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

Perpetual Student said:
MM:

Either your answers were intentionally evasive or perhaps I failed in making my question clear. I was not asking about auroras, coronal loops, weather patterns, the behavior of comet tails or the solar wind. I was asking about the orbital motion of the solid objects in the solar system. Specifically, the orbit of mars, for example, can be fully accounted for by gravity -- taking into account all the gravitational influences on mars of all the other solid bodies in the solar system. The orbit of mars is in no way influenced by any EM forces. Is that not correct?
Click to expand...

No, that is incorrect IMO. While the 'pressure' from solar wind against the Earth's magnetosphere is certainly minuscule compared to the effects of gravity, it is not 'non existent'.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMMAGK26DF_index_0.html
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html

I would encourage you to watch that video about Venus losing it's atmosphere, and to watch a few of the ACE movies since they will most clearly demonstrate what I mean. You can sort of tell from the ACE still images, but the change over time in the movies is more "dramatic" and makes it easier to see what I'm talking about. The solar wind does in fact push against the magnetosphere of the Earth. While that outward (from the sun) "push" is small, it is not zero. Likewise, the effect on a comet is not not zero or the tail would not point away from the sun. The "pressure" is quite real, but very small.

So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?
Click to expand...

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.

Let's turn the tables now and explain to me why we do not see any sort of expansive "pressure" from "dark energy" inside our solar system?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It seems to me like your last line of defense is a "liar liar" approach that backfired miserably on you last time. I guess now all you have left is the ever infamous personal attack. Yawn......
Click to expand...

I'm actually not sure you're a liar. Most of what you say is false, even when you're making easily-checked assertions about other poster's positions or claims. But I no longer think that's actually lying... instead, I've come to believe that your mental disability is to severe that you simply don't realize that what you're saying is untrue, even when it's obvious to everyone else.

In other words you may really believe what you say, despite the fact that it is trivially falsifiable. You simply can't face facts that run contrary to your belief system - your mind won't let you absorb them. The risk to you is just too great.

Of course I could be wrong about this diagnosis, I'm certainly not an expert on psychology. But I've been observing your pattern for quite some time now, and it's very clear. It's also very clear that whatever the root of the problem is, you're completely trapped by it with no obvious escape route.

That's why I think that for your own good the best thing you can do is take a break for a long time. Stop posting about physics, stop thinking about the iron sun, just do something else for a while. Then, after a few months or a year, try coming back to it and see if you still see things in the same way, or still want to be involved in this. It's not going to be easy, you're very badly addicted, but you'll be much better off in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Perpetual Student said:
So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?
Click to expand...

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.
Click to expand...


Your answer is we do see them. I'm sure you can provide some quantitative support for your claim. Or is that just another unsupported assertion like so much of the other crap you say?
 
sol invictus said:
I'm actually not sure you're a liar. Most of what you say is false, even when you're making easily-checked assertions about other poster's positions or claims. But I no longer think that's actually lying... instead, I've come to believe that your mental disability is to severe that you simply don't realize that what you're saying is untrue, even when it's obvious to everyone else.

In other words you may really believe what you say, despite the fact that it is trivially falsifiable. You simply can't face facts that run contrary to your belief system - your mind won't let you absorb them. The risk to you is just too great.

Of course I could be wrong about this diagnosis, I'm certainly not an expert on psychology. But I've been observing your pattern for quite some time now, and it's very clear. It's also very clear that whatever the root of the problem is, you're completely trapped by it with no obvious escape route.

That's why I think that for your own good the best thing you can do is take a break for a long time. Stop posting about physics, stop thinking about the iron sun, just do something else for a while. Then, after a few months or a year, try coming back to it and see if you still see things in the same way, or still want to be involved in this. It's not going to be easy, you're very badly addicted, but you'll be much better off in the long run.
Click to expand...

Thank you Sigmond Fraud. :)

You do of course realize that your answer to my my previous question flies directly in the face of empirical fact don't you? The solar wind particles do not "decelerate" sol, they "accelerate" up to a comfortable cruising speed and pretty much stay that way till they hit the heliosphere. Your notion of needing "negative pressure' to generate "acceleration and expansion of matter' is simply not the case.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Your answer is we do see them. I'm sure you can provide some quantitative support for your claim. Or is that just another unsupported assertion like so much of the other crap you say?
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to watch the video there Dr Denial?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You do of course realize that your answer to my my previous question flies directly in the face of empirical fact don't you? The solar wind particles do not "decelerate" sol, they "accelerate" up to a comfortable cruising speed and pretty much stay that way till they hit the heliosphere. Your notion of needing "negative pressure' to generate "acceleration and expansion of matter' is simply not the case.
Click to expand...

That's actually completely consistent with what I said. You don't know that, because you don't understand what I said.

Bye now Michael.
 
Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant IV

Perpetual Student said:
Specifically, the orbit of mars, for example, can be fully accounted for by gravity -- taking into account all the gravitational influences on mars of all the other solid bodies in the solar system. The orbit of mars is in no way influenced by any EM forces. Is that not correct?
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
No, that is incorrect IMO. ...
Click to expand...
While it is true in the absolute sense that the orbit of Mars is affected by electromagnetic effects, it is also true that the effect is in fact too small to measure. So in the practical sense of the question, we cannot see the electromagnetic effects on the orbit of anything as massive as Mars, and will not see it even over long time integrations, where simple noise, either physical or numerical, will overwhelm any presumed electromagnetic effect. This includes the physical drag of the solar wind. However, the physical drag of the stellar wind from other types of star, AGB stars for instance, can significantly alter the orbits of massive planets even over astronomically short periods of time (see my article "Final Destiny" in the February 2010 Los Angeles Astronomical Society Bulletin, a reprint from April 2007).

Perpetual Student said:
So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.
Click to expand...
We do not in fact see them at all for planetary mass bodies, but we do see them for smaller bodies. Dust in the solar system is significantly affected by solar wind, and even solar radiation pressure (the Poynting-Robertson effect). Larger bodies like asteroids are too massive to be measurably affected by Poynting-Robertson drag, but are measurably affected by the momentum of their thermal emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation (the Yarkovsky effect and the YORP effect). Both of these are accounted for in long time integrations of asteroid orbits. But these effects are only significant in the presence of the photon flux from a nearby star. Out in the big empty of interstellar space inside the galaxy, and even more so in intergalactic space, these effects are too small to measure, and too local to be of cosmological significance.

Michael Mozina said:
Let's turn the tables now and explain to me why we do not see any sort of expansive "pressure" from "dark energy" inside our solar system?
Click to expand...
Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To saying that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.

Even in the presence of dark energy and an accelerated expansion of the universe, as long as the acceleration has the characteristic of a cosmological constant, it is evident that gravitationally bound structures do not expand with the rest of the universe (e.g, Chuieh & He, 2002 and citations thereto). So we would expect dark energy to be invisible within the confines not only of the solar system, or the Milky Way, but even within the local group of galaxies (Krauss & Scherrer, 2007).
 
[bah forget it]

Tim Thompson said:
Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles[, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To saying that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.
Click to expand...


Yes you put it better than me in the magnetic reconnection thread, I was just seeing it from different parts of the wave-particle duality spectrum. Denying a fields existance due to the particle kind of forgets the whole point of wave particle duality, schoolboy error.

And the cosmological constant could be effected by EM forces, many of alfvens models and other papers propose currents of such magnitude.

Theres this too:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2
Conventional cosmology hypothesizes that the universe, on a large scale, is isotropic. Yet this year, evidence has shown large-scale anisotropies in measurements other than that of the CBR. Michael J. Longo showed that spiral galaxies tend to spiral more in one direction than another, possibly implying a large scale magnetic field in region some 350 Mpc across. The alignment of the spins seems to point in direction close to that defined by anisotropies in the CBR.

There is also an asymmetry in the Hubble expansion, or in the velocities of galaxies within an even large volume, some 600 Mpc or more across. First Megan L. McClure and C. C. Dyer, and then Dominik J. Schwarz and Bastian Weinhorst used supernova data to find that the Hubble constant is about 10% lower in some directions than in others, implying either an asymmetry in the process that creates the Hubble redshift, or velocities for galaxies of up to 3,000 km/sec.

Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field?

Authors: Michael J. Longo
Click to expand...


And a nice exercise I find for papers like this is count the nouns in it. The higher the more measurable real wold things are in it and the more wothwhile the paper is. The less the more theoretical.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18..809P
The Eddington Lagrangian in the purely affine formulation of general relativity generates the Einstein equations with the cosmological constant. The Ferraris-Kijowski purely affine Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field, which has the form of the Maxwell Lagrangian with the metric tensor replaced by the symmetrized Ricci tensor, is dynamically equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian in the metric formulation. We show that the sum of the two affine Lagrangians is dynamically inequivalent to the sum of the analogous Lagrangians in the metric-affine/metric formulation. We also show that such a construction is valid only for weak electromagnetic fields. Therefore the purely affine formulation that combines gravitation, electromagnetism and the cosmological constant cannot be a simple sum of terms corresponding to separate fields. Consequently, this formulation of electromagnetism seems to be unphysical, unlike the purely metric and metric-affine pictures, unless the electromagnetic field couples to the cosmological constant.
Click to expand...


Not many nouns there :) And it suggests a coupling of the EM field to the cosmological constant.
 
Last edited:
Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism V

Zeuzzz said:
There's this too:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2
Click to expand...
That's Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field, a preprint which was never published off the arXiv server. However, see Galaxy Zoo: the large-scale spin statistics of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which argues that Longo's statistics are wrong and that his claim for systematic alignment of galaxy spins is fictitious.

Zeuzzz said:
And a nice exercise I find for papers like this is count the nouns in it. The higher the more measurable real wold things are in it and the more wothwhile the paper is. The less the more theoretical.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18..809P Not many nouns there :) And it suggests a coupling of the EM field to the cosmological constant.
Click to expand...
Ah, but carefully check the abstract: The Eddington Lagrangian in the purely affine formulation of general relativity generates the Einstein equations with the cosmological constant. The Ferraris-Kijowski purely affine Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field, which has the form of the Maxwell Lagrangian with the metric tensor replaced by the symmetrized Ricci tensor, is dynamically equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian in the metric formulation. We show that the sum of the two affine Lagrangians is dynamically inequivalent to the sum of the analogous Lagrangians in the metric-affine/metric formulation. We also show that such a construction is valid only for weak electromagnetic fields. Therefore the purely affine formulation that combines gravitation, electromagnetism and the cosmological constant cannot be a simple sum of terms corresponding to separate fields. Consequently, this formulation of electromagnetism seems to be unphysical, unlike the purely metric and metric-affine pictures, unless the electromagnetic field couples to the cosmological constant.

What it suggests is that the formulation under study is in fact "unphysical", unless the electromagnetic field couples to the cosmological constant. This does not suggest a coupling of the EM field to the cosmological constant, but rather hopes for one, in order to save their formulation of electromagnetism.

Meanwhile, note my earlier post: What is "dark energy", really? (16 Jan 2010) wherein I note that while dark energy (which is synonymous with "cosmological constant" for the purposes of this discussion) cannot be classical electromagnetism, there does appear to be a way to get quantum electrodynamics to do the job. So there maybe an EM interpretation for the cosmological constant, it's just not the usual type.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, that is incorrect IMO. While the 'pressure' from solar wind against the Earth's magnetosphere is certainly minuscule compared to the effects of gravity, it is not 'non existent'.

