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

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism II

Michael Mozina arrogantly boasts ...
Michael Mozina said:
... but I can definitely teach them physics.
Click to expand...
So he is given the opportunity to do that ...
Tim Thompson said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Cancels out, or drives acceleration? :)
Click to expand...

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. :whistling
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are still hoping that this simulation will tell you that EM fields exert a 10^-10 m/s galactic-center-wards acceleration on the Sun, on its neighbors, on the local ISM ions and electrons, and on the local halo stars.

There is no possible E and B field which does this. No matter what Peratt's code tells you the field is, this field has the properties I described with respect to force and acceleration. No matter what you guess the field is, this field has the properties I described. No matter what field is generated by the huge electromagnet the aliens install at the Galactic center, the field has the properties I described.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Cancels out, or drives acceleration? :)
Click to expand...

CANCELS OUT. This isn't rocket science, MM, this is Freshman E&M. Electric currents moving in opposite directions cancel and give zero net B field.

But even if there is a B field (or an E field) generated by cosmic rays, aliens, your imagination, etc., it still cannot drive any of the various accelerations you insist it must, for reasons you are still ignoring.
 
Perpetual Student said:
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. :whistling
Click to expand...

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.

Into this omnidirectional EM field we'll drop a few "stationary" (I guess to us/the field?) charged test particles. Sooner or later, one of those high velocity charged particles in the light speed EM field is going to strike our test particle, or perhaps simply "interact" with it electromagnetically in some way (no direct collision) and our test particle will 'move' in some direction relative to our original point of insertion into the field.

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.

The overall tendency will be to "accelerate" all our charged test particles away from their original "stationary" position, and it will cause them to "accelerate" over time. They may not travel in exactly the same direction, but the overall light speed field will have the tendency to 'accelerate' our test particles over time.
 
Cosmic Ray Driven Magnetic Fields

Michael Mozina said:
Just wait until it dawns on them that "cosmic rays" are essentially a form of high energy "current flow" and generate an EM field. :)
Click to expand...
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.

That's Mozina, always up to date on the latest news in astrophysics :)
 
DazzaD said:
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?
Click to expand...

Considering the fact inflation will *never* be empirically demonstrated in lab, what's the problem with waiting awhile, and looking for real empirical solutions?

What about before GR came onto the scene? Where were the all pervading EM explanations for the universe?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I guess GR theory was "on the scene' by the time of Birkeland, but his physics is pretty much Newtonian in physical/mathematical expression. I suppose you could start there.

Am I missing something or has this been given more than its fair crack of the whip?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tim Thompson said:
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?
Click to expand...

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)?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

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.
Click to expand...

Great Scott! Is that how you think E&M works? You just described an ideal gas. Yes, ideal gases expand; they have positive pressure forces, which propagate at the speed of sound via extremely short-range interactions; all such expansion decelerates; this is all well-known. The dynamics of an ideal gas have absolutely flat nothing in common with anything we observe in large-scale galactic dynamics or cosmology.

Let me elaborate on how wrong this is. MM is now using the kinetic energy of cosmic rays to move other cosmic rays around. All of the expansion he's described comes from this kinetic energy; he completely ignored the magnetic field energy; his description reads exactly the same way when he makes the interactions "collisions" vs. "EM interactions" and indeed it's not clear that he knows the difference. How are cosmic ray collisions supposed to make the Sun accelerate at 10^-10 m/s towards the Galactic center? Is it that the cosmic-ray-induced B field exerts a Lorentz force on the Sun? Or a gradient force on the Solar dipole? Sorry, those are subject to the exact same constraints as usual, and the net force is incredibly small. In this particularly stupid case, Newton's Law shows that the force exerted by one cosmic ray particle on the Sun is the same as the force exerted by the Sun on that particle; the cosmic ray can only transfer a maximum of 2x its initial momentum before it's been repelled---and this is true whether the interaction is EM, strong, weak, Pauli exclusion, gravity, whatever.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...


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)
Note that TWO students did work on this (Volwerk and van Oss), note that it has currents, circuit theory, plasmas, electric fields even, distinction between collisional and collisionless plasmas. The only thing that is missing would be a reference to "Cosmic Plasmas" but rest assured that Alfvén's books have been looked at.

Now, had you studied "space physics" at UCLA, then as an undergraduate or graduate student you would have had Birkeland currents in the magnetospheric physics courses, not only those currents but also the cross tail current for example, and to shock you, you would also get taught that electric fields exist, that there is a polar cap potential etc. etc.

Could you please stop now dissing plasma astrophysics and space physics as apparently you have no idea what is being taught nowadays. Maybe you did not hear about it in community college, but any self-respecting university teaches full plasma physics and does not exclude Alfvén, although his old fashioned books may not be used as teaching material,
 
ben m said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Considering the fact inflation will *never* be empirically demonstrated in lab, what's the problem with waiting awhile, and looking for real empirical solutions?
Click to expand...

So I will politely ask again then.

If it cannot be tested in a lab here on Earth then it isnt science?


Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Argggllle..

Please... did you see the courses I had to do for my Astrophysics degree?

Electromagnetism, Plasmas etc

Its standard stuff to introduce, you make it sound as if there is a world wide conspiracy.

It is a big like someone claiming that the strong nuclear force can account for the observed cosmological expansion but those pesky scientists are unwilling to teach it in their courses on cosmology, I mean, just look at the syllabus, they happily avoid the strong nuclear force and its role in galaxy formation and cosmology.

That argument, by itself, just doesnt hold any water at all.

ben and others have politely but persistently outlined why we have no need to consider such an effect on such a large scale, it simply is unable in any way, shape or form, able to explain what we see.

Empirical testing.....as you so love.
 
DSo said:
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.
Click to expand...


You did notice that ben m used actual numbers to explain his position there. It was a quantitative description. Michael has written literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of words, in tens of thousands of posts, on at least a half dozen forums over the past 5 or 6 years. Consider that he has never, in what would amount to an entire book worth of text, never, not once, ever explained anything in quantitative terms. Ever. If after typing all those millions of characters he has never displayed even the most rudimentary grasp on numbers, quantities, math, even at a high school level, the likelihood that he'll offer a sane, rational response to anything quantitative seems pretty damned slim. :D
 
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.
Click to expand...

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"

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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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".
Click to expand...

What are you talking about???
 
ben m said:
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.
Click to expand...
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"

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.
Click to expand...
This is quite insightful, thanks ben m! :)

Another way of saying this is that MM creates dark, invisible fairies (or deities, or ...), which he uses to explain (in a qualitative, 'look at this picture' way) something astronomical, and then, prior to posting, re-names these fairies "*ELECTO*magnetic fields", or "current flows", or "Birkeland currents" (or similar).

And how can we tell that this is what, in effect, MM is doing?

By noting that, not once in the tens of thousands of posts he has written, across a half dozen (or more) fora, not once has he provided 'in-the-lab', empirical, experiments-with-controls evidence for these dark invisible fairies.

Now of course electromagnetic fields, current flows, Birkeland currents, etc show up in thousands of lab experiments ... but these have well-understood, widely-published characteristics (none of which are shared by the dark invisible fairies in MM's explanations).
 
Here's an example of this re-naming in operation^:
Michael Mozina said:
Bull. You euphemistically call them "jets" from "black holes".
Click to expand...
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).

Ergo, the jets of DRAGNs (and M87, and ...) cannot be the plasma filaments of which produce a spiral structure in Peratt's model!

(There's also the fact that Peratt's paper describes how his model addresses double-lobed radio galaxies - i.e. jets; they're very different).

^ I'm assuming the topic is the galactic sized plasma filaments that are central to Peratt's model; if not, then this post is toast
 
(Before MM replies, I want to head off some of his usual escape routes.)

1) I'm not talking about whether solar flares, the solar wind, and similar small-scale phenomena are modeled correctly by mainstream plasma physicists. I think they are, you think they aren't---I don't care. You have a whole other thread to discuss that. We are talking about the 2x10^-10 m/s/s acceleration of the Sun (and of everything near it, irrespective of composition, speed, direction, etc.) towards the Galactic center, and about gradual increase in the Hubble Constant.

2) Nobody is pretending that the Sun is not made of plasma, does not have a B field, or may not have an excess charge. We are taking those known facts and then correctly inserting them into the actual laws of nature that govern forces.

3) Notice that we are not somehow "assuming" that DE and/or DM hypotheses are correct; we're just showing that your present hypothesis is incorrect. You are welcome to come up with other hypotheses.
 
Last edited:
Do you see how ridiculous this "Z evil Y" habit of yours makes you seem?

First asked 25 January 2010
This following post is one of the many examples of Michael Mozina dumb debating technique where he inserts "evil" into a phrase and seems to think it makes spome sort of point.
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
All this does is suggest that he is a typical crank without any way to present his argument without childish tactics.

MM,
Do you see how ridiculous this "Z evil Y" habit of yours makes you seem?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
In other words you have no idea what you are talking about.
  • Peratt's simulations are totally useless to explain a bang event.
  • Peratt's simulations are be totally useless to explain the layout of matter into galaxies.
    This is not a coincidence, the formation of galaxies is a standard gravitational effect.
  • And a final bit of ignorance - dark energy has no effect on the formation of galaxies (dark matter does).
In other words the gravitational field *STILL* dominates the process.
 
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
A couple of Michael Mozina's debating tactics that reveal the depths that he has to descend to because he has no science to backup his claims:
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:
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.
Click to expand...
The ignorance continues.
The model is Peratt's - he is the single author of the papers. It has nothing to do with a "bang" sort of simulation in plasma.
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no "bang" in the model. This model has the ad-hoc assumption of galaxy sized plasma filaments which:
  • Gives the wrong results in his simulations.
  • His simulations ignore gravity.
  • The filaments would be easily detected.
  • The filaments would be unstable.
Michael Mozina said:
It'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.
Click to expand...
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 years (:eye-poppi) since it was published suggests that he has never realized that it is broken despite that quite basic astronomy knowledge is needed:
  • The mass in spiral galaxies is not distributed in a spiral.
  • Double-lobe radio galaxies are actually hosted in elliptical galaxies.
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
IMO Including elemental abundance into Peratt's simulation will result in a random distribution of plasma.
See I can make unsupported assertions from personal prejudices too :rolleyes:!

Don't tell me - tell Anthony Peratt that you have a magic way to fix his simulation.

Michael Mozina said:
There's only one known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and that is the EM field..snip..
Click to expand...
There ae TWO known force of nature that can generate a continuous acceleration of plasma, and they are the gravitational and EM fields.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
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?
Click to expand...

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)?
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
MM: Say this after me
Dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.
Dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.
Dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.
...
​
Repeat until you learn that dark energy is not magnetic reconnection.

Please present your physics lesson that magnetic reconnection is something called "induction/circuit reconnection" in the Magnetic reconnection and physical processes thread.
P.S.
  1. Alfven's outdated (1966) paper ("Currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares") oddly enough is about currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares. It never states that magnetic reconnection does not exist.
  2. The current density (i) in terms of Curl H is Maxwell's first equation which is Alfven's equation (1).
 
Last edited:
DazzaD said:
So I will politely ask again then.

If it cannot be tested in a lab here on Earth then it isnt science?
Click to expand...

What exactly do we call a 'dead legend' that goes something like "in the beginning, "fill-in-metaphysical garbarge-or-deity-of-choice did it, and died, never to be seen again by human beings"?
 
FYI, this is the last week of January and historically my busiest week of the year. Don't take it personally if my posts are short and specific and sparse for awhile.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gravity cannot possibly dominate the expansion process or the universe would have slowed down over time.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that may seem an obvious conclusion in "intuitive" gravity, but it's wrong. GR predicts a globally decelerating universe if the gravity source is particle masses (or any equivalence-principle equivalent), and a globally accelerating universe if the gravity source is the vacuum energy density.

ETA: In the presence of both types of sources, like the Universe we seem to be in, GR predicts an initial period of deceleration which either (a) collapses into a big crunch or (b) switches over to acceleration.

That's what gravity does, MM. If you think that gravity does something else, then you must not be using General Relativity but rather some alternative theory of gravity which you made up yourself. If you think I am misstating the way gravity works, please go into Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, find the relevant mistake, and cite the equation where it occurs. You have no grounds for claiming a mistake based solely on the fact that the result isn't the one you wanted.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Sorry, that may seem an obvious conclusion in "intuitive" gravity, but it's wrong.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ben m said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Great Scott! Is that how you think E&M works?
Click to expand...

Er, no I'm doing a thought experiment again ben, chill out....

You just described an ideal gas.
Click to expand...

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).
 
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously whan you write so childishly

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are still ignorant and that has lead you to be confused and baffled by your BS.

Dark energy is an observation not a theory. The expansion of the universe have been measured to be accelerating.

The use of a *NON ZERO* cosmological constant is a standard part of General Relativitiy.

The only member of "our audience" who is confused is you. We can certainly baflle you with mathematics and science.

And now you are continuing another another childish, ridiculous thing with your "blunder theory" idoicy.

First asked 26 January 2010
Michael Mozina,
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously whan you write so childishly?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are two things which you seem unable to keep straight. Or perhaps you find it useful to deliberately not keep them straight.

Does GR (i.e., our only theory of gravity) tell us "IF dark energy THEN acceleration"? YES IT DOES. The reason Einstein put in a nonzero cosmological constant in to begin with was that he THOUGHT the data (which was crap) showed a balance between outward acceleration and inward contraction. The reason he took it out again was that new data (which was rather good) showed no balance at all, meaning the inward contraction (deceleration) term was all you needed. The reason we put it in again was that ultra-precise data showed the dark-energy-like "turnaround" from deceleration to acceleration.

In all of these cases, Einstein and his successors knew, and used, the fact that "IF dark energy THEN acceleration". So your post "Gravity cannot possibly dominate the expansion process or the universe would have slowed down over time. " is complete baloney. Gravity CAN POSSIBLY dominate an accelerating expansion process.

Is "dark energy" the actual reason for the actual observed acceleration? MAYBE OR MAYBE NOT, IT IS A HYPOTHESIS. If you have another hypothesis which also predicts an acceleration, please state it. (Note: you've already stated the "EM did it" hypothesis. We have ruled out the "EM did it" hypothesis by doing the actual EM calculations that you're presently ignoring.)
 
Michael Mozina said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

We know that a cosmological EM field does not explain the increase in the expansion of the universe
  • It acts to reduce the expansion of the universe.
  • The EM field decreases as the universe expands.
If a cosmological EM field existed at the strength of dark energy then a back of the envelope calculation has been posting showing that that it will quickly accelerate free electrons to relativistic speeds.
 
Last edited:
DSo said:
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.
Click to expand...

His analogy is so "wrong", and such a cartoon characterization of what I've been trying to describe, it's hard to even know where to start. First of all, what I'm proposing is not some "off in the distance magnetic field" pushing things apart. I'm talking about material objects being embedded *IN* an expanding/moving particle/EM field that is full of charged moving particles, that equate to "current flow" at near light speed. The field itself if "all pervasive" and expanding.

Try this analogy. Think of "normal matter" as being embedded on a "wave" of a growing, accelerating EM field. As the field itself expands, so do the material objects that are embedded in the wave.
 
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those cosmic rays have a "charge", and they are moving, and they therefore generate a magnetic field around the 'current flow' RC. Magnetic fields in light plasma are not sterile tangible things as your industry portrays them. They are *ELECTRO*magnetic fields in space, not "magnetic fields" without the presence of moving charged particles!

You guys dream up "magic magnets" that do things normal magnets do not do, namely disconnect and reconnect from any other magnetic line. You don't comprehend that in order to have all those powerful magnetic fields, you must also have "current flow' to sustain them, particularly in light plasmas, where solids cannot even factor into the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's somewhere between wrong and right, and if this were an oral exam the examiner would be going in for the kill---but it doesn't make any difference at this point. Funny that absolutely nothing in MM's previous "arguments" has had anything to do with this sort of field. Perratt's galaxy model? Nonrelativistic sources, large-scale quasistatic fields. Birkeland's terella, the supposedly perfect demo model for anything with linear structure? Nonrelativistic sources, large-scale static fields. Solar winds and flares---MM's favorite examples of "EM accelerates things"---large scale quasistatic fields, nonrelativistic particles, coherent source currents.

So, what, are you throwing out those other fields in favor of this new ideal gas field? Which one is your actual hypothesis? (predicted answer: "I figured if I mentioned some sort of field that exerted some sort of force, that ought to be good enough.")

Gases don't typically blow by at near light speed ben.
Click to expand...

The particle collection you described has an ideal gas equation of state. The "near light speed" business means that the temperature of this particular ideal gas is very high.

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).
Click to expand...

SOME effects, yes. Would you like me to tell you what these effects are? You can figure them out using the ideal gas equation of state.

Moreover, it predicts some effects and not others. Would you like me to tell you what effects you do not get from a relativistic ideal gas? You do NOT get central-force equivalence-principle acceleration in galaxies; you do NOT get central-force equivalence-principle acceleration in clusters; you do NOT get isotropic accelerating expansion of large scale structure.
 
tusenfem said:
My goodness, please go to Utrecht University and take the course on plasma astrophysics, you'll have currents come out of your nose.
Click to expand...

Then why the hell do you call "circuit reconnection/induction", "magnetic reconnection"?

E.g. my master's thesis:
Magnetic flares near accreting black holes (pdf free available)
Click to expand...

The fact you didn't call them *ELECTRO*magnetic flares speaks volumes about your biases. The strength of solar flares directly relates to the current flow through those 'magnetic ropes' that Alfven described as "circuits".

Alfven also called '"magnetic reconnection' a form of "pseudoscience', because it's "pseudo-correct". Circuits reconnect, not magnetic lines! If you understood currents in plasma, you wouldn't be stuck in the B orientation when Alfven clearly and intentionally switched to the E orientation in all things related to light space plasmas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom