
Do mind that I am not claiming that any of these things are "correct", only that they are "scientific". One can be both scientific and wrong. If you want to argue that these ideas are wrong, have at it, but plenty of real scientists are already well ahead of you there. But if you are going to continue too argue that the ideas are not scientific, then we can relegate your ideas to the intellectual dust-bin.
All of this is from many pages back, and I am sure there is much to talk about in the intervening material. And I see we are repeating all the nonsense about the Casimir effect. Some things never change. But I have found better things to do of late, and gathered up quite a bit of work to do (don't think that just because you retire you stop working, it's just that now I can be much pickier about the allocation of my labor). I can't keep up the furious pace, but will try to hang in there and make noise when I can.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'm the one who's belief systems have changed greatly over the last 6 years or so, remember? I'm not sure why you feel my "mind" is closed, but that simply isn't the case.
Sure. I agree we see "acceleration", and energy typically is required for acceleration.
Then "unknown acceleration" it is. Just because astronomers can't figure it out does not justify them positing a new form of energy. That's an argument of the gaps.
The problem with your logic is you assume they're diligent and ruling out more mundane options, and IMO just the opposite is likely to be true. They can't "rule in" a "discharge" in the solar atmosphere even when they see these atmospheric discharges happen on Earth all the time. They can rule in electricity when it heats plasma to millions of degrees. What makes you think they give the EM field a fair shake anywhere in space?
Well, if so, then essentially it's a "my thingy of the gaps" argument. Anything and everything in space we can't "explain" with empirical physics as we understand it becomes a place where we get to stuff the gaps with "magic energy". You don't have any problem with that behavior and that attitude?
But that simply isn't true in this case, and the analogy is backwards IMO. I'm more like a "skeptic" that doesn't by your "metaphysical" dogma. You're welcome to have "faith" in the idea, but the fact you can't empirically demonstrate your case is the thing that makes me a "skeptic", just like a religious skeptic. The "zealousness" of your position IMO is best demonstrated by your next statement:
Somewhere in this conversation you "drank the metaphysical cool-aid" IMO.
I do not need to replace "dark energy did it" theory, or "inflation did it" theory with anything "better" to reject either idea for any number of legitimate scientific reasons. There is no need or necessity for me to 'replace' the concept of dark energy with something else. An honest "I don't know' is just as scientific as claiming "my magic energy did it ".
A "made up" metaphysical theory does not "win by default". It has "weaknesses" and "strengths" like any other theory, but those "weaknesses" are just as devastating to the viability of your theory, with or without an "alternative" of any sort. Likewise an honest "I don't know" what causes acceleration is "better than" "God energy did it". If you don't know what kind of energy causes that acceleration, how exactly do you know if it was "God energy" or "dark energy" or "magic energy"? What's the difference between any of these labels with the same magic made up math?
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, I am absolutely slammed with work this week. My responses this week will likely be a bit "sparse".
Last edited:
While I see that MM's stubbornness grates on some people's nerves, it really has served as a sounding board for others. MM appears to come from the point of view of those of us without formal training in physics but are curious about some things the science community comes up with.
He questions in a philosophical way (i.e., how we do know what we know? How can we be sure of anything?) that a lot of of us do when we just have no depth in the topic.
But the responses to MM's arguments from the formally trained are what makes it easier (a lot!) for the laymen to grasp because they're responding to very basic ideas. Repetition can be useful.
Typically, in the classroom, we don't get to dwell on fundamentals that long. You quickly learn them and move on. Sometimes it's just nice to sit back and focus on something basic until you truly digest it.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'm asking for one of you to put something (*anything*) in some physical context.
Did "spacetime" even exist during Guth's "negative pressure vacuum" scenario? When did "matter" as we understand it form? There is no "spacetime" without mass.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Yes, but evidently you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge that I already did that for you. If you're going to create this annoying lists of yours, the very least you could do is update them once in a blue moon and acknowledge the questions that have already been answered.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, I am not trying to be "stubborn" for the sake of being "stubborn". I'm simply being "insistent" that we distinguish between true "empirical physics" and what can only be described as "math without physics".
Inflation is "math without physics". Likewise the idea that "dark energy" has anything to do with 'acceleration' is "math without physics". From the standpoint of empirical physics, "dark energy did it' is no more empirically viable than "God energy did it". Either option is "possible" perhaps, but neither options seems "likely" from the standpoint of "physics" and what shows up in the lab.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'm "rational" enough to have created and run my own business successfully for over 17 years. I'm rational enough to have a wife that I've been married to for 20 years. I'm rational enough to have raised two lovely daughters, one that will be starting college next year. I'm rational enough that the banks lent me money to buy a home, and I'm rational enough to have made every payment so far on time, not to mention lend them money with my tax dollars. (is that rational?) How exactly are you defining "rational"? You mean that if I don't come around to your way of thinking in a year or so, I'm not "rational" anymore Tim?
What if your crusade against empirical physics has been "irrational" Tim? What if my belief system (in EU theory) has nothing at all to do with the problem, but rather it's your unwillingness to consider any other alternatives that is the real root of the problem Tim?
The rest of your rant is hardly worth responding to with the exception of the "religion" comment. I think I'll crucify you for that one if you don't mind.
Tim, your belief system is a "religion", whereas my belief systems are based upon empirical physics, physics that actually works in the lab. I don't believe in "dark energies" when a religious person tells me "dark energies" did it. Likewise I don't believe you when you claim "dark energies" did it. I don't believe either of you for exactly the same empirical reason. Neither of you can demonstrate that "dark evil energies" exist in nature or have any effect on nature.
What you can demonstrate via redshift patterns is a long term pattern of "acceleration". That is no more due to your brand of "dark energies" than any religious "dark evil energy". Empirically speaking nothing like that exists in nature. You're blowing mathematical smoke. Acceleration is not "dark energy". If you claim "dark energy" can cause acceleration, demonstrate it. If you can't demonstrate it empirically exists, don't blame me for your failures.
Guth literally "made up" inflation in his head, on the spot, without a lick of preexisting science on the topic of "inflation". He literally postdicted the whole thing to fit and endowed his creation with supernatural properties. It's pure human fabrication from one human imagination. From there it became a "MEME", and a dead one at that. It's a impotent today and as irrelevant to empirical physics today as any dead deistic entity. It cannot and will not ever show up in an empirical experiment and must there *ALWAYS* remain an "act of faith" on the part of "believer". Don't even think about lecturing me about 'religion".
It's not my fault you chose to believe in these things Tim, and it's not my fault you can't get a non existent inflation deity, or "dark energies" to show up in a lab, anymore than it's my fault that a religious person lacks empirical support for one of their pet beliefs.
Now "empirical physics" can be demonstrated to be "wrong" occasionally, but it's not "irrational" to lack belief in something that lacks empirical support Tim. Blame me all you like, whine all you like, bitch all you like, but it's not my personal fault you chose to put your faith in non existent stuff that has no effect on me.
FYI, when it comes to acting like a "religion", you guys/gals are in a class all by yourselves. Even religious websites tend to treat 'skeptics" better than your little cult. You folks even hold witch trials over at BAUT to "hunt down" any and all offending belief systems. I've never seen a religious website act more aggressively and repressively than that place.
You ignore valid scientific evidence when it's presented to you like those last 3 papers I handed you. You ignored those white light images on the DVD for weeks TIM. Even still the most vocal among you go from website to website to persecute PC/EU theory wherever and whenever you can. Talk about irrational behaviors Tim. When it comes to irrational behaviors Tim, you win that battle hands down.
Last edited:
First off, I wasn't talking about inflation, I was talking about dark energy.
Inflation = hypothesized to have occurred before (or as the first quadrillionth of a femtosecond of) the Big Bang. Dark energy = tiny acceleration observed to be affecting the Universe today and for the past 13.7 Gy. They're different. Is "the spacetime within which we observe large-scale structure between z=0 and z=1.7" enough context for you?
ETA: Anyway, yes, spacetime existed during inflation. Look at Guth's paper and the zillion other papers on the topic and what do you see? A hypothesis about what the spacetime was doing. You see a FRW-like equation for its expansion, of exactly the same form as the modern-universe equation, just with different source terms.
You are misunderstanding GR. With some exceptions, as far as GR can tell spacetime is always there. (Einstein's famous statement "spacetime would disappear" has nothing to do with your issue.) In the absence of energy, you have spacetime with strictly uniform curvature. In the presence of energy, you have spacetime with energy-dependent curvature. GR doesn't care if the energy consists of "mass as we know it" (what does that even mean?), or photons, or inflatons, or nuclear binding energy, or vacuum energy, or whatever.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The stupidity continues so lets yell at you a bit:Yes, but evidently you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge that I already did that for you. If you're going to create this annoying lists of yours, the very least you could do is update them once in a blue moon and acknowledge the questions that have already been answered.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
In the case of strong nuclear force (or anything we might physically demonstrate "someday"), there is some hope of eventually verifying the concept via active empirical experimentation, if not today, then someday.
Compared to buying into a dead inflation deity, we're comparing dead apples to living oranges.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Er, "one" parameter?
Well, first off, option B) explains *WHY* it happened when it happened. B) allows us to posit *ONE* thing "God", where you have three different variables, Godflation, God energy and God matter. We also now know where all these three variables (Godflation,God energy, God matter) come from (unlike that A) theory)
It also happens to "explain" why the planet is overwhelmingly theistic as a species and claim to commune with something they call "God". Come on Ben, you'll have to do better than that. Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No the 'stupidity' is not even trying to use the search engine. I provided you with the actual quote, not just a page number. It's page *721*.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
In what "form" did "matter" exist prior to inflation?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
One more attempt to clarify my point for you PS:
I do believe that there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that "acceleration" is possible and in fact probable. I have no physical evidence that "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that "acceleration". It's not that I doubt the existence of acceleration, I doubt that dark energy had anything to do with it. Is that helpful in clarifying my position on "dark energy"?
I do believe that there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that "acceleration" is possible and in fact probable. I have no physical evidence that "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that "acceleration". It's not that I doubt the existence of acceleration, I doubt that dark energy had anything to do with it. Is that helpful in clarifying my position on "dark energy"?
Then you are trying to refute a tautology.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You did not provitde me with the actual quote.
This is your post
Page 721 daoes not have "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"
It has a calculation of the impact on the Earth's motion due to corpuscles in space.
"There is also another question which naturally presents itself for investigation: Will the assumed ;nsity of flying corpuscles in space bring about any appreciable resistance to the motion of the heavily
bodies?
...
Let us look at the case as regards the earth, when it was assumed that there were 10 iron atoms ;r cubic centimetre in space"
That is not a calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars.
A dumb person would use this 100 year old calculation as an estimate for the average density of the universe.
An intelligent person would know that Birkeland was limited by the knowledge of the time, e.g. not knowing abour galaxies and the enormous distances between them. They would use the modern calculation of the average density of the universe as about 1 hydrogen atom per 4 cubic meters.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
First asked 7 January 2010 and now answered correctly
In response to:
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"?
When was this?
The answer is page 721 of Birkeland's book (published in 1908).
But page 721 daoes not actually have "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"
It has a calculation of the impact on the Earth's motion due to corpuscles in space.
"There is also another question which naturally presents itself for investigation: Will the assumed ;nsity of flying corpuscles in space bring about any appreciable resistance to the motion of the heavily
bodies?
...
Let us look at the case as regards the earth, when it was assumed that there were 10 iron atoms ;r cubic centimetre in space"
That is not a calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars.
A dumb person would use this 100 year old calculation as an estimate for the average density of the universe.
An intelligent person would know that Birkeland was limited by the knowledge of the time, e.g. not knowing that about galaxies and the enormous distances between them. They would use the modern calculation of the average density of the universe as about 1 hydrogen atom per 4 cubic meters.
The progress of science has invalidated MM's thesis (of course
). He thinks that Birkeland's high value for the density means that there is a lot of undiscovered matter. The fact is that the values for the average density of the universe have decreased as science has learned more about the universe.
In response to:
I asked:Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
True, but Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars was orders of magnitude "greater than" what we actually observe, even with all that "dark matter".
Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"?
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"?
When was this?
The answer is page 721 of Birkeland's book (published in 1908).
But page 721 daoes not actually have "Birkeland's very first rough calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars"
It has a calculation of the impact on the Earth's motion due to corpuscles in space.
"There is also another question which naturally presents itself for investigation: Will the assumed ;nsity of flying corpuscles in space bring about any appreciable resistance to the motion of the heavily
bodies?
...
Let us look at the case as regards the earth, when it was assumed that there were 10 iron atoms ;r cubic centimetre in space"
That is not a calculation of the mass of the universe that was not found in stars.
A dumb person would use this 100 year old calculation as an estimate for the average density of the universe.
An intelligent person would know that Birkeland was limited by the knowledge of the time, e.g. not knowing that about galaxies and the enormous distances between them. They would use the modern calculation of the average density of the universe as about 1 hydrogen atom per 4 cubic meters.
The progress of science has invalidated MM's thesis (of course
). He thinks that Birkeland's high value for the density means that there is a lot of undiscovered matter. The fact is that the values for the average density of the universe have decreased as science has learned more about the universe.Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
- Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
First asked 7 January 2010
Note that baryonic mass includes all the things you have mentioned, e.g. rocks, planets, electron, ions, plasma, black holes, etc. - Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
First asked 8 January 2010 - A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
First asked 8 January 2010
(but a continuation of the various displays of your inability to grasp the concept of negative pressure in other threads since April 2009) - What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
First asked 9 January 2010
- Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
He made a rough calculation on page 721 of his 1908 book of the average density of matter that is not in stars.
That calculation was correct at the time given the knowledge of the universe.
The calculation is wrong now since we know more about the universe.
Er, "one" parameter? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/jaw-dropping.gif[/qimg] You just added GR theory to physical universe filled with "vacuum energy" and "Lamdba" (whatever you mean by that word) and did it "one parameter"? Let's see that one parameter math.
[/latex]
[latex] R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu} [/latex]
Lambda, the constant vacuum energy density, is a single parameter. You add it to the EFE and you get a valid GR equation that describes the spacetime that's been observed over the past 13.7 Gy. The value of this parameter is 10^−29 g/cm^3.
I asked whether you had a theory that predicted for the intensity of supernovae at redshift of 1.8?
Your "god" strawman argument is just as good (or bad) at rejecting modern cosmology as it is at rejecting plasma cosmology, Maxwell's Equations, evolution, hydrodynamics, Shakespeare authorship hypotheses, and everything else.
You realize, of course, that the evidence for acceleration explicitly relies on
a) the use of the CMB as a point on the distance ladder, giving it its usual mainstream interpretation
b) the use of a "hot gas + dark matter + gravity" wave equation to figure out how matter moved around during the CMB epoch, and
c) the use of gravity, and only gravity, to effect the large-scale motion of structures from the CMB era to the present.
I am only too happy if you have come around to accepting those interpretations.
To say "there is evidence for acceleration" with one breath, and "I subscribe to an alternative Alfven-Klein cosmology" with the other, is utterly inconsistent. It's like saying, "The last common human-chimp ancestor was already distinct from the gibbons", and also "The Grand Canyon was formed instantly in Noah's flood".
Since you are someone who wants to demand absurd amounts of benchtop-experiment evidence for everything---why on Earth are you asking about the thing for which we have the least evidence of all?
Nobody knows what existed prior to inflation. There are various guesses. None of them can be told apart from one another by any evidence we know of yet.
Why do you ask? Do you think that not knowing somehow invalidates anything that comes next? Funny, I shouldn't think that you need to resort to that argument until you've abandoned the "negative pressure is a contradiction" tack.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about inflation, and I certainly wasn't talking about something before inflation. I was talking about dark energy which apparently exists today, long after the end of inflation and long, long, long after "spacetime doesn't exist" could even be floated as an anti-GR argument.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Not really. You tell me how your position makes any sense. We know of no way to experience acceleration without force in a lab (as you would say -- "in a lab!!!"). For a continuing rate of acceleration to occur an ongoing input of energy is required in a lab (as you would say -- "in a lab!!!"). So, how would you have us believe there is an observed continuing cosmic acceleration (which you have agreed exists), without a continuing input of energy? Does god-do-it?
You see, you are the one left with the necessity for some make-believe/supernatural/paranormal cause. Cosmologists are using known physics from known "lab stuff!!!" -- that you claim you so love. You see, you have painted yourself into a logical corner! Trying to squirm out is futile -- just admit you are wrong!
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
And in the LAB, the most obvious way to accelerate a plasma is to use an EM field. All I can tell from my "lab experiments" is that the EM field "could be" a "force" that might cause plasma to accelerate. What else might we explore that is "real" and shows up in the lab? I'm open to other suggestions, but it has to be something that isn't shy around a lab and is physically distinguishable from "magic energy".
If he/she did, she did it with an EM field IMO.
I'm not doubting the fact that acceleration happens, just the concept that "dark evil energies" did it.
Not at all. I'm happy with my "hunch" about any "force of acceleration" for the time being and I "invented" nothing new. At worst case I'll have to admit "no, I can't quite explain it", but then neither can you without "whipping up" something in a purely ad hoc manner. Which now is the worse "flaw"?
Oh boloney. They avoid the lab like the plaque. They've long since traded in their lab coat for a computer simulation, and they can't distinguish between empirical science and a "SIM world" anymore. It's all an "experiment" from their perspective.
The only way I could have painted myself into a corner is to *DENY* acceleration (which I do not) or to claim "Michael's magic energy did it" with nothing more than your pilfered "dark energy" formulas. Sorry PS, but it just isn't that "easy" here to ignore the problem. Yes, there is evidence for "acceleration". No, there is *ZERO* evidence "dark evil energies did it". There is an empirical gap a mile wide between your "cause/effect" claim. Acceleration can't be caused by "dark energy" because you've never shown "dark energy" even accelerate a single thing in a lab. You can't "exclude" an EM field because *IT DOES* show up in a lab and you don't like the fact you can't make it fit right. At least me claiming "EM fields did it' has some empirical viability even without a working math formula. A working math formula would simply be a "bonus".
Just out of curiosity, why don't you find out exactly how they already "eliminated' an EM field from consideration, particularly since everyone now keeps calling it a "force". How does this "force" manifest itself and what exactly does it "do" that creates "acceleration"?
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, for the past 15+ years I've personally favored an accelerated expansion process. It was never "acceleration" that I questioned. The physical disconnect in your "dark energy" theory is at the level of empirical physics. That is because you can't get "dark energy" to accelerate a single atom in a lab. Why should I then believe it causes a whole universe to accelerate?
Why and how did you guys exclude an EM field again?
That was a really funny strawman you built there Ben.
Not at all. All that you might ever demonstrate via the CMB is a pattern of acceleration. The cause/effect link between "dark energy" and "acceleration" has never been empirically established. Did you just expect me to ignore that small little flaw or what?Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Because the math in QM is applied to actual physical things like photons so we can then compare the math to the empirical experiment. The effects of QM show up in controlled experiments. Notice that I can't do that with 'dark energy', 'inflation' or "dark matter".