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

ben m said:
Yes, that's exactly what Sol and I and everyone have been telling you over and over. I am curious as to what you think the difference is.
Click to expand...

Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I would have absolutely no trouble at all with sticking anything 'real/empirical' into that constant/function related to GR. In other words, I'd have no trouble at all allowing someone to put MHD equations into that constant. Anything that is actually "real" and "exists" is a reasonable way to attempt to explain the expansion. Simply stuffing our ignorance with magic energies isn't an "empirical solution", it's a "make believe" solution that evidently defies empirical testing in a lab on Earth or anywhere humans can travel.
Click to expand...

I am asking you to run the experiment yourself. Can you set it up for us and perform it? You have to be able to do that to demonstrate that your theory is right.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let me ask you a philosophical question PS. What scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills?
Click to expand...
That is easy to answer so I can answer for PS - none.
The point about your personal math skills is that:
  • If you have inadequate math skills then you cannot comment on the mathematical results of people who do have them. You have no idea about the correctness of the many texbooks that do the fairly simple calculation that a positive cosmological constant results in a negative pressure. You have no idea about the correctness of the math in any scientific paper or textbook.
    You will have to rely on the math skills of people who do have the skills and cite them, e.g. the many people who must have proved that the positive cosmological constant results in a positive pressure.
  • If you do have math skills adequate enough to do the calculations then do them.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What difference does it make if I personally bark math on command around here? What would be the point of doing that when everyone knows that they're simply looking for some flaw to criticize my personal math skills.
Click to expand...

Listen Michael: we know you can't do any of the math associated with physics. You can't do any of the math that shows whether EU is right or wrong (it turns out to be wrong). I have done the math that shows it is wrong. IF you would do the math you will ALSO see that it is wrong---that's why we want you to do it, do you see?

If you can do something with the math that is different than what I did---different initial conditions, for example---then we could use this math to find a basis for a more-interesting discussion of astrophysics and cosmology. If you continue NOT doing the math, it appears that you will have nothing to say but the exact same things you've been saying for 5 years, i.e. the things I've already done the math on.

See? Math helps us move away from wrong things towards right things.

Ditto for cosmology. You can't do any of the math yourself, on command or otherwise. But you seem willing to guess that Sol, myself, RC, and furthermore Einstein, de Sitter, Lemaitre, Eddington, etc., screwed up this math. You're willing to guess this even in the face of an equation sitting right in front of you begging you to solve it, whereupon you will get the same answers everyone else does. If you continue NOT doing this math, you will stop repeating the stupid guesses that you've been repeating for the past five years, or the new stupid guesses that you appear to make up when cornered. If you DO do the math maybe you will move on.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?
Click to expand...
The ignorance continues.
Einstein assumed that universe was static in 1915.
Science has progressed in the last 95 years. The evidence (since 1929!)is that the universe is expanding and that the rate of the expansion is increasing (since 1998).

Do you uderstand that 1998 happened after 1929 and that 1929 happened after 1915?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So what? When did he claim a "vacuum" contained "negative pressure"
Click to expand...

When he hypothesized that one of the gravitational source terms, lambda, had dE/dV > 0. We're going to keep giving you that answer, MM, because that's what negative pressure means.

I would be happy to have a intelligent discussion of the subtleties of the EFE---does lambda belong on the left side of the equation (where it looks like a weird geometry, and where Einstein initially wrote it) or via trivial algebra on the right (where Zeldovich and later authors put it, and where it looks like negative pressure)?---but you have not shown any indication that you're looking for an intelligent discussion of this equation.

and try to use a vacuum to suck a mass body apart? They aren't even related.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Michael Mozina said:
Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, MM, given that you've ignored the other eight explanations of this, I doubt that I can help by adding a 9th.

The equation is right in front of you, exactly as Einstein wrote it. Look at it. What does the lambda term do? What does the rho term do? Add them up and what's the net effect?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Do you mean *besides* the fact that Einsteins universe was "static" and yous is not only expanding, it's accelerating as well? You don't see any difference between a static universe and one accelerates off into the sunset?
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to, Michael?

Michael Mozina said:
So what? When did he claim a "vacuum" contained "negative pressure" and try to use a vacuum to suck a mass body apart? They aren't even related.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :eek: :eek: :eek:

Dear god.
 
"A vacuum".... it's actually kind of sad.

Get help, Michael. Seriously. You need to wake up and let go of physics.

If anyone sane is interested in what Einstein was thinking, here is something worth reading. Evidently in his 1917 paper he didn't bother to write down the equation I posted above, which is why he didn't immediately notice the instability (although it's still a bit surprising, since it's physically rather obvious why it's there). Regardless, very shortly after publication of his paper he certainly knew about it from de Sitter's 1917 paper (which he is quoted commenting on in a letter written in 1923).
 
What is "Empirical" Science? IV

Michael Mozina said:
Be careful you aren't just letting the "consensus" convince you it's not necessary to have a empirical demonstration.
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
Precisely define "empirical demonstration".
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Any 'controlled experiment' where your invisible friends show up and do something will do.
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Nothing. Notice the word *controlled* however. That seems to be the one thing your folks seem to ignore in all your "experiments". What you folks tend to call an experiment has no control mechanism. Whereas Birkeland's experiments with electricity and magnetism had all sorts of real, honest to goodness control mechanisms, you folks ignore the need for them entirely as it relates to determining cause/effect relationships. Where do I get a quantity of dark energy or inflation? How do I "control" that source in a real science experiment here on Earth?
Click to expand...
Your little tirade is 100% irrelevant because there is not, and should not be, any requirement for a controlled laboratory experiment. It has nothing at all to do with dark energy, a cosmological constant, or the accelerating expansion of the universe.

You skipped over the relevant point of my last post:

Tim Thompson said:
Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?
Click to expand...
The controls of a controlled experiment are a detriment, not an advantage, in understanding most natural systems. The environment of a controlled laboratory experiment is invariably restricted to a small subset of the phenomena that occur simultaneously in nature. Controlled laboratory experiments are of limited value in understanding weather & climate because nature is simply too complex to reproduce in any physical laboratory. So, we need to observe the real weather in the real environment, nature in situ, and interpret what we see in terms of the physics we understand.

Astrophysics and cosmology work the same way. We can only understand such vast & complicated systems by observing their behavior, and interpreting what we see in the context of the physics we know. And when the physics that we know runs out, then we appeal to new physics to solve the problem. Or maybe you are going to claim now that we already know all of the physics that will ever be discovered? Your constant tirades against ever appealing to the new when the old fails is simply too stupid to respect.

And you also forgot about this:
Tim Thompson said:
Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary
Click to expand...
I repeat the question: Why do you insist that "empirical" demands only controlled laboratory experiments, when the rest of the world does not?
 
Tim Thompson said:
The controls of a controlled experiment are a detriment, not an advantage, in understanding most natural systems. The environment of a controlled laboratory experiment is invariably restricted to a small subset of the phenomena that occur simultaneously in nature. Controlled laboratory experiments are of limited value in understanding weather & climate because nature is simply too complex to reproduce in any physical laboratory. So, we need to observe the real weather in the real environment, nature in situ, and interpret what we see in terms of the physics we understand.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that lab based experiments can, at times, be less controlled than observations. How "controlled" are hadron colliders for example?
 
Reality Check said:
The evidence (since 1929!)is that the universe is expanding and that the rate of the expansion is increasing (since 1998).
Click to expand...

[Mildly amusing side note]
When I first read this I thought you were saying the rate of expansion started increasing in 1998.
[/Mildly amusing side note]
 
sol invictus said:
It's one thing to lie when your lie isn't easy to check. It's another to lie when the record is sitting right there on the same page in black and white. So to answer my own question, it makes you look like a fool.
Click to expand...


I'm still amused how someone can translate:
A diagram from wikipedia (which is wrong for the reason I explained a few posts ago). With little explanation of what anything in it means. Is that ALL you have?
Click to expand...

as
So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let me ask you a philosophical question PS. What scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills? Why would it be necessary for me personally to do anything other than provide the relevant scientific papers and sources on various scientific topics? When debating young earth creationists, I don't make it a point to go out and dig up various fossils myself and carbon date them personally in my garage. I don't try to explain every mathematical formula in a carbon dating paper to a "disbeliever". Even *if* I had a personal inability to explain the math to the ''disbeliever", the validity of the science and the math would not rise or fall on my personal math skills.

What difference does it make if I personally bark math on command around here? What would be the point of doing that when everyone knows that they're simply looking for some flaw to criticize my personal math skills. It would detract from the topic, and it would do nothing to resolve the basic debate. What's the point of me barking math when Einstein did that already in GR, Alfven did that in MHD theory and far better mathematicians have done that for every scientific topic under the sun?

Let's turn the tables here and suppose I was defending the validity of carbon dating techniques to a bunch of young earth creationists. Would you still think my personal math skills were relevant in some way?
Click to expand...

If you were debating the magnitude of voltage and impedance in a capacative circuit you would look at equations like:

vG = (vR² + vC²)½

and

XC = 1/2πfC

You would then take measurements to confirm your theory and see who is right. I don't see this as a mere demonstration of math skills; it is simply the only way to communicate about RC circuits. Similarly, regarding cosmology, you are in an arena here that involves mathematical equations. How else can you have a discussion?
 
Tubbythin said:
I'm still amused how someone can translate:


as
Click to expand...

How about this one?

300px-Casimir_plates_bubbles.svg.png


Notice the blue foamy bubbles are bigger on the outside than the inside? How about that diagram? Is it right or wrong?
 
Michael Mozina said:
How about this one?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Casimir_plates_bubbles.svg/300px-Casimir_plates_bubbles.svg.png[/qimg]

Notice the blue foamy bubbles are bigger on the outside than the inside? How about that diagram? Is it right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Its a bit...erm...vague.
 
Tubbythin said:
Its a bit...erm...vague.
Click to expand...

Only because you'd have to say 'it's wrong too' if it wasn't "vague" from your perspective. :) Funny how the blue stuff is everywhere in the chamber and there is simply "less of it" between the plates than on the outside. That's not very "vague" if you ask me.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Only because you'd have to say 'it's wrong too' if it wasn't "vague" from your perspective. :) Funny how the blue stuff is everywhere in the chamber and there is simply "less of it" between the plates than on the outside. That's not very "vague" if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Hmm. "Foamy bubbles". And "blue stuff". I think you've rather excellently proved my point.
 
Tubbythin said:
Hmm. "Foamy bubbles". And "blue stuff". I think you've rather excellently proved my point.
Click to expand...

The only thing you've demonstrated is that you have a problem with *BOTH* diagrams not just one of them. That's actually the third one I presented for you, but the other one had nothing to do with Wiki as I recall.

It's not just A diagram you have a problem with.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only thing you've demonstrated is that you have a problem with *BOTH* diagrams not just one of them. That's actually the third one I presented for you, but the other one had nothing to do with Wiki as I recall.

It's not just A diagram you have a problem with.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is more than one diagram in wikipedia that is wrong. And more than one that is vague. But can you tell me what the "foamy bubbles" are meant to be? If so, why are you referring to them as "foamy bubbles" (I don't recall Casimir ever including anything about "foamy bubbles" in his calculation)? If not, then the diagram is clearly to vague to even assess whether it is right or wrong.
The previous diagram, on the other hand, I have given a clear reason why it is wrong. A reason that you have not once attempted to address.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only thing you've demonstrated is that you have a problem with *BOTH* diagrams not just one of them. That's actually the third one I presented for you, but the other one had nothing to do with Wiki as I recall.

It's not just A diagram you have a problem with.
Click to expand...


I think his point was that real scientists don't engage in looks-like-a-bunny science for the very reason you've demonstrated so often and so clearly here. The reason being that it has such a high likelihood of resulting in the kind of complete failure you've achieved here.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Expansion can occur without "negative pressure in a vacuum" as the sun demonstrates every single day dude.
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for illustrating my point in such a timely fashion: you really don't seem to know the difference between "expansion" (da/dt), the rate of increase of the size of the Universe, and "acceleration" (d^2a/dt^2), the rate of increase of that rate. Expansion and acceleration are totally different things; Hubble observed expansion (but neither acceleration nor deceleration); Permutter and Riess et. al. expected to see deceleration of the expansion but instead saw acceleration.

Acceleration occurs in many small systems: nuclear bombs, internal combustion engines, my lungs, piezoelectric crystals, ice, supernovae, and so on---mediated by short range forces like the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, or Pauli exclusion. The observed long-range acceleration of galaxies is NOT driven by the strong nuclear force, nor the weak nuclear force, nor electromagnetism. The only thing left is gravity.

Fortunately gravity (i.e. GR) is very good at producing this acceleration---indeed, at exactly this observed, isotropic, weak-equivalence-obeying acceleration---if there is a cosmological constant (or something much like it.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Evidently you and ben. Einstein's constant was intentionally put there to explain a universe that neither expanded nor contracted.
Click to expand...

Maybe you will fill in my blank eventually. The NET cosmic acceleration in Einstein's equation is zero. This comes from the sum of two terms. The mass term obviously produces deceleration. The cosmological constant term produces ________. Einstein said, then, that deceleration + ______ = zero.

Fill in the blank already.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How about this one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...bles.svg/300px-Casimir_plates_bubbles.svg.png

Notice the blue foamy bubbles are bigger on the outside than the inside? How about that diagram? Is it right or wrong?
Click to expand...
It is right as a illustration of "Casimir forces on parallel plates" as the caption states. But the caption does not state what the blue foamy bubbles are. My guess - vacuum fluctuations considered as virtual particles.

Of course it is also wrong as far as you are concerned. You only know about gas pressure. There is no indication in the diagram that the bubbles are moving or that they are impacting the plates.

Also:
  1. The diagram has nothing to do with the calculation of the pressure exerted by the Casimir effect.
    That calculation results in values of pressure that are negative. Scientists call this negative pressure.
  2. The diagram has nothing to do with the measurement of the pressure exerted by the Casimir effect in experiments. Those measurement measure negative pressure.
 
A high school physics assignment for Micheal Mozina

A high school physics assignment for you:

First asked 3 February 2010
Calculate the pressure caused by the big blue arrows on the left hand plate. Assume that the force is F1.
Calculate the pressure caused by the small blue arrows on the left hand plate. Assume that the force is F2.
Calculate the pressure caused by the big blue arrows on the right hand plate. Assume that the force is F1.
Calculate the pressure caused by the small blue arrows on the right hand plate. Assume that the force is F2.

Remember that a force that points in the opposite direction to another has an opposite magnitude, e.g. if the first force has a positive value then the second force has a negative value. So you will have to set a convention about how to determine this, e.g. forces pointing to the right are positive.
N.B. Apply the same convention to both plates.

Your math skills should be up to this as it just requires the basics.
 
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Let me ask you a philosophical question PS. What scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills? Why would it be necessary for me personally to do anything other than provide the relevant scientific papers and sources on various scientific topics? When debating young earth creationists, I don't make it a point to go out and dig up various fossils myself and carbon date them personally in my garage. I don't try to explain every mathematical formula in a carbon dating paper to a "disbeliever". Even *if* I had a personal inability to explain the math to the ''disbeliever", the validity of the science and the math would not rise or fall on my personal math skills.

What difference does it make if I personally bark math on command around here? What would be the point of doing that when everyone knows that they're simply looking for some flaw to criticize my personal math skills. It would detract from the topic, and it would do nothing to resolve the basic debate. What's the point of me barking math when Einstein did that already in GR, Alfven did that in MHD theory and far better mathematicians have done that for every scientific topic under the sun?

Let's turn the tables here and suppose I was defending the validity of carbon dating techniques to a bunch of young earth creationists. Would you still think my personal math skills were relevant in some way?
Click to expand...
If you were debating the magnitude of voltage and impedance in a capacative circuit you would look at equations like:

vG = (vR² + vC²)½

and

XC = 1/2πfC

You would then take measurements to confirm your theory and see who is right. I don't see this as a mere demonstration of math skills; it is simply the only way to communicate about RC circuits. Similarly, regarding cosmology, you are in an arena here that involves mathematical equations. How else can you have a discussion?
Click to expand...

You have no response for my point above. You see, in this Casimir effect debate, instead of discussing the mathematics of the issue, you rely on an artist's imperfect cartoon meant as a didactic tool for laypeople. Are you seriously presenting this as evidence of something? An artist's cartoon?
What about sol's question:

[latex]$({\dot a \over a})^2 = {8 \pi G \over 3} (\rho_m + \rho_\Lambda) - {1 \over a^2}$[/latex],

and:

[latex]$T_{\mu \nu}$[/latex]

Are you going to respond to those questions or not? This is modern physics, utterly dependent on mathematics, it's not the touchy/feely picture word of the Hittites.
 
ben m said:
For the love of God MM---what other pressure would it have? The CC is in there as a constant energy density (LOOK AT THE EQUATION YOURSELF) with dE/dV > 0 (TAKE THE DERIVATIVE YOURSELF). That's the beginning, the middle, and the end of what we mean by "negative pressure", as we've been saying since day one. You don't need to look for tea leaves in the literature to figure it out.

Any other meaning you give to the word "pressure"---"momentum transfer from particles hitting a wall" etc.---is utterly irrelevant in the context of gravity.
Click to expand...

I think this is one basic difference between what you guys are saying with the math and what MM has modeled in his mind. Every single time negative pressure and vacuum come up MM says there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, which makes me think he's got a kinetic atoms bashing or EM pushing model in his head. When he says vacuum and you say vacuum I don't think you are syncing up.

Like in the Lambda-CDM thread we were discussing what the maximum theoretical pressure would be in an Casimir effect experiment as you brought the plates closer together and he said 1 atmosphere...
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
Click to expand...

Now I'm not saying that there is no correspondence whatsoever between the ideas of quantum foam and the Casimir effect, but I don't really see how it'd be relevant in the Casimir diagram:

Wikipedia said:
Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposedly the foundations of the fabric of the universe,[1] but it can also be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that it is the long wavelengths that are not present between the plates. So in a typical experiment that is things the order of a micrometre. That makes a difference in scale between the relevant wavelengths and the quantum foam of ~ 1029 ie that's a factor of a hundred billion billion.

For what its worth (not very much IMHO), the wikipedia article also says:
The "foamy" spacetime would look like a complex turbulent storm-tossed sea.
Click to expand...
which is nothing whatsoever like the wikipedia diagram.
 
You'll need to be patient PS, it's slamming at work. I'll get to your post.

I think it's more than a little unfair to refer to an artists drawing or rendition as a "cartoon". Both diagrams correctly demonstrate the EM forces from the perspective of QM. Sometimes a drawing can give a lot more accurate information than an oversimplified math formula PS!
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
First of all, thank you for illustrating my point in such a timely fashion: you really don't seem to know the difference between "expansion" (da/dt), the rate of increase of the size of the Universe, and "acceleration" (d^2a/dt^2), the rate of increase of that rate.
Click to expand...

Oh boloney. The bottom line is that Einstein's introduction of his constant was not intended (by him) to generate either expansion(velocity) or acceleration, but rather to to create a "static" universe that neither expanded or contracted. He made a mistake in the original paper, and it was *NOT* stable as written, but that was his original intent.

http://www.google.com/search?q=static+universe+einstein
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Oh boloney. The bottom line is that Einstein's introduction of his constant was not intended (by him) to generate either expansion(velocity) or acceleration, but rather to to create a "static" universe that neither expanded or contracted.
Click to expand...

And again, for the third time, the answer is the answer to my fill-in-the-blank question. I didn't ask that to distract you, I asked it so you'd fill in the blank and understand the answer.

Have you filled in the blank yet?
 
temporalillusion said:
I think this is one basic difference between what you guys are saying with the math and what MM has modeled in his mind.
Click to expand...

No, in this case there is a difference between the mathematical model (a highly oversimplified math formula) that they are using, and the actual physics that occurs inside the chamber.

The "negative pressure" found in their math formula is an entirely "relative" number (to one surface of the plate), not an "absolute" measurement of pressure in the chamber. That's the basic problem in a nutshell.

It's just like that wing analogy I used earlier. Yes, we could create a math formula to describe lift that was relative to the top side of the wing and used a "negative pressure" term in the formula. *NO*, that "minus sign" doesn't really mean that there is "negative pressure" on the top of the wing. It means that there is *LESS PRESSURE* on the top of the wing than the pressure below the wing. Likewise in this analogy, the mathematical formula relates to a single side of the plate, and therefore it has a "minus sign" in the formula. That has nothing to do with the absolute pressure in the chamber due to atoms, *AND* the EM field, both of which put "pressure" on every side of every plate, just more pressure on some sides than on others. That is why the effect is a *GEOMETRICALLY* driven process and can create both attraction *AND* repulsion between the plates!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom