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

DeiRenDopa said:
This thread has fallen down to page 2 ... we can't have that! :D

Question for long-time posters (and lurkers): can you recall any examples of MM making a *quantitative* case (argument, point, narrative)?

As in a *consistent* quantitative point, with numbers which correspond to observed (or estimated) values of physical quantities (as defined in standard physics textbooks)^?

And what about maths ... any examples of the application of any math (even arithmetic!) - in a consistent, coherent way - to an event, observation, phenomenon, etc in physics or astronomy?

^ not just quoting one (e.g. "million mile an hour solar wind")
Click to expand...
As a long-time lurker on this thread, what really sticks out for me is MM's avoidance of actual math or physics in favor of rhetoric.
 
ben m said:
The answer is irrelevant to mainstream cosmology.
Click to expand...

Only because you choose to be willfully ignorant of empirical physics. I've really been up to my ears in projects at work, but later today I should wrap up the last of my serious projects and I should have time to put some energy into these threads again.

I'm simply blown away of how willfully negligent you're being and how irrational you're acting when it comes to plasma physics. There's only one known force in the universe that can produce the results that you're looking for, but you refuse to even look at the process logically or rationally.

There can't be more than say a dozen of "anti-empirical physics" critics on this website, but the willfulness of the ignorance is simply a blow mind. How about a quick show of hands, how many of the following individuals have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven?

Ben
DRD
RC
Tim Thompson
Geemack
(removed TBT from list as he is not a PC/EU critic per se. My bad)

Do any of you actually have a clue about what Alfven called the "particle" or "circuit" orientation of MHD theory? If so, how did you acquire this understanding of MHD theory?
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Indeed.

Perhaps I was too terse.

By writing "case (argument, point, narrative)", my intended meaning was not only any new (against-the-mainstream, alternative, fringe, ...) case (etc), but also any consistent, quantitative critique of any theory/model/hypothesis/idea (whether as well-established as QED, or as far out as Thornhill's Electric Star idea, or anything in between).


Yep ... but I think it's important to always include the second part ("*consistent*") ... it's incredibly easy to "stat[e] quantitatively where the current model fails"^; whether any such statements have a consistent basis is a whole different kettle of sardines ...

^ e.g. estimated primordial abundance of 7Li
Click to expand...

So, does MM actually have enough grasp of physics to be taking this on? If one is going to criticize a widely held theory, you have to demonstrate that the theory is at least fully understood first. The most fundamental premise of his refutation, from what I gleaned, is actually personal: he knows and thinks the physicist coining the term dark energy is a hack.

He really needs to demonstrate an understanding of the mathematical model to establish creditability. Otherwise this like watching a first semester physics student arguing with the professor over the twin paradox. It's too complex of a topic to operate from a strictly common sense standpoint.
 
Marcus said:
As a long-time lurker on this thread, what really sticks out for me is MM's avoidance of actual math or physics in favor of rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I would ask you the same question then about "dark energy". Since it can't be shown to move a single atom in a lab, how does one "quantitatively' refute the concept or the number they come up with?

The problem as I see it is that astronomers have conjured up three invisible friends and with them they have created what I can only call a "math religion". The only thing they understand is math, and they are completely clueless at the level of empirical physics. That's why they can't tell "induction" from "magnetic reconnection". There is no problem with their mathematical understanding of the process. Alfven himself saw Parker's "magnetic reconnection" theory, and although the math was fine, he still called it "pseudoscience". That is because there are two ways of looking at MHD theory, via the B field orientation or the E field orientation. Alfven switched between them gracefully, comparing the former method to the "wave/field" orientation of particle physics theory, and calling the latter the "particle" side of particle physics theory. When looking at the physics, Alfven tried to keep MHD theory consistent with other branches of science, particularly electrical engineering and particle physics theories. By using the "particle" side of that orientation, he was able to describe the physical processes at play in the plasma. The mainstream still only understands the "field" orientation of MDH theory, so when they put together Maxwell's formulas, the attempt to transfer every math formula to a B orientation. The problem is that when you apply that line of thinking to current carrying plasmas, you end up believing (mathematically) that you're dealing with a strictly "magnetic" process. They've essentially convinced themselves through math that the universe is "magnetic" rather than "electromagnetic" only because they removed/replace the current flow with a B oriented math formula.

It's the physics they don't comprehend. I could never teach these folks a lick about math, but I can definitely teach them physics. There's no point in arguing about the math. The math is "right" as long as you accept mythical energies and all their "specs" too, but the moment you look at the issue from the standpoint of empirical physics, their whole belief system falls apart instantly. All they can do to try to hide that fact from you is to bitch/complain/convince you about my lack of math skills.

This issue has nothing to do with "math". It's all about "physics" and their lack of empirical support for any of their mythical creatures. They can't tell induction from "magnetic reconnection" because they mathematically eliminated the E field in their formula. :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If we quantitatively come up with a number of say how many invisible elves can fit on the head of a pin, how does one refute that number "quantitatively"?
Click to expand...

The world has a number of people in it who think dark matter and/or dark energy are incorrect.

The tired light people gave a quantitative model. The MOND people gave a quantitative model. The MACHOs people gave us a quantitative model. Alfven-Klein gave us a quantitative model. TeVeS gives us a quantitative model. The "grey dust" people gave us a quantitative model. The guy who thinks neutrinos are the dark matter gave us a quantitative model. Heck, Terry Witt was making an honest effort at giving us a quantitative model.

We can plot those models against the data; the failure of those plots is the reason we don't believe these models.

You expect us to believe that you have a principled objection to quantitative comparisons of theory to data? That's a mighty convenient principle for someone whose hobby horse theory has been caught with 30 orders of magnitude of disagreement.
 
Pythonic said:
So, does MM actually have enough grasp of physics to be taking this on? If one is going to criticize a widely held theory, you have to demonstrate that the theory is at least fully understood first. The most fundamental premise of his refutation, from what I gleaned, is actually personal: he knows and thinks the physicist coining the term dark energy is a hack.

He really needs to demonstrate an understanding of the mathematical model to establish creditability. Otherwise this like watching a first semester physics student arguing with the professor over the twin paradox. It's too complex of a topic to operate from a strictly common sense standpoint.
Click to expand...

FYI, that was the intent of providing those earlier papers on circuits in the solar atmosphere by Alfven, and the purpose of providing those GR papers by Chodorowski. Some folks like edd really do understand GR theory fully. Others "kind of" understand the idea, but only look at the issue from *ONE* way of thinking, not several. To be able to argue these points effectively you have to first understand that there is more than one way to conceptually look at the problem. In MHD theory that's pretty straight forward because there are E and B to consider. In GR theory it's "wild and wooly" because they aren't really talking about GR theory as Einstein taught it, but rather a variation of what Einstein called a "blunder" theory, or his greatest blunder, with their mythical friends stuffed into what used to be a ZERO in the formula.

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Chodorowski_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I'm simply blown away of how willfully negligent you're being and how irrational you're acting when it comes to plasma physics.
Click to expand...

That's the thing: making a star accelerate around a galaxy has nothing to do with plasma physics. Accelerating a galaxy to 1000 km/s as it falls through a cluster has nothing to do with plasma physics. Plasmas exerts forces due to F = q (E + v x B), and thus accelerations of a = F/m = q/m(E + v x B). That's what it does in the solar corona, that's what it does in a terella, that's what it does in ITER, in lightning bolts, in the Van Allen belts, etc., which are all places where q/m is large. For stars, galaxies, clusters, etc., q/m is so small that these accelerations are negligible.

Sure, I would need to know ultra-detailed plasma physics to tell me whether the plasma-based acceleration of a star is 10^-38 or 5 x 10^-39 or 10^-40 m/s^2. I do not need to know detailed plasma physics to tell you that the plasma-based acceleration is not 10^-10 m/s^2.

Do any of you actually have a clue about what Alfven called the "particle" or "circuit" orientation of MHD theory? If so, how did you acquire this understanding of MHD theory?
Click to expand...

What part of "Alfven's circuit notation for MHD theory" results in answers that are a factor of 10^30 different than the one above? That's got to be some crazy notation.

And you have already told us---repeatedly, IIRC---that you do not have an actual model which accounts for DE and DM observations. I am not terribly curious about what notation you don't use to not write down the model that you don't have.
 
ben m said:
That's the thing: making a star accelerate around a galaxy has nothing to do with plasma physics.
Click to expand...

So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Yep ... but I think it's important to always include the second part ("*consistent*") ... it's incredibly easy to "stat[e] quantitatively where the current model fails"^; whether any such statements have a consistent basis is a whole different kettle of sardines ...
Click to expand...

Your models "consistently" fail at level of empirical physics. I have to consistently "have faith" in all your math because you can't for instance demonstrate a single act of "acceleration" with "dark energy" in a lab. Is that really my personal fault, or the fault of the fact you put your faith in metaphysics rather than a physical force of nature? Your math is "consistently" based upon mythical energies and mythical forms of matter. They consistently fail at the level of empirical physics, and therefore they consistently fail to show up in lab experiments and they will consistently fail to do so forever and ever in the case of "inflation", which if I recall correctly even you personally don't care for. How by the way is your skepticism of inflation any "better" than mine "quantitatively"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snip...
In GR theory it's "wild and wooly" because they aren't really talking about GR theory as Einstein taught it, but rather a variation of what Einstein called a "blunder" theory, or his greatest blunder, with their mythical friends stuffed into what used to be a ZERO in the formula.
Click to expand...
GR includes the cosmological constant. It is not magically changed to another theory by changing the value of the constant. The cosmological constant can be ZERO or NONZERO and GR remains GR.

The setting of the cosmological constant to a nonzero value is as Einstein taught GR.

You re showing your ignorance. Einstein never called anything a "blunder" theory.
Einstein's Greatest Blunder
 
Michael Mozina said:
So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, are completely wrong because they did not produce galaxy-like "structures".
The Fatal Error
The results of the computer simulations are maps of the distribution of plasma particles in a plane through the plasma filaments. These are maps of the distribution of the mass in the galaxies since all of the mass is in plasma. Peratt then proceeds to compare these mass distribution maps to radio and optical images. But
* Radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies.
* The reason that spiral galaxies look like they have spiral arms is not because there are actual arms (with no matter in between them) but because they are "arms" of high mass density containing lots of bright young stars. The density of matter in between the arms is 10-20% less than the density of matter in the arms (not 100%).
The mass distribution of elliptical galaxies is ellipsoidal so a plane through them produces various ellipses from nearly a circle to flattened to a large degree.
The mass distribution of spiral galaxies is a central bulge contained within a flat disk along with a near-spherical halo outside the disk and bulge. The mass distribution of a plane running through the disk produces a disk with minor variations in density.

Neither mass distribution matches the results from the computer simulations.

This invalidates the model completely and so we need not really continue.

But there are other points that are also relevant.
Click to expand...
 
ben m said:
Michael Mozina said:
So Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models, was pure "coincidence" in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.
Click to expand...
The paper in which Peratt published the details of, and results from, his 'galaxies' simulation: Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies

The simulations are also covered in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe.

Perhaps MM has not read either ... but when he gets around to doing so, he will discover that Peratt did not model stars^ ...

^ more precisely: the simulations Peratt performed - which produced "galaxy-like "structures"" - did not incorporate entities with charge-to-mass ratios as low as those of stars (indeed, they did not incorporate neutral gas either)
 
Michael Mozina said:
They consistently fail at the level of empirical physics, and therefore they consistently fail to show up in lab experiments and they will consistently fail to do so forever and ever in the case of "inflation"
Click to expand...

Hey Michael---go telephone God and complain. Apparently he is in violation of Clause II.45(a-b) of the Contract and Statement of Work.

"II.45(a). Creators must fabricate universes using a very small number of fundamental forces. All such forces must be 'detectable' as defined in II.45(b) unless an explicit exception is granted in II.45(c).

II.45(b). 'detectable' forces must be subject to controlled experiments with on-off switches on Earth by late-20th-century homo sapiens sapiens, who are 2m tall carbon-based beings with access to laser, accelerator, and telescope technology. Creators must keep in mind the materials science, engineering, power, budget, computing constraints on all such experiments.

II.45(c). Exceptions to II.45b(b) will be granted for gravity waves, short-lived elementary particles, space plasma physics, high-temperature properties of iron, and other phenomena at the sole discretion of Mr. Michael Mozina, a homo sapiens sapiens, or his designated proxies or executors. "
Click to expand...

Yep, the dark energy data suggests that God is in violation. Do you want to grant Him an exception under your powers in II.45(c), or do you want to terminate his contract?
 
ben m said:
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.
Click to expand...

Your notion that a sun is a "neutral massive object" is false as the continuous flow of solar wind demonstrates. If it were "neutral" in relationship to the plasma outside the heliosphere, that would never happen.
 
ben m said:
Hey Michael---go telephone God and complain. Apparently he is in violation of Clause II.45(a-b) of the Contract and Statement of Work.



Yep, the dark energy data suggests that God is in violation. Do you want to grant Him an exception under your powers in II.45(c), or do you want to terminate his contract?
Click to expand...

ER, evidently neither is necessary. Birkeland figured out that the universe was electric in the EARLY 20th century, and Alfven quantified a lot of it for you by the late 20th century. It's not God's fault you personally can't figure it out even with help. :)
 
ben m said:
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.
Click to expand...

The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Ben?
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

  1. 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.
  2. Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
    First asked 8 January 2010
  3. What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
    First asked 9 January 2010
  4. Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
    First asked 12 January 2010
  5. Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force and so positive pressure?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  6. What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  7. What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies?
    First asked 14 January 2010

Do you see how childish this "God energy" habit of yours makes you seem?
First asked 15 January 2010
This is more of a comment and I do not really expect an answer. Basically MM has the delusion that inserting God into a term like "dark energy" defines it as a religion. All it does it point out that his position is so deficient that he has to resort to ridiculous tactics.
Answered questions:
  1. Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
    Birkeland 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.

  2. A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
    Is seems that MM cannot answer these simple questions on pressure other than regurgitating his usual Casimir effect is "relative pressure" from atoms.
    So I answered it for him in as simple a manner as possible. He still cannot understand it.
P.S.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Ben?
Click to expand...
The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of electrons, H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Michael Mozina?
 
Reality Check said:
The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of electrons, H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Michael Mozina?
Click to expand...

The fact they all "shoot out" blows out your claim. I stand corrected on the electrons part, but they're doing the work of acceleration, whereas the positively charged ions come along for the ride. :)

If was a "neutral" body, we wouldn't observe million mile per hour "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's the physics they don't comprehend. I could never teach these folks a lick about math, but I can definitely teach them physics. There's no point in arguing about the math. The math is "right" as long as you accept mythical energies and all their "specs" too, but the moment you look at the issue from the standpoint of empirical physics, their whole belief system falls apart instantly. All they can do to try to hide that fact from you is to bitch/complain/convince you about my lack of math skills.

This issue has nothing to do with "math". It's all about "physics" and their lack of empirical support for any of their mythical creatures. They can't tell induction from "magnetic reconnection" because they mathematically eliminated the E field in their formula. :)
Click to expand...

Ok..

This is on my desk because I sorted out my "job folder" which has all my qualifications and I glanced at this while reading this post.

As an undergraduate at a UK University I did the following courses in a Mathematics and Astrophysics degree:

Elements of Pure Mathematics
Mathematical Computation
Calculus and Analysis
Newtonian Dynamics and Gravitation
Linear Algebra I
Mathematical and Computational Models
Advanced Calculus
The Physics and Astronomy of Stars
The Structure and Evolution of Stars
Numerical Analysis I
Linear Operators and Differential Equations
Numerical Computing
Classical and Quantum Mechanics
Solar System
Electromagnetism
The Physics of Galaxies
Theory of Plasmas
Calculus II
Linear Algebra II
Relativity
Solving Partial Differential Equations
Cosmology
Nuclear and Elementary Particle Physics
The Interstellar Medium

Thats just as a lowly undergrad.

Now, you would think that those courses would suit you up reasonably well to notice that maybe, just maybe, if the Sun and the Universe was as MM described then something would be amiss in all those millions of facts/figures/data/experiments/practicals/theories/calculations that were involved in just those 3 years of undergrad work (which of course would occur in any good uni anywhere in the world).

If there is this big "mistake" in such a MASSIVE chunk of physics why are we not seeing it then? What is it about all the millions of scientists that puts the same blinkers on them?

You would think with those courses you could, say, understand how a star works (and if its purely electromagnetic), or how the interstellar medium or solar system or galaxy consists of plasmas and how that "drives" everything... no?

What did I miss then? Really?


I teach all day and all night... one of the most important things I get a student to do is to explain WHY they are wrong or right... not just say, or "cos", or just wave their hands and say it cant be that... but say WHY.

MM, please, I really would reiterate what some others are saying, there does appear to be a distinct lack of detail in your rebuttals, especially if you wish to converse with those whose bread and butter is 'details, maths, equations, explanations etc'.
 
ben m said:
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.
Click to expand...

For the record again, how much "normal mass" (percentage wise) is actually contained inside the stars and solar system objects again, according to your theory?
 
DazzaD said:
Ok..

This is on my desk because I sorted out my "job folder" which has all my qualifications and I glanced at this while reading this post.
Click to expand...

FYI, I didn't ask for your job qualifications, I asked DRD what makes their *skepticism* of inflation any "better" than mine from a quantitative (or qualitative) standpoint. It's an impressive list and all, but it doesn't answer my basic question. DRD evidently also rejects one of the three metaphysical amigo's, so why condemn me for tossing out the other two?

As an undergraduate at a UK University I did the following courses in a Mathematics and Astrophysics degree:

Thats just as a lowly undergrad.
Click to expand...

Which of those classes you listed required a thorough reading of Birkeland's work or required you to read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? Have you ever read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven, yes or no? In all those classes you listed were you exposed to Alfven's cosmology theories in any structured manner?

Now, you would think that those courses would suit you up reasonably well to notice that maybe, just maybe, if the Sun and the Universe was as MM described then something would be amiss in all those millions of facts/figures/data/experiments/practicals/theories/calculations that were involved in just those 3 years of undergrad work (which of course would occur in any good uni anywhere in the world).
Click to expand...

That assumes a lot about the required reading in the curriculum IMO. Based upon a rather unscientific sampling over the years, I can tell you few if any folks in your industry have read Cosmic Plasma when asked the first time. I've shamed a couple of folks into reading it, but most never are exposed to Alfven's formal cosmology theories in a structured university setting, or at least have never read his book on this topic.

If there is this big "mistake" in such a MASSIVE chunk of physics why are we not seeing it then?
Click to expand...

You are. I handed you five recent papers where return currents are seen in solar activity. Did you read those papers? If you did, you didn't have much to say about them. What's up with that?

What is it about all the millions of scientists that puts the same blinkers on them?
Click to expand...

There aren't "millions" of scientists that do that by the way, just a small subset of "astronomers". Most of them aren't in the business playing the role of "grand inquisitor" against PC/EU theory. That seems to be something only a handful of individuals choose to actually do.

What's with the different rule system for ATM ideas at BAUT? Why impose a double standard like that?

You would think with those courses you could, say, understand how a star works (and if its purely electromagnetic), or how the interstellar medium or solar system or galaxy consists of plasmas and how that "drives" everything... no?
Click to expand...

No. I was never taught any of that in college. Were you? I had to figure it out on my own.

What did I miss then? Really?
Click to expand...

Ya, you missed all of Birkeland's emirical experiments. You missed those five recent papers I just provided. You probably "missed" reading Cosmic Plasma too.

I teach all day and all night... one of the most important things I get a student to do is to explain WHY they are wrong or right... not just say, or "cos", or just wave their hands and say it cant be that... but say WHY.
Click to expand...
You're wrong because Birkeland empirically demonstrated you are wrong over 100 years ago via old fashion "empirical physics". Go ahead and believe in "dark energies" if they float your boat, but show me anything that runs on "dark energy"?

MM, please, I really would reiterate what some others are saying, there does appear to be a distinct lack of detail in your rebuttals, especially if you wish to converse with those whose bread and butter is 'details, maths, equations, explanations etc'.
Click to expand...

There is a distinct lack of mathematics in my rebuttals because my objections have zero to do with your math formulas and everything to do with your lack of empirical physical support for any of your key ideas.

What you missed is the same thing I missed in my formal education, a direct exposure to Birkeland's most important writings and a direct exposure to Alfven's most important writings.

Yes or no have you read Cosmic Plasma? It seems to me if you have not read his work you have no business complaining about my lack of math. It's all been done, you just refuse to read it or consider it unless I personally bark math for you on command. Boloney. I won't play that game with you. I don't have to bark math for you especially since I'm not complaining about your math in the first place. That's simply a red herring so you can avoid those five papers, and that wealth of mathematical modeling done by Alfven. I won't let you live in denial of the empirical flaws in your belief systems only because you have superior math skills. Get it?

(edited)
 
Last edited:
I apologize for the silly rhetorical question, but ... isn't one of the virtues of having good mathematics that observation and experimentation in physics involve the measurement of numerical quantities and the comparison of their values to quantities calculated in models? Isn't this use of mathematics necessary for empiricism in physics to even make any sense?
 
Reality Check said:
Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you folks need to at least put up a consistent argument. If only such a small percentage of the mass resides in stars, then you can't also claim that the presumed "neutrality" of stars would somehow have some giant effect on Peratt's model. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too as it suits you.
 
schrodingasdawg said:
I apologize for the silly rhetorical question, but ... isn't one of the virtues of having good mathematics that observation and experimentation in physics involve the measurement of numerical quantities and the comparison of their values to quantities calculated in models? Isn't this use of mathematics necessary for empiricism in physics to even make any sense?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong (and everything right) with math as long as you're actually comparing it to something that exists in nature and that you can show does exist in nature. I can't just conjure up a few math formulas, call it "magic energy' and demonstrate the existence of magic energy from uncontrolled observations of distant objects in the sky!

*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space. As it is, you didn't demonstrate "magic/dark energy" has any effect on even a single atom, so pointing at the sky and claiming your math formula did it, has no physical substance and I have no way to compare your claim to anything in physics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space.
Click to expand...


*IF* you could do math, which as far as anyone on any Internet forum knows, you can't. So that's a moot *IF*.
 
GeeMack said:
*IF* you could do math, which as far as anyone on any Internet forum knows, you can't. So that's a moot *IF*.
Click to expand...

So what? The only people that actually need my help in math are my teenage children. They actually appreciate the fact that I've been through calculus. I don't really give a damn what you think of my math skills because they are irrelevant in terms of my basic argument or the flaws in your theory. Your theories are devoid of *EMPIRICAL PHYSICAL SUPPORT* that has nothing to do with your pretty math formulas.

It doesn't matter how many equations you integrate to figure out how many invisible elves fit on the head of a pin. The problem isn't in your math formulas related to the surface area of the pin, it's your basic physical claim of the existence of elves that lacks physical support. Asking me to find the flaw in your elf math is utterly pointless when it's your "physics" that doesn't add up.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
The paper in which Peratt published the details of, and results from, his 'galaxies' simulation: Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies

The simulations are also covered in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe.

Perhaps MM has not read either ... but when he gets around to doing so, he will discover that Peratt did not model stars^ ...

^ more precisely: the simulations Peratt performed - which produced "galaxy-like "structures"" - did not incorporate entities with charge-to-mass ratios as low as those of stars (indeed, they did not incorporate neutral gas either)
Click to expand...

Percentage wise, how much mass is contained inside the stars of a galaxy compared to the total mass of a galaxy?

If the sun is electrically "neutral", why do we observe constant, full sphere, million mile per hour "current flows" of charged particles between the photosphere and heliosphere?
 
Michael Mozina said:
The fact they all "shoot out" blows out your claim.
Click to expand...
The fact they all shoot out blows out your claim.
Take away equal amounts of positive and negaive charges from a neutral body and you are left with a neutral body.

Strictly speaking stars may not be neutral. But they are so slightly charged that any effects are negligible as has been explained in several threads in this forum.
To start with there is an upper limit to their charge of about 77 Coulombs per solar mass. Stars with a charge higher than this explode as they cannot retain particles.

ETA
On the global electrostatic charge of stars.

Michael Mozina said:
If was a "neutral" body, we wouldn't observe million mile per hour "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere.
Click to expand...
We do not observe million mile per hour "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere.

We do observe million mile per hour mass flows (the solar wind) between the photosphere and heliosphere and beyond into interstellar space.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It seems to me that you folks need to at least put up a consistent argument. If only such a small percentage of the mass resides in stars, then you can't also claim that the presumed "neutrality" of stars would somehow have some giant effect on Peratt's model. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too as it suits you.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
It seems that you need to learn to understand what you read.


We measure that the universe contains at most 6% (the accepted value is 4%) of baryonic matter. That is a percentage of the total mass and energy iin the universe.
  • ~0.4% in stars.
  • ~3.6% in the intracluster medium.
  • The rest is dark matter and dark energy.
This states nothing about the neutrality of the stars.

If you knew anything about Peratt's debunked and invalid model then you would know that it is a plasma model of galaxy formation and ignores stars.

There are some idiots out there that claim that stars have enough of a charge on them that their interaction with the galactic magnetic field is significant. This is not Peratt's debunked and invalid model. The problem with this idea is it is simple to show that that the forces are many orders of magnitude less than the force of gravity.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
For the record again, how much "normal mass" (percentage wise) is actually contained inside the stars and solar system objects again, according to your theory?
Click to expand...
As you have been told many times, the mass and energy of the universe is measured to be
  • ~0.4% in stars.
  • ~3.6% in the intracluster medium.
  • ~23% in dark matter.
  • ~73% in dark energy.
So stars contain 10% of of the normal (baryonic) mass.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If the sun is electrically "neutral", why do we observe constant, full sphere, million mile per hour "current flows" of charged particles between the photosphere and heliosphere?
Click to expand...

Because the surface of the sun is a hot, violent place with lots of localized turbulent fields. The wind that gets pushed around by these fields has a mass of one billionth of one trillionth of the Sun's mass. Even if that was purely-electrostatic acceleration---which it's not, since the Solar Wind has an equal number of electrons and + ions and thus no electric current---it would require an excess charge of only 1000 Coulombs.

Go ahead, MM, put those 1000C on the Sun (and contrive a way to keep them there while an electric current flows away). If you can do that, the charge-to-mass ratio of the Sun is only a factor of 10^30 (instead of the 10^31 it was before) less than the charge-to-mass ratio of the proton.
 
I think I'll work your claim from both directions. Let's now note that the sun also has a strong magnetic field which could also factor into an electromagnetic acceleration process. Your mythical sun needs to not only be "charge neutral", it also has to be devoid of a magnetic field to be completely unaffected by an all pervasive EM field expansion process.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think I'll work your claim from both directions. Let's now note that the sun also has a strong magnetic field which could also factor into an electromagnetic acceleration process. Your mythical sun needs to not only be "charge neutral", it also has to be devoid of a magnetic field to be completely unaffected by an all pervasive EM field expansion process.
Click to expand...
What claim is being worked?
What is "an all pervasive EM field expansion process"?

The Sun has a magnetic field. It is strong in comparison to some things and weak in comparison to other things. It factors into "an electromagnetic acceleration process". That factor is that it changes the path of charged particles that have been accelerated away from the Sun by other processes.
FYI:
The Suns magnetic field:
The Sun is a magnetically active star. It supports a strong, changing magnetic field that varies year-to-year and reverses direction about every eleven years around solar maximum.[58] The Sun's magnetic field gives rise to many effects that are collectively called solar activity, including sunspots on the surface of the Sun, solar flares, and variations in solar wind that carry material through the Solar System.[59] Effects of solar activity on Earth include auroras at moderate to high latitudes, and the disruption of radio communications and electric power. Solar activity is thought to have played a large role in the formation and evolution of the Solar System. Solar activity changes the structure of Earth's outer atmosphere.[60]
Click to expand...
 
This claim:

ben m said:
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.
Click to expand...

According to you only .4% of the mass/energy actually resides in stars, so what's the big difference between his model and an ordinary galaxy? Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely bogus) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.
 
Michael Mozina said:
*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space. As it is, you didn't demonstrate "magic/dark energy" has any effect on even a single atom, so pointing at the sky and claiming your math formula did it, has no physical substance and I have no way to compare your claim to anything in physics.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you look up Hubble's law. Galaxies apparently recede from one-another at a rate proportional to the distance between them. Hubble's constant is about 74 km/s per Megaparsec. A megaparsec is a million parsecs. A parsec is about 31 trillion km. So galaxies that are 31 million trillion km apart will appear to move away from each other at 74 km/s. Objects only 31 km apart, however, would only move away from each other at a million-trillionth of that speed. Two atoms in a lab? I'd imagine the rate at which they recede due to Hubble's law from one-another is immeasurable, especially compared to whatever sources of error may exist in an attempt at measurement.

What dark energy models are supposed to account for, as I understand it, is an increase over time of the rate of apparent recession between any two objects. This apparent recession only has a measurable effect on things that are already very far away.

Another thing that cannot be measured with atoms in a lab is simple gravitational attraction. The magnitude of the gravitational force between two atoms is too small to measure, but by observing the way the planets move around the sun, the moon moves around the Earth, and the way things fall on Earth, we know gravity exists nonetheless. Asking to demonstrate dark energy with atoms in the lab is absurd for the same reason that asking to demonstrate gravity with atoms in the lab is.
 
GeeMack said:
Michael Mozina said:
*IF* you could empirically show us an empirical example of where "dark energies" caused "acceleration" of a couple of atoms, I *MIGHT* be able to compare your mathematical models of "dark energy" to some form of acceleration somewhere "out there' in space.
Click to expand...
*IF* you could do math, which as far as anyone on any Internet forum knows, you can't. So that's a moot *IF*.
Click to expand...
There's an important aspect to this that we should not lose sight of; namely, that empirically (MM's definition, or anyone else's) showing acceleration (standard definition) requires numbers, equations, etc.

Now we know that Newton, Maxwell, Birkeland, Einstein, Hubble, Zwicky, Alfvén, Peratt, Guth, Turner, Perlmutter, ... knew/know how to analyse data, and show that acceleration was/is happening, but MM does not.

Think about this for a moment ... even if MM were given the cleaned data from a dozen ('in the lab') experiments - designed to test whether gravity/electric fields/magnetic fields/the weak force/the strong force caused acceleration (per models of these forces) - he couldn't take that data and show that the results match the models (within the experimental uncertainties)!

In fact, I suspect he couldn't show - from the data - that there was any acceleration (standard definition).

On the other hand, presented with some eye candy (a.k.a. nice images) ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom