Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field.


There's only one known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and that is the EM field. There's no other logical option. Simply ignoring the only force of nature you have to work with simply makes you look bad IMO. You're not trying to figure out how the universe works, you're trying to figure out how to stuff the EM genie back in the bottle. That's never going to happen. You need 70% metaphysics, only because you *REFUSE* to honestly attempt to figure it out with EM fields. Instead of actually putting in sweat equity effort into attempting to fix the models, you simply whine about their limitation, and ignore the obvious implication. No wonder the universe is so "dark" and mysterious to you. You don't WANT to know how it actually works.
Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field.![]()
![]()
Well, I'm out of my league here, but since cosmic rays are omnidirectional, would not all those EM fields cancel out?
So he is given the opportunity to do that ...... but I can definitely teach them physics.
Mozina has ignored the real issue altogether. This is "Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology". What better place to support his own assertion that "dark energy" is a manifestation of classical electromagnetism? Myself & ben_m have presented objective & quantitative arguments to support the assertion that "dark energy" cannot be any manifestation of classical electromagnetism. Mozina has ignored the opportunity to present equally qualified objective & quantitative argument to the contrary. As far as I am concerned, that ends the discussion on the electromagnetic nature of "dark energy". It has been proven to my satisfaction that "dark energy" cannot be any manifestation of classical electromagnetism and Mozina is either unwilling or unable to directly address the issue. It is time therefore to move on to other topics.Really? Lets see ...
Is "dark energy" electric? No, and here's why.
Is "dark energy" magnetic? No, and here's why.
OK, here's your big chance to teach real, empirical physics. Both myself & ben_m present quantitative arguments based on straight forward classical physics. What did we do wrong? Are the forces wrongly calculated? Can you quantitatively show that is is possible for "dark energy" to be electromagnetic? Can you calculate the force or energy required for "dark energy" to be electromagnetic? If you can't, is that because you don't know enough math, or because you don't know enough physics? Neither? Both?
Cancels out, or drives acceleration?![]()
I'm sure there are two highly critical variables that must be included in the model, the strength of the all encompassing EM field, and the elemental abundance numbers. I think those kinds of modifications to Peratt's models would probably create a more "realistic" simulation of real conditions in space.
Cancels out, or drives acceleration?![]()
Really? How? "In a lab" if we construct a matrix of thousands of separate wires oriented equally in all three space dimensions (say, in a sphere) and passed a current through all of them so we have equal EM fields in all directions, would we have a net force pushing outward? If that's true you may have a point; if not your statement is fantasy. I really don't know, but that strikes me as a fairly easy experiment to construct.![]()
Where have you been all these years? That was suggested at least as early as Bagge, 1973 though it got little attention. There is also Dolginov & Toptygin, 2004. But it is unlikely that cosmic rays all by themselves can be responsible for a galactic magnetic field because the environment is so complex. However, Parker, 1992 suggests that cosmic ray induced expansion of loops in the Galactic magnetic field could be one aspect that drives a galactic alpha-omega dynamo. This idea was expanded on in a series of papers by Hanasz & Lesch (Hanasz & Lesch, 1993; Hanasz & Lesch, 1997; Hanasz, 1997; Hanasz & Lesch, 1998), culminating in Hanasz, Woltanski & Kowalik, 2009, where a full scale simulation shows a cosmic-ray driven dynamo for the Galactic magnetic field is feasible.Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field.![]()
So over 150 years of "electromagnetics" on its own has failed to even come close to explaining the overall cosmology but we have to wait a few more years?
What about before GR came onto the scene? Where were the all pervading EM explanations for the universe?
Am I missing something or has this been given more than its fair crack of the whip?
Mozina has ignored the real issue altogether. This is "Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology". What better place to support his own assertion that "dark energy" is a manifestation of classical electromagnetism?
Let's try a "thought experiment" first and we'll be "observers" outside the concepts of "space/time". We'll start with a "cosmic ray" EM field that essentially is an omnidirectional particle field composed of high velocity (light speed) charged particles.
Now if we drop a 'string' of test particles, and/or clumps of test particles into the field, they may not interact with the EM field in exactly the same way, but sooner or later those test particles will again "move' away from our original position.
And therein lies the rub. None of us were taught the relevancy of electrical current to the activities in space. It's not something any of us are exposed to in the classroom. While I had vaguely heard the term "Birkeland currents", I had no idea of the depth of his work until about perhaps 5 years ago.
The Sun's magnetic dipole moment is 10^22 T-m^2. Sounds big, huh?
The force on a magnetic field is F = grad (m.B). It's the magnetic dipole moment times the gradient of the B field (not the field magnitude) and the gradient drops as the 3rd power of the distance from sources. Given the structure of the galaxy, any possible gradient term has to have a 1/r^3 in it---where r is the distance to the Galactic Center of 8 kiloparsecs. Let's imagine (absurdly) that the Galactic center is such a powerful magnet that it puts out a 1T field near the Sun. Sorry, that gives you a gradient force of 10^22/10^61 = 10^-39 Newtons. Let's be more generous and put the "attracting" magnet right in the Solar neighborhood, a parsec away. F = 10^22/10^49 = 10^-27 N. Sorry, that's enough force to make one small bacterium orbit the galaxy.
In other words: gradient forces are good for the bumping-around of close together objects, and just about as weak as you could possibly imagine for long-distance forces. Anyhow, given that the Sun's B field reverses every 11 years, the Sun would spend 11 years getting attracted to something and 11 years getting repelled. Try again.
Or don't try again. This is exactly what I meant when I said "you cannot possibly find an E&M model that actually describes the Milky Way". I meant that you can try each of the known equations of E&M and none of them will work. Not one by one, not in any combination.
We've ruled out Coulomb's Law on net solar charge. We've ruled out the Lorentz force law on the solar dipole. What else do you have? Lorentz force on the net charge (sorry, same problem as Coulomb)? Electric dipole in a electric field gradient? Nope. Photon pressure? Nope. THAT'S IT. Anything else you add to Maxwell's Equations is either (a) smaller or (b) the product of your imagination.
Considering the fact inflation will *never* be empirically demonstrated in lab, what's the problem with waiting awhile, and looking for real empirical solutions?
Not even close IMO. None of us were afforded the luxury of even being taught the importance of the EM field to events in space. It's all been pretty much "self taught", and mostly in the last few generations. Prior to that point, and even now in most circles, only 'gravity' is considered important to astronomy. It's like being blind all the way though college and saying "here, you figure it out".
Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.
I thought I would give a bump to ben m's response from a few days ago. For me (a lurker and a layman) this was one of the most comprehensible beat-downs of EU theory I've seen. I've kind of been disappointed by MM's lack of response to this information. I think a refutation from an EU proponent would be illuminating. MM anything to say? If no, then I'd have to say that the empircal facts are not on your side.
Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.
Not even close IMO. None of us were afforded the luxury of even being taught the importance of the EM field to events in space. It's all been pretty much "self taught", and mostly in the last few generations. Prior to that point, and even now in most circles, only 'gravity' is considered important to astronomy. It's like being blind all the way though college and saying "here, you figure it out".
This is quite insightful, thanks ben m!I posted a number of calculations where I did incorporate E&M into a galactic model. I told you what that model was---it was "E&M could cause stellar accelerations no larger than 10^-30 m/s^2"Michael Mozina said:Until the system itself changes, the *ELECTO*magnetic field is fully incorporated into our models, they will simply be incomplete, and the universe will still seem very "dark" and mysterious to those who do not appreciate the importance of "current flow' (light speed forms too) in the events we observe in the universe around us.
It sounds, then, like you don't want to incorporate E&M into the model.
You want to incorporate some made-up theory that tells you what you wanted to hear. Then you want to slap the name E&M onto that theory.
Now Peratt's 1986 paper is very clear on what the characteristics of the plasma filaments must be, in order for his simulations to produce the results he publishes, AND he is equally clear that there is no wiggle room (he uses plasma scaling relationships that brook no tweaking, and hard astronomical observables, such as radio emissions and spectra).Michael Mozina said:Bull. You euphemistically call them "jets" from "black holes".
All this does is suggest that he is a typical crank without any way to present his argument without childish tactics.Even today, "gravity" doesn't dominate the process, which is why you need all that "dark evil energy' of yours. In other words the EM field *STILL* dominates the process.
In other words you have no idea what you are talking about.In other words, these simulations might be useful to "explain" say a "bang" event, and the layout of matter into "galaxies" is not a "coincidence", it's a standard EM effect. Even today, "gravity" doesn't dominate the process, which is why you need all that "dark evil energy' of yours. In other words the EM field *STILL* dominates the process.
The ignorance continues.First of all, it's not only "Peratt's" model, it's the "first attempt" to take "some of" Alfven's earlier ideas and simulate them in software. It's an attempt to apply MHD theory to a "bang" sort of simulation in plasma.
Plasma Cosmology proponents often cite this plasma model of galaxy formation and evolution. When the errors in it are pointed out they then ignore these until they have an excuse to cute Peratt yet again (as one poster has stated: "blather, rinse, repeat"). So I have started this thread to reduce the number of repetitions. I will prime the pump with the flaws that I perceive (I am not an expert so there may be errors).
In 1986 Anthony Peratt published a pair of papers in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science about a model for galaxy formation and evolution that only included plasma and plasma interactions. This was inspired by experiments with plasmoids where the plasmoids showed galaxy like structures (on a tiny scale). Peratt ran some computer simulations based on these experiments and concluded that the simulations matched observations of galaxies.
His model was that the galaxies start as a bundle of galactic sized plasma filaments each with an electric current running through them. These galactic plasma filaments are estimated to have a width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and a length of from 35 megaparasec to 3.5 gigaparasec (an average length of 350 megaparasec or 1 billion light years).
For simplicity he used pairs of filaments. The interaction between the filaments caused them to twist around each other and distort. The initial distribution of plasma looked like radio images of double lobed radio galaxies. This evolved into distributions that looked like optical images of the various types of spiral galaxies. Later he concluded that his model also explained the rotation of galaxies without dark matter.
The computer simulation was done using a couple of plasma simulation packages - SPLASH and TRISTRAN.
It is Peratt's job to fix his model as in the published paper. The fact that he has not done this in the 34 yearsIt's not "just" Peratt's job to "figure out" how and why our universe works, or to figure out every single detail of EU/PC theory all by himself. That will certainly require at "team effort" and take many, many, many years to complete.
I *DO* not have to fix his models in the final analysis, because there are existing models of galaxy formation that actually work with the known properties of the universe.You *DO* have to fix his models in the final analysis, because they are the only mathematical models that you have to work with that even come remotely close to removing your pathetic need for 70% metaphysics in your theories. If and when you really want to empirically 'explain' an accelerating universe, you'll need his work, and you'll need to fix it.
IMO Including elemental abundance into Peratt's simulation will result in a random distribution of plasma.The last statement you made *IS* accurate. He made some "questionable" basic assumptions even by my way of looking at things. IMO he foolishly chose to believe your elemental abundance figures and that was the root of a lot of differences between observation and the model.
There ae TWO known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and they are the gravitational and EM fields.There's only one known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and that is the EM field..snip..
(emphasis added)
The "physics" lesson I am going to teach you personally is related to "induction/circuit reconnection" which you keep describing as "magnetic reconnection" Tim. Let's see you respond to Alfven's first paper please. Notice that part where he describes the amount of current flow in terms of Curl H(B)?
So I will politely ask again then.
If it cannot be tested in a lab here on Earth then it isnt science?
In other words the gravitational field *STILL* dominates the process.
Gravity cannot possibly dominate the expansion process or the universe would have slowed down over time.
Sorry, that may seem an obvious conclusion in "intuitive" gravity, but it's wrong.
First: "high velocity charged particles" are not an EM field. They're a current field (q and p) which produces an EM field (E and B). Is that too hard to get?
Great Scott! Is that how you think E&M works?
You just described an ideal gas.
You are still ignorant and that has lead you to be confused and baffled by your BS.Funny how it was "right" until that "prediction" of deceleration was falsified, and then you had to stuff a "blunder theory" with "dark energy". Now of course you want to call a *NON ZERO* constant brand of "blunder theory", "GR theory". You people intentionally confuse your audience. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
Funny how it was "right" until that "prediction" of deceleration was falsified, and then you had to stuff a "blunder theory" with "dark energy". Now of course you want to call a *NON ZERO* constant brand of "blunder theory", "GR theory". You people intentionally confuse your audience. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
An EM field is not "high energy current flows".OkThe point is that nothing is going to remain "stationary', and these high energy current flows will have a dramatic effect on material in the field(s).
I thought I would give a bump to ben m's response from a few days ago. For me (a lurker and a layman) this was one of the most comprehensible beat-downs of EU theory I've seen. I've kind of been disappointed by MM's lack of response to this information. I think a refutation from an EU proponent would be illuminating. MM anything to say? If no, then I'd have to say that the empircal facts are not on your side.
An EM field is not "high energy current flows".
An EM field is ... an electromagnetic field! It has no charge. Its carrier particles (photons) have no charge.
Ok, I took a little poetic license for the sake of brevity. So sue me. The point is that there is an underlying E and B field that blows past us at the speed of light.
Gases don't typically blow by at near light speed ben.
The point is that nothing is going to remain "stationary', and these high energy current flows will have a dramatic effect on material in the field(s).
My goodness, please go to Utrecht University and take the course on plasma astrophysics, you'll have currents come out of your nose.
E.g. my master's thesis:
Magnetic flares near accreting black holes (pdf free available)