...

The solar wind does in fact push against the magnetosphere of the Earth. While that outward (from the sun) "push" is small, it is not zero. Likewise, the effect on a comet is not not zero or the tail would not point away from the sun. The "pressure" is quite real, but very small.
Click to expand...

... exactly as you'd expect from normal electromagnetism. The same normal electromagnetism that tells you how large the force on a solar wind ion is, and the same normal electromagnetism that tells you how inutterably tiny the force on large objects is.

You keep trying to support your position by linking to examples of the exact tiny forces we've been talking about, in agreement with the same force laws that forbid cosmological EM effects. I'd be like my saying, "Your car will explode if it is hit by a feather. To prove my point, here is a video in which a feather knocks over a dust bunny and a dead mosquito."

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's the opposite. EM fields are strongest nearest their sources---there's a 1/r^2 in Coulomb's Law and a 1/r^3, effectively, in the Biot-Savart law. How many times have we posted the actual electromagnetic field equations including this distance effect? You're still wishing it away.

Let's turn the tables now and explain to me why we do not see any sort of expansive "pressure" from "dark energy" inside our solar system?
Click to expand...

Because we look at how dark energy actually behaves (you've seen the equation 10 times now) and calculate its actual GR effect on the solar system (you've seen the calculation already) and rely on that. We do not sort of vaguely dream up "some sort of expansive pressure" and then vaguely look for it; this is physics. GR predicts that dark energy, if it exists, has a negligible effect within the Solar System. Do you think GR is getting this prediction wrong?
 
Tim Thompson said:
While it is true in the absolute sense that the orbit of Mars is affected by electromagnetic effects, it is also true that the effect is in fact too small to measure. So in the practical sense of the question, we cannot see the electromagnetic effects on the orbit of anything as massive as Mars, and will not see it even over long time integrations, where simple noise, either physical or numerical, will overwhelm any presumed electromagnetic effect.
........

Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field.
Click to expand...

You don't see the irony of busting my chops because the effect of the EM field is small but visible, but you also give yourself a free pass as it relates to "dark energy" because the effect is "small" inside a solar system?

Essentially the EM field in the solar system is doing exactly what you claim "dark energy" does. It "pushes" against physical objects, even going so far as to blow atmosphere off the planets. It accelerates mass. It has a "small" but noticeable effect inside the solar system. The EM field in this solar system is doing everything you're chalking up to "dark energy" at approximately the same "small scale" you expected to get from "dark energy". Care to explain why these aren't exactly the same processes?

You can't bitch at me because the effect is small and then give yourself a free pass entirely! Where's the small but noticeable effect of "dark energy" inside the solar system if 70 plus percent of the universe is "dark energy"?
 
ben m said:
... exactly as you'd expect from normal electromagnetism. The same normal electromagnetism that tells you how large the force on a solar wind ion is, and the same normal electromagnetism that tells you how inutterably tiny the force on large objects is.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what you expected to get from "dark energy" inside a solar system?

You keep trying to support your position by linking to examples of the exact tiny forces we've been talking about, in agreement with the same force laws that forbid cosmological EM effects. I'd be like my saying, "Your car will explode if it is hit by a feather. To prove my point, here is a video in which a feather knocks over a dust bunny and a dead mosquito."
Click to expand...

The irony of course is you're doing exactly the same thing with 'dark energy'. You're claiming the effect is small when mass is present, but it has a larger effect "somewhere out there" where mass is spread real thin. In essence you need something that does exactly what the EM field is doing, specifically providing an acceleration pressure that works against gravity, and has almost no effect in terms of changing orbits of planets and comets, etc.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Isn't that exactly what you expected to get from "dark energy" inside a solar system?
Click to expand...

NO IT IS NOT. How many times have you seen the EFE equation, Michael? Do you think I'm lying when I say "If there is dark energy, GR predicts a negligible effect within the solar system"? Do you think I made a mistake in evaluating GR to make that statement? If you think so, solve it yourself.

The irony of course is you're doing exactly the same thing with 'dark energy'. You're claiming the effect is small when mass is present, but it has a larger effect "somewhere out there" where mass is spread real thin.
Click to expand...

No, I'm claiming that the effect is exactly what GR tells you to expect from a constant vacuum energy density, get it? The effect is not small, as you say, "when mass is present", it's small when you plug a constant vacuum energy density into GR and, in response, GR tells you that it's small.

Again, do you think I'm lying about what GR says? Do you think I made a math mistake? No, you're just saying "Your statements disagree with the mental picture I want to use to discredit you, therefore your statements must be wrong."
 
Michael Mozina said:
The EM field in this solar system is doing everything you're chalking up to "dark energy" at approximately the same "small scale" you expected to get from "dark energy". Care to explain why these aren't exactly the same processes?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the things you see near the Sun are obeying the E&M force laws---large accelerations of light, highly-charged objects, zero acceleration of ultraheavy neutral objects---in the strongish fields close to the Sun. (Are you surprised? We've been over this.) And the E&M force laws tell you that they do not have any effect whatsoever at large distances. (Remember? The effects drop off as 1/r^2 or 1/r^3 or worse. We've been over this. Did you forget?) And the E&M force laws tell you that if they did have any effect at large distances, it wouldn't look a darn thing like the observations. (Remember?)
 
ben m said:
Michael Mozina said:
Isn't that exactly what you expected to get from "dark energy" inside a solar system?
Click to expand...
NO IT IS NOT. How many times have you seen the EFE equation, Michael? Do you think I'm lying when I say "If there is dark energy, GR predicts a negligible effect within the solar system"? Do you think I made a mistake in evaluating GR to make that statement? If you think so, solve it yourself.

Michael Mozina said:
The irony of course is you're doing exactly the same thing with 'dark energy'. You're claiming the effect is small when mass is present, but it has a larger effect "somewhere out there" where mass is spread real thin.
Click to expand...
No, I'm claiming that the effect is exactly what GR tells you to expect from a constant vacuum energy density, get it? The effect is not small, as you say, "when mass is present", it's small when you plug a constant vacuum energy density into GR and, in response, GR tells you that it's small.

Again, do you think I'm lying about what GR says? Do you think I made a math mistake? No, you're just saying "Your statements disagree with the mental picture I want to use to discredit you, therefore your statements must be wrong."
Click to expand...
A rather concise example of why doing physics without getting quantitative is, shall we say, rather limited.

Also yet another example of MM's apparent inability to apply - or even understand - the best theories of gravity and electromagnetism (as "known forces of nature") we have today.
 
MM:

The above series of posts, that was started by my question about the effects of EM forces in the solar system, is quite interesting.
Everyone agrees (including you) that such effects are immeasurably small on planets and moons. The effects that do exist are due to the sun and diminish with the square of the distance away from the sun so that EM forces are even smaller in interstellar space and infinitesimally small in intergalactic space. In contrast, GR accounts for a negligible effect within the solar system but significant effects on cosmological scales. That reality is contained in the following:

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

which I have asked you how well you understand, but you have not yet responded. Is that a fair assessment as to where we stand?
 
A note for those who are interested in the science:
Two weeks ago the WMAP 7 year results were announced. These include
  • The first direct detection of pre-stellar helium.
  • Limits on standard model of cosmology are reduced by 50%
  • A confirmation of the predictions of many inflation models.
  • Srronger constrains on dark energy and geometry of the universe.
 
dark energy is not classical electromagnetism VI

Mozina quotes me as follows ...
Tim Thompson said:
While it is true in the absolute sense that the orbit of Mars is affected by electromagnetic effects, it is also true that the effect is in fact too small to measure. So in the practical sense of the question, we cannot see the electromagnetic effects on the orbit of anything as massive as Mars, and will not see it even over long time integrations, where simple noise, either physical or numerical, will overwhelm any presumed electromagnetic effect.
...
Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field.
Click to expand...
And Mozina continues ...
Michael Mozina said:
You don't see the irony of busting my chops because the effect of the EM field is small but visible, but you also give yourself a free pass as it relates to "dark energy" because the effect is "small" inside a solar system?

Essentially the EM field in the solar system is doing exactly what you claim "dark energy" does. It "pushes" against physical objects, even going so far as to blow atmosphere off the planets. It accelerates mass. It has a "small" but noticeable effect inside the solar system. The EM field in this solar system is doing everything you're chalking up to "dark energy" at approximately the same "small scale" you expected to get from "dark energy". Care to explain why these aren't exactly the same processes?

You can't bitch at me because the effect is small and then give yourself a free pass entirely! Where's the small but noticeable effect of "dark energy" inside the solar system if 70 plus percent of the universe is "dark energy"?
Click to expand...

Now let me be clear about this much: Mozina asks us ... "You don't see the irony of busting my chops because the effect of the EM field is small but visible, but you also give yourself a free pass as it relates to "dark energy" because the effect is "small" inside a solar system?" I don't see any irony at all, because I did no such thing. Look more carefully at what I actually said ...

Tim Thompson said:
Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To say that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.
Click to expand...

I did not give myself a "free pass" on anything, and I certainly did not "bust Mozina's chops" over the fact that electromagnetic effects are small but visible inside the solar system. I "busted Mozina's chops" over the fact that his presumed electromagnetic force must be both cosmological and constant simultaneously. I was quite explicit about saying "To say that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics." I "busted Mozina's chops" because he ignores real physics and invents his own personal version of electromagnetism. The real and only issue at play here, the one for which Mozina has no defense is simply this:

Tim Thompson said:
To say that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy
Click to expand...
 
Energy and the Accelerated Expansion II

I would like to revisit an interesting exchange from late January (back on page 22) ...

Perpetual Student said:
But doesn't acceleration inevitably involve energy?
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
Actually, from the point of view of classical physics (quantum mechanics not allowed), not necessarily (as I have already pointed out elsewhere). One need only look at Einstein's equations to see that the "cosmological constant" is pure geometry. So, if the cosmological constant is the simplest explanation for the accelerating expansion, then it does not involve "energy" at all in any classical sense, but only the pure geometry of space. Hence, "dark energy" may have been an unfortunate choice of words for the name, since energy need not be involved.

Of course, once we try to establish a quantum field theory for the cosmological constant, like vacuum energy or some such thing, then we have energy back in then game as one might expect. It's just not there as an entity of classical physics.
Click to expand...
sol invictus said:
That's not correct. The cosmological constant appears in the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrange density as, well, a constant. If you carry out the integral it you get the 4-volume of spacetime times that constant. In other words including the CC is equivalent to including a constant energy density (note that what I've said has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it's purely classical field theory).

In non-gravitational physics such an energy density wouldn't have any effect (since it's only energy differences that matter, and so a universal additive constant doesn't do anything), but gravity turns out to act on all forms of energy, even constants, and so the CC affects the geometry and can drive acceleration. Without such a term there is no way to achieve an accelerated expansion, because all ordinary forms of matter and energy act to decelerate it.
Click to expand...

Now, I am not an expert in general relativity (GR); I took one survey class as a graduate student and everything else is self taught. My remark about energy and the expansion comes from my understanding of GR, limited as it is, and the fact that a visiting cosmologist (I can't remember who) made the same comment during a lecture at JPL some time before I retired. So at least I can suggest that the matter of energy or geometry in the accelerated expansion of the universe might not be too clear. I will come back to this shortly.

Meanwhile, let us once again look at Einstein's equations ...

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

We see here that the cosmological constant appears as a multiplier of the metric tensor. If we look in the epic tome Gravitation (Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, 1970; page 410) we find their discussion of the introduction of the cosmological constant, and that its dimensions are cm-2. I don't want to assert that I am necessarily right in the first place, given my limited experience, but I do want to assert that if I am mistaken, it's an understandable mistake for someone in my circumstances to make.

So much for my limited experience. Let's look a little deeper. See Sean Carroll's book Spacetime and Geometry, an Introduction to General Relativity (Pearson Addison-Wesley, 2004), specifically section 4.5 "The Cosmological Constant" and page 172. Here we find ...
"... we see that the cosmological constant is precisely equivalent to introducing a vacuum energy density [latex]\rho_v_a_c = \dfrac{\Lambda}{8\pi G}[/latex]. The terms "cosmological constant" and "vacuum energy" are essentially interchangeable​
Of course the vacuum energy density is a classical concept, so it does appear that no appeal to quantum mechanics is necessary. So it appears to me that one can see the cosmological constant both ways, either as geometry or energy, in Einstein's equations, without even looking as far as a Lagrange density.

This all amounts to me "thinking out loud" as I try to understand a field of physics outside my own field. But there is also a point and I said I would come back to the apparently unclear nature of energy & geometry in the accelerated expansion of the universe ...
Michael Mozina said:
So how's a layman supposed to comprehend this stuff, when "experts" like Tim and Sol can't even agree? FYI, Sol is correct. :)

:popcorn1
Click to expand...
I will assert that the answer is that a layman is not supposed to understand it. That's why we have universities with classes & textbooks & degrees. As long as any individual remains a "layman" then that individual is necessarily limited in ability to understand. Some things are easier to understand than others, and somethings can be more deeply understood than others, even by the heroic efforts of the layman. But some things cannot be understood by anyone, layman or even expert, without deep effort. My own expertise is a general masters degree in physics and a 28 year career in astrophysics, all of which included one survey course in GR as a grad student, and no professional experience at all. If I have a hard time with it, one might excuse the layman for also having a hard time with it.

It is one of the great lessons of modern science that some things which it seems to the layman should be readily comprehensible are in fact really confusing. The trick is to know enough to realize you are confused.
 
Reality Check said:
A note for those who are interested in the science:
Two weeks ago the WMAP 7 year results were announced. These include
  • The first direct detection of pre-stellar helium.
  • Limits on standard model of cosmology are reduced by 50%
  • A confirmation of the predictions of many inflation models.
  • Srronger constrains on dark energy and geometry of the universe.
Click to expand...

Thats an amazing amount of information contained in some hot spots in a microwave background.
The best compression algorithm ever invented!!!!!!!!!:D

Those results are like saying the spots on a Dalmatian will tell you his genetic line, the blood type of the first Dalmation ever, what you think Dalmations are going to be like in the future, and the mysterious force which makes Dalmations grow bigger!!

Maybe they do........If you have a good enough Dalmation model.

"In fact, the Dalmatian’s classic spot pattern is linked to a genetic urinary tract problem unique to the breed(model). This incurable condition can be treated and controlled with the proper, veterinary-recommended diet and medication."
 
brantc said:
Thats an amazing amount of information contained in some hot spots in a microwave background.
The best compression algorithm ever invented!!!!!!!!!:D

Those results are like saying the spots on a Dalmatian
...snipped display of ignorance..."
Click to expand...
It is an amazing amount of information contained in a phenomena prestented to us by the universe.
The universe is not a Dalmatian
 
Tim Thompson

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
So how's a layman supposed to comprehend this stuff, when "experts" like Tim and Sol can't even agree? FYI, Sol is correct.
Click to expand...


I will assert that the answer is that a layman is not supposed to understand it. That's why we have universities with classes & textbooks & degrees. As long as any individual remains a "layman" then that individual is necessarily limited in ability to understand. Some things are easier to understand than others, and somethings can be more deeply understood than others, even by the heroic efforts of the layman. But some things cannot be understood by anyone, layman or even expert, without deep effort...

It is one of the great lessons of modern science that some things which it seems to the layman should be readily comprehensible are in fact really confusing. The trick is to know enough to realize you are confused.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Tim Thompson said:
We see here that the cosmological constant appears as a multiplier of the metric tensor. If we look in the epic tome Gravitation (Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, 1970; page 410) we find their discussion of the introduction of the cosmological constant, and that its dimensions are cm-2. I don't want to assert that I am necessarily right in the first place, given my limited experience, but I do want to assert that if I am mistaken, it's an understandable mistake for someone in my circumstances to make.
Click to expand...

The dimensions are a convention in the sense that one can factor out a G and re-define \Lambda/G as \Lambda. The new \Lambda then has dimensions of energy density. Similarly, one can subtract the CC term from both sides and then regard it as a contribution to the stress tensor that simply happens to be proportional to the metric (which turns out to mean that it always contributes a pressure equal to minus its energy density).

In my view, probably shared by most physicists today, the latter is a better way to think about it. The reason is that there are contributions to that term that arise from undeniably physical energy sources (like Casimir energy in a compact universe, vacuum fluctuations, 4-forms, etc.). In addition there are sources of energy, like the inflaton potential during slow-roll inflation, which are not exactly a CC but which behave very much like one for an extended period. So even if you insist on regarding the CC term in the classical Einstein-Hilbert lagrangian as a geometric effect, you'll then have to take into account additional classical and quantum contributions to exactly or almost exactly the same term in Einstein's equations.

Actually perhaps the sharpest example of that is a scalar field at a local minimum. Classically the scalar can remain in that minimum forever, and the value of the potential at the minimum is identical in every way to a CC. But quantum mechanically the scalar can tunnel out, in which case the the potential energy no longer behaves like a CC (at least until the scalar settles into a new minimum). That kind of thing probably happened during various first-order phase transitions in the early universe, and our current CC is presumably the sum of the "bare" CC plus all those shifts. So there's no just utility in regarding the "bare" classical CC, if it exists at all, as a geometric term separate from all these other effects.

Of course the vacuum energy density is a classical concept, so it does appear that no appeal to quantum mechanics is necessary. So it appears to me that one can see the cosmological constant both ways, either as geometry or energy, in Einstein's equations, without even looking as far as a Lagrange density.
Click to expand...

Yes, but see above.

It is one of the great lessons of modern science that some things which it seems to the layman should be readily comprehensible are in fact really confusing. The trick is to know enough to realize you are confused.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Cosmological Parameters

brantc said:
Those results are like saying the spots on a Dalmatian will tell you his genetic line, the blood type of the first Dalmation ever, what you think Dalmations are going to be like in the future, and the mysterious force which makes Dalmations grow bigger!!
Click to expand...
It is not at all obvious that one could not do exactly that. It turns out there are serious claims that the fractal nature of the paintings of Jackson Pollock can be used not only to authenticate real Pollock paintings, but even to distinguish in what stage of Pollock's career they were made (e.g. Taylor, Micolich & Jonas, 1999 and citations thereto, as well as Coddington, et al, 2008; Irfan & Stork, 2009 and Jones-Smith & Mathur, 2009 in opposition). Using one single Dalmatian wouldn't get you any further than using one single Pollock painting, but using a collection of dalmatians spread over time, like a collection of Pollack paintings spread over time, might be more informative. The geometrical (maybe even fractal?) nature of the spots on a real Dalmatian might be used to distinguish when the Dalmatian was born, or to distinguish a fake from a real Dalmatian. So far as I know, there is no such study of dalmatians, so this is speculation. Still, looking at Pollock and fractals, one cannot so simply rule it out.

Determining cosmological parameters from CMB data alone is achieved by not concentrating on the one specific pattern of temperature anisotropies across the sky, but rather by identifying the statistical parameters of the anisotropies. One then compares the probability of creating a pattern with the same statistical parameters (not exactly the same pattern) as determined by various cosmological models (e.g., slow roll inflation, fast inflation, no inflation, different types of dark energy & dark matter & etc.). The models which most closely match the observed pattern statistics are the winners and go on the short list of acceptable cosmologies. Of course, CMB anisotropies alone provide only minimal constraints, so anyone who does this for real, will add in all of the constraints they can find, such as observed large scale structure statistics & etc. The details of how it is done are laid out in the papers for all to see (e.g., Larson, et al., 2010; Komatsu, et al., 2010; Dunkley, et al., 2009; Komatsu, et al., 2009; Spergel, et al., 2007; Tegmark, et al., 2004; Spergel, et al., 2003; Verde, et al., 2003; Peiris, et al., 2003 & etc.)

It's not enough to simply wave ones hand and dismiss the whole affair as obvious nonsense. Rather, it is required to understand the details of how cosmological parameters are arrived at, and then explain in equally quantitative detail why the whole affair is obvious nonsense. Only then does one gain an audience. Otherwise, you are doomed to a discussion board existence for decades to come :)
 
brantc said:
Thats an amazing amount of information contained in some hot spots in a microwave background.
The best compression algorithm ever invented!!!!!!!!!:D

Those results are like saying the spots on a Dalmatian will tell you his genetic line, the blood type of the first Dalmation ever, what you think Dalmations are going to be like in the future, and the mysterious force which makes Dalmations grow bigger!!

Maybe they do........If you have a good enough Dalmation model.

"In fact, the Dalmatian’s classic spot pattern is linked to a genetic urinary tract problem unique to the breed(model). This incurable condition can be treated and controlled with the proper, veterinary-recommended diet and medication."
Click to expand...

I see you have no actual critique to offer so you resort to bad analogy and metaphor, congratulations, this spin of 100%, valid critique 0%.

Too bad, if you have something to actualy say, maybe you should try to say it, otherwise it looks like hopeless woo mongering.
 
brantc said:
Thats an amazing amount of information contained in some hot spots in a microwave background.
The best compression algorithm ever invented!!!!!!!!!:D
Click to expand...

Compression algorithm? The WMAP7 sky maps (all bands, all polarizations) are almost a gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes). From those maps, via statistical analysis, we extract a power spectrum consisting of about 150 points at 1-3 sig figs each (about 1000 bytes), and that power spectrum tells us about twenty useful science numbers, maybe to 2 significant figures each (total of 100 bytes). That is not what the words "compression algorithm" mean.
 
ben m said:
Compression algorithm? The WMAP7 sky maps (all bands, all polarizations) are almost a gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes). From those maps, via statistical analysis, we extract a power spectrum consisting of about 150 points at 1-3 sig figs each (about 1000 bytes), and that power spectrum tells us about twenty useful science numbers, maybe to 2 significant figures each (total of 100 bytes). That is not what the words "compression algorithm" mean.
Click to expand...

The efficiency of a compression algorithm is determined by the information(file size) input vs the file size output.

All I'm say is that the whole 15 billion years of the universe is represented by one one microwave horn and 9 years.
What is being measured is spots that vary less than 90 uK from background.

These density fluctuation are to represent the the universe after about 100,000 years to current time.

So the history of the universe is being reconstructed from 90uK fluctuations in the CMB which extend some 300Ghz for a time of 9 years.

That is a lot of compression. Like billions to one(compress a Gb to one bit??).....
I know there are other inputs but when you read what they say you would not get that picture.
 
brantc said:
That is a lot of compression. Like billions to one(compress a Gb to one bit??).....
Click to expand...

Nope, that's a nonsensical view of data analysis.

You might as well count the number of atoms in the Earth (huge), compare it to the number of seismographs (small), and use the mismatch to insinuate that there's something wrong with geology.
 
brantc said:
The efficiency of a compression algorithm is determined by the information(file size) input vs the file size output.
Click to expand...
As ben m says that a nonsensical view of data analysis.
The CMB is not a comprressed file. The universe doe not apply a compression algorithm to physical objects.

brantc said:
All I'm say is that the whole 15 billion years of the universe is represented by one one microwave horn and 9 years.
What is being measured is spots that vary less than 90 uK from background.
...snip...
Click to expand...
And that is where you really go wrong. The cosmic microwave background radiation represents one point in time, when the universe became transparent (recombination).
The "density fluctuation" represent the flutuations in the universe at that one time.

The red and blue shifting of the CMB also tells us about variations in mass density of the universe.
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
The efficiency of a compression algorithm is determined by the information(file size) input vs the file size output.

All I'm say is that the whole 15 billion years of the universe is represented by one one microwave horn and 9 years.
What is being measured is spots that vary less than 90 uK from background.

These density fluctuation are to represent the the universe after about 100,000 years to current time.

So the history of the universe is being reconstructed from 90uK fluctuations in the CMB which extend some 300Ghz for a time of 9 years.

That is a lot of compression. Like billions to one(compress a Gb to one bit??).....
I know there are other inputs but when you read what they say you would not get that picture.
Click to expand...

One bad analogy to another, keep em coming.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Do you happen to know if there has been an official rebuttal of this paper yet?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1661

This one?
Click to expand...

Michael, if you want to claim that CMB observations are fundamentally wrong, start a new thread. This (perhaps you remember?) is the thread where you were trying to claim:

a) that cosmological observations are correct insofar as they observe an accelerating expansion of the cosmos---remember? You weren't trying to trash everything, you were trying to explain the acceleration in your own way.

b) that there is something wrong (albeit something you are able to identify clearly) with the idea that this is perfectly consistent with the GR behavior of a universe with 10^-27 g/cc vacuum energy. Remember that? You never told me whether you thought I was lying about GR or merely making math mistakes.

c) that there is something appealing (albeit something you are unable to identify) about a variety of attempts to associate the acceleration with electromagnetism. Remember that? We got as far as your admitting that there was no known E&M calculation to support you, before you forgot about it and went back to claiming a vague analogy with the solar wind.

I see nothing in either of the uncited preprints which is the slightest bit relevant to anything you've said here.

Again, if you have any interest in these papers, I suggest you start a new thread. "Links to every preprint with the word 'inconsistent' in it" would be a good title for this thread. Or revive one of your old threads, that's basically what they all were, right? (ETA: if you cared about the answer, you would have already found the rebuttal to Verschuur's claims. Why didn't you?)
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Again, if you have any interest in these papers, I suggest you start a new thread. "Links to every preprint with the word 'inconsistent' in it" would be a good title for this thread. Or revive one of your old threads, that's basically what they all were, right? (ETA: if you cared about the answer, you would have already found the rebuttal to Verschuur's claims. Why didn't you?)
Click to expand...

I like the idea that there might be an "official" rebuttal.:rolleyes:
 
I've looked at the opening page of this rather long thread, and the last page. It looks interesting. Michael, if it's still pertinent I can give a reasonable explanation of inflation to you in simple terms, and politely.

I see mention of the stress-energy tensor and pressure. You'll be aware that stress is akin to pressure, both being measured in Pascals. Einstein talked of stress-energy in the context of gravity, where he also talked of a non-constant gμv. This gravitational potential is lower near the surface of the Earth than up in space, thus there's a gradient in between. If you took a flat slice through the earth and plotted gμv you'd see an "upturned hat", as per the depiction on the English wikipedia "gravitational potential" article.

Note that the gμv is lowest in the centre. If you were in a void in the centre of the earth, you'd be floating, and you would experience no gravity. However at this location the gravitational time dilation is at a maximum. At this location, all processes operate at a reduced rate. The spatial stress-energy density or pressure here is high compared to out in free space. The pressure is positive, not negative. (Gravity "pulls" because light and matter are dynamical, the analogy being like swimming in a pool with a left-right viscosity gradient. If you swim up the pool, you're a photon, and you veer to the left, your wake being curvilinear motion aka curved spacetime. If you swim round in circles, you're an electron with angular momentum/spin/magnetic moment, and half your path is either up or down the pool, so you work your way over to the left).

Now go back to the early universe. It's small, and fairly homogeneous. There's little in the way of pressure gradients, and hence no discernible gravity. It's rather like the void at the centre of the earth. However the pressure is very high, so the time dilation is extreme. Thus all processes operate at a reduced rate.

Meanwhile the universe is expanding. It does this at a "normal rate". It doesn't actually expand very rapidly early on. But because all internal processes are operating at a reduced rate and there is no external clock, the early expansion appears very rapid in comparison to later expansion.

Of course this isn't quite the inflation you typically read about, but it does show you how inflation of at least some kind is a very real aspect of big bang cosmology.
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
Meanwhile the universe is expanding. It does this at a "normal rate". It doesn't actually expand very rapidly early on.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

But because all internal processes are operating at a reduced rate and there is no external clock, the early expansion appears very rapid in comparison to later expansion.
Click to expand...

But there are internal clocks, plenty of them. For example, any atom will make transitions at certain frequencies. The Lorentz invariant rest masses of elementary particles define time scales too.

Now of course you could insist on choosing a time variable in which (say) the frequency of some atomic resonance changes with time during the expansion of the universe, just like you could choose a space coordinate so that the same meter stick is twice as long in London as it is in Tokyo. But it's not a very good idea (because it's inconvenient), and it's not what's done in cosmology. Instead, the time variable is chosen so that physical processes that have nothing to do with the expansion occur at constant rates. According to that proper time variable, the early expansion was very rapid.

Of course this isn't quite the inflation you typically read about, but it does show you how inflation of at least some kind is a very real aspect of big bang cosmology.
Click to expand...

Even if your argument were good, all it could show is that the expansion rate was rapid, not that it is accelerating (which is the essence of inflation, and what distinguishes it from standard expansion early on).
 
Last edited:
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation and Real Science

Originally from the thread Iron sun with Aether batteries I am re-directing the post to this thread so as to avoid off-topic derailment of the sun thread.

Tim Thompson said:
So the only way your paper can present "evidence" for CNO reactions is to arbitrarily assume in advance that there are such reactions, and then claim that those reactions are the most likely source for the electrons, positrons and neutrons, so naturally there must be CNO reactions going on. Very circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
:) You mean like *ALL* the astronomy papers ever written on the topics of "dark energy", "dark matter", and "inflation" don't use that same circular logic you just accused me of?
Click to expand...

No they don't. None of the papers on dark energy, dark matter or inflation use circular logic. You are the only one who does that.

Dark Energy
There is nothing even close to circular about dark energy. We observe that there is an inconsistency between the brightness and distance of type Ia supernovae, based on the standard expanding universe cosmology. We realize that the inconsistency can be eliminated by modifying the cosmology to replace the old standard of decelerating expansion with a new standard of accelerating expansion. We also determine that making this change does not cause any other fundamental inconsistency between cosmology and the physics upon which the cosmological models are based. We do not know what the cause of the acceleration is, but we know it is there. So we give it a name, dark energy. There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. I draw the reader's attention to Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe; Frieman, Turner & Huterer, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46: 385-432, 2008. This is a good, recent review of the science & observational evidence in the dark energy problem. Another reliable source is TASI Lectures on Cosmic Acceleration; Rachel Bean, Lectures from the 2009 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute at Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, March 2010.

Dark Matter
There is nothing even close to circular about dark matter. We observe that the rotation of spiral galaxies, and the motions of individual galaxies in clusters are not consistent with the dual assumptions that (1) all of visible matter is all the matter there is, and (2) the law of gravity is correct. We do know, of course, that there are many forms of normal matter that are hard to see. The dark matter problem (originally the "missing mass" problem) has been around since the 1930's and it was certainly reasonable at that time to simply assume that there is more ordinary matter that escaped attention by being below the observability threshold of the technology of the times. But that assumption is no longer valid; we now know that we have the technological ability to see matter that was invisible to astronomers of the 1930's, even the 1950's or 1970's & etc. Observation is now limiting the dark matter, if there is any, to the realm of more esoteric non-baryonic dark matter. However, we already know that esoteric non-baryonic dark matter does in fact exist, just not enough of it (neutrinos definitely exist and definitely are non-baryonic dark matter). So in reality, the assumption that so far unseen non-baryonic dark matter is responsible for the observed effect is no more esoteric than the assumption that there is more of what we already have, just in a form that escapes observation by today's (but no necessarily tomorrow's) technology. Meanwhile, there is plenty of active research in the realm of the law of gravity, and we do not in fact know that the correct solution to the problem will not be a modification of the law of gravity. But the majority of scientists in the community feel that the assumption "there is more of what we already have" is more sensible than "the law of gravity is wrong", hence the majority opinion favors non-baryonic dark matter. There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. There are also good recent reviews on the science of dark matter, e.g., TASI 2008 Lectures on Dark Matter; Dan Hooper, Based on lectures given at the 2008 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute, January 2009; Dark Matter Astrophysics; D'Amico, Kamionkowski & Sigurdson, July 2009, Based on lectures given by MK at the Villa Olmo School on "The Dark Side of the Universe," 14--18 May 2007 and by KS at the XIX Heidelberg Physics Graduate Days, 8--12 October 2007.

Inflation
There is nothing even close to circular about inflation. We know that there is an inconsistency between the observed properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the fundamental physics of pre-inflationary big bang cosmology. The inconsistency is that the CMB shows a strictly thermal spectral energy distribution (SED) over the entire sky, and very nearly the same temperature over the entire sky (there are other problems addressed by inflation but I will stick to this one alone for simplicity). This observed fact requires that the source of CMB is in thermal equilibrium. This fact implies that the infant universe must have been small enough for long enough for all parts to reach the same temperature, for the entire universe to reach thermal equilibrium, before expansion begins. The standard physics of pre-inflationary cosmology does not allow for the universe to be as large as it is given the requirement for thermal equilibrium. However, exponential expansion after equilibrium is reached solves the problem (and also the other problems I have set aside for simplicity). There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. A good recent review of inflation is Inflationary Cosmology; Andre Linde, Lecture Notes in Physics 738, 2008 and citations thereto. Linde's 362 page book Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology is also available online via the arXiv server.

I have also posted on the title topics numerous times in other threads. Here is a list of relevant posts for all my fans out there who might have missed them first time around: Dark Matter II, Dark Matter and Science, Inflationary cosmology & science, What is "dark energy", really?, Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant II, Inflationary cosmology is real science, Dark Matter and Ultra Faint Dwarf Galaxies, Dark Matter: Direct Detection?, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant III, Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant IV, Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism V. As one might guess, Mozina's arguments concerning cosmology are as pathetic as are his arguments concerning the sun. The science of dark matter, dark energy and inflation is sound & solid.

This line of discussion is not relevant to the topic of this thread, which is supposed to be the iron surface of the sun and consequent physics. But I put it here because many interested readers might not be following the cosmology threads, where all of this has been worked over before (e.g., Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?, Lambda-CDM theory, woo or no?t, [split thread] Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology). I will post a copy of this message to the dark matter, inflation and cosmology thread as well, and strongly suggest that followup messages go in that thread and not in this thread, in order to avoid distraction from the topic of the sun. If Mozina wants to come after me on this topic, let him do it there in the appropriate thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom