Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
IMO you're taking a couple of lines *COMPLETELY* out of context. For purposes of conversations I will in fact use those terms but it doesn't mean I "believe in them". I use the term "photosphere" too, but that doesn't mean I actually believe it is "opaque" (GM definition) to every wavelength. I think you're reading more into that statement than was meant by it.

FYI, if you're trying to paint me as a "believer" that "dark" stuff is the "cause of" anything, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...
I gave links to the context. It is easy to check. Doing so shows that you are lying again. If you didn't mean what you said in that thread, that means you were lying then.

Why do you lie so much?
 
D'rok said:
Fail again. The topic was your past advocacy for dark matter/energy. There it is. In your own words. For the whole world to see. Pages and pages of it. Despite your emphatic denial that you ever did so.

Why do you lie so much?
Click to expand...

Why are you debasing us both like this? I use "terms" to get ideas across. I believe something is the "cause" of all that missing mass. I hold no belief that "dark matter" is that cause. I use the term however in conversations to get ideas across. You're taking one conversation out of context and ignoring the *YEARS* that I have spent railing against "dark" stuff.

Honestly dude, you're way off base. Go over to Bad Astronomy and read my comments as "ManInTheMirror". I have never advocated what you are accusing me of, and your personal attacks are cheesy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Why are you debasing us both like this? I use "terms" to get ideas across. I believe something is the "cause" of all that missing mass. I hold no belief that "dark matter" is that cause. I use the term however in conversations to get ideas across. You're taking one conversation out of context and ignoring the *YEARS* that I have spent railing against "dark" stuff.

Honestly dude, you're way off base. Go over to Bad Astronomy and read my comments as "ManInTheMirror". I have never advocated what you are accusing me of, and your personal attacks are cheesy.
Click to expand...
I understand that showing you your own words is uncomfortable for you given the position you know hold about "dark stuff".

You didn't always hold that position. Why is that?
 
Michael Mozina said:
He makes that claim every single time he uses the term "circuit" in reference to them.
Click to expand...

Nope. Evidently you don't understand the difference between charge and current.

So by your definition a lightening bolt is a "neutral" plasma too?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be? The extension cord I use to power my leaf blower is neutral, even when it's carrying current.
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO you're taking a couple of lines *COMPLETELY* out of context. For purposes of conversations I will in fact use those terms but it doesn't mean I "believe in them". I use the term "photosphere" too, but that doesn't mean I actually believe it is "opaque" (GM definition) to every wavelength. I think you're reading more into that statement than was meant by it.

FYI, if you're trying to paint me as a "believer" that "dark" stuff is the "cause of" anything, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...


People have been trying to get you to support your criticism of the dark energy theories with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. You have completely failed to do that. It seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

People have also been asking you to support your crackpot alternative conjecture to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. On that point it also seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

If you feel you have a valid criticism and/or a valid, rational alternative explanation, you might want to knock off the whining tantrums and the lying, and get down to offering your position scientifically and in an organized, cogent fashion.

When someone asks you to direct them to the reference source, page, and paragraph that you claim supports something you say, why not simply point them to it instead of whining and moaning? When someone points out that you have been lying, why not just stop the lying instead of whining some more about being busted? When someone asks you to make yourself clear on some point that you've babbled about, why not use the terminology of the science that you claim to want to discuss so that people can actually understand what the hell you're trying to say?

One thing is certain here, Michael. You have typed tens of thousands of words here, and in all that effort you have been unable to convince a single soul that what you have to say has any scientific merit whatsoever. Really. Start there. You haven't swayed anyone at all to accept anything you claim. Obviously you're having a great deal of difficulty with your current strategy of whining, moaning, throwing tantrums, and lying. Obviously if you expect to ever be taken seriously rather than ridiculed, you can't go on with your current mode of approaching this. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is certain.

So how about working out a new approach, a new strategy of communicating your thoughts? You see, so far everyone here thinks you're a nut, a complete idiot without a clue when it comes to science. Even the professional physicists in these discussions do, or actually especially them. How about stopping the lying, which I asked you to do a long time ago, and stopping the tantrums, and starting to answer some of the legitimate, direct, reasonable questions these fine people are asking you? Really, do you simply not want anyone to ever take you seriously? Because you can be certain that nobody does now.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
He makes that claim every single time he uses the term "circuit" in reference to them.
Click to expand...
Untrue. For example, Alfvén did not make that claim anywhere within the passage you quoted just a few minutes ago.

The reason you think otherwise is that you don't understand the distinction between charge and current.

No one expects you to understand anything about science, but you should stop accusing Alfvén of sharing your ignorance. It's disrespectful.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Honestly dude, you're way off base. Go over to Bad Astronomy and read my comments as "ManInTheMirror". I have never advocated what you are accusing me of, and your personal attacks are cheesy.
Click to expand...


Over at the BAUT Forum where you got banned because you refused to answer direct, reasonable questions about your crackpot claims? Over at the BAUT Forum where you rejoined as a sockpuppet and were proven to be a liar because initially you claimed to not be Michael Mozina? Over at the BAUT Forum where even the sockpuppet got banned for also being incapable of participating in an honest, intelligent discussion? Is that the BAUT you're talking about, Michael?

:dl:​
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's totally dumb to ignore *his whole life's work* not to mention the NY Times article. That was but *ONE* of many speeches he gave and one of many of his writings on this topic. Nobody but you is trying to "dumb it down'.
Click to expand...
It is dumb to ignore *his whole life's work* not to mention the NY Times article as you are doing.

Michael Mozina said:
Yes it is!
Click to expand...
No it is not!

Michael Mozina said:
No, it's not. It carries "current".
Click to expand...
Yes it is. The solar wind does not carry current.

Michael Mozina said:
OMG. He *PREDICTED* and even *SIMULATED* the positive ion emission process RC! He not only *expected* the sun to carry positively charged ions, he *KNEW* it from direct experimentation.
Click to expand...
OMG Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work

Michael Mozina said:
Any way you look at it, planetary material comes from the stars.
Click to expand...
That is sort of true: planetary material comes from the previous generation of stars.
 
Michael Mozina said:
He makes that claim every single time he uses the term "circuit" in reference to them.
Click to expand...

Then please, frakking QUOTE him verbatim!
why on Earth would a circuit be a non-neutral plasma?

Michael Mozina said:
So by your definition a lightening bolt is a "neutral" plasma too?
Click to expand...

As apparently I have no idea what you mean by a "neutral" plasma, you can't hardly expect to answer this question.

However, I do know that lightning is a discharge e.g. between clouds and the Earth and this is usually done by electrons, moving charge from a place where there is too much (cloud) to a place where there is too little (ground) to say it simplistically. Naturally, that would NOT be anything neutral in the sense of the sum of all charges.

However, as it is pretty hard to create charge separation over large distances in plasmas, because both the positive ions and the negative electrons are all very mobile, you will not get any discharges.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, in fact he did *A LOT* better that you did collectively even with 100 years of what you're calling 'scientific progress".
Click to expand...
Read the post: Birkeland did *A LOT* worse. Scientific progress falsifies his idea.

Michael Mozina said:
No they haven't. They've been shown to be *RIGHT* to some degree, WRONG occasionally, but so what? His basic model worked. It created "solar wind' (including positively charged particles). It created "coronal loops' which he filmed for you. It created "jets" which he wrote about and filmed. It created all the high energy types of solar atmospheric emissions we see today in modern satellite images. You can't get "magnetic reconnection" do to any of those things in a lab.
Click to expand...
Yes they have. They've been shown to be *RIGHT* to some degree, WRONG a lot, but so what?
He never had a model. His model never created coronal loops - it created electrical discharges that looked like loops (and Saturn's rings, and galaxies)

Michael Mozina said:
These types of "errors" are completely irrelevant since they really were based on the best information of the time, and simply don't apply anymore. that doesn't mean that his basic concepts are flawed or that you can rule out his other work. You can't just toss out the baby with the bathwater.
Click to expand...
That is what I said.
It was excusable to think galaxies were wisps of cloud or electrical phenomena inside the Milky Way before the 1920's. The measurement of their actual distances and the determination that they have stars in them rules out Birkeland's idea.
Click to expand...

The same error applies to his solar analogy. He knew what the temperature of the Sun was. Thus (unless he was completely incompetent which he was not) he knew that the Sun was a ball of hot gas for the simple reason that no element could be solid or liquid at that temperature. Thus it was excusable to suggest that this was gas and could have electrical discharges. After all it happened in the gas in his apparatus!
He forgot about plasma ("radiant matter") and that plasma could not sustain electrical discharges (probably known at his time)

Then along came scientific progress.
The properties of plasma were explored.
Measurements of coronal loops. etc. ruled out them being electrical discharges, e.g. the expected narow-band X-rays have never been observed.

I suspect Birkeland never even dreamed that someone would be delusional enough to arbitrarily extend his analogy to the absurd inclusion of the brass balls.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work

P.S. Please cite Birkeland's "cathode solar model"
 
D'rok said:
I understand that showing you your own words is uncomfortable for you given the position you know hold about "dark stuff".

You didn't always hold that position. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Honestly I have never changed my position. You really are taking the conversation out of context. If you really want me to explain that conversation to you, ask me about it in the solar thread. I can't explain myself without getting into solar theory and it's totally unrelated to this conversation. Suffice to say I have use terms to get meaning across, but my position hasn't changed. Like I said, I use the term "photosphere" too, but that does not mean that I believe it is "opaque" (GM style). You'll have to accept that, and if not, go read my comments at BAUT. You really are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why wouldn't it be? The extension cord I use to power my leaf blower is neutral, even when it's carrying current.
Click to expand...

BS. Go strip the insulation off the wire, hold both wires and tell me they are "neutral". You're full of it and you'll "feel" it too. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
BS. Go strip the insulation off the wire, hold both wires and tell me they are "neutral". You're full of it and you'll "feel" it too. :)
Click to expand...

I'll feel a current, not a charge. Don't you know the difference? You're obsessed with electric universe nonsense, and you can't even get one of the most basic aspects of electricity right? Wow. I'm not sure if that's tragically comic or comically tragic.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Honestly I have never changed my position. You really are taking the conversation out of context. If you really want me to explain that conversation to you, ask me about it in the solar thread. I can't explain myself without getting into solar theory and it's totally unrelated to this conversation. Suffice to say I have use terms to get meaning across, but my position hasn't changed. Like I said, I use the term "photosphere" too, but that does not mean that I believe it is "opaque" (GM style). You'll have to accept that, and if not, go read my comments at BAUT. You really are barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I can understand that thread quite well. As can anyone who chooses to read it.

Whatever. You should probably ignore me and try to learn something from the smart folks in this thread.

Serendipitously, and apropos of nothing, I happen to just have watched a crappy STTNG episode where dark matter wreaks havoc with the Enterprise. Unfortunately, it was mostly about Data's love life. Yech.
 
nvidiot said:
Oh and btw, just to rub in your misunderstanding of terms a bit more, I have no empirical (as you use the term, not how everyone else does) evidence for the existence of Jupiter. I have not seen a Jupiter in the lab, I cannot touch one, I cannot even reasonably recreate a model of Jupiter which explains it's behavior on any kind of reasonable scale on earth. Does Jupiter exist?
Click to expand...
The fact that Micheal Mozina's twisted logic results in the universe outside of the Earth not existing has been pointed out many times.
Have a look at Tim Thomson's "What is "Empirical" Science? XXX) posts, e.g. What is "Empirical" Science? VII.

Or my Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? posts.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I mean the incredibly oppressive and religious-like BAUT that holds witch hunts against *ALL* EU theories.
Click to expand...


Damn those BAUT folks persecuting you like that! They're single-handedly holding us all back in the dark ages!

:dl:​

Wow, Michael, listen to yourself. You have written some seriously ridiculous things in your years, truly some of the stupidest things that have ever been posted on the Internet, but when your argument comes down to this, even the most moronic of fundies and Truthers have one up on you. This kind of stuff is just plain juvenile, paranoid silly.

Now go read this again, and learn. And if you don't learn the first time, read it again. Seriously...

GeeMack said:
People have been trying to get you to support your criticism of the dark energy theories with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. You have completely failed to do that. It seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

People have also been asking you to support your crackpot alternative conjecture to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe with something other than your whiny tantrums, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies for over 4000 posts in this thread now. On that point it also seems reasonable to accept that you have nothing else.

If you feel you have a valid criticism and/or a valid, rational alternative explanation, you might want to knock off the whining tantrums and the lying, and get down to offering your position scientifically and in an organized, cogent fashion.

When someone asks you to direct them to the reference source, page, and paragraph that you claim supports something you say, why not simply point them to it instead of whining and moaning? When someone points out that you have been lying, why not just stop the lying instead of whining some more about being busted? When someone asks you to make yourself clear on some point that you've babbled about, why not use the terminology of the science that you claim to want to discuss so that people can actually understand what the hell you're trying to say?

One thing is certain here, Michael. You have typed tens of thousands of words here, and in all that effort you have been unable to convince a single soul that what you have to say has any scientific merit whatsoever. Really. Start there. You haven't swayed anyone at all to accept anything you claim. Obviously you're having a great deal of difficulty with your current strategy of whining, moaning, throwing tantrums, and lying. Obviously if you expect to ever be taken seriously rather than ridiculed, you can't go on with your current mode of approaching this. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is certain.

So how about working out a new approach, a new strategy of communicating your thoughts? You see, so far everyone here thinks you're a nut, a complete idiot without a clue when it comes to science. Even the professional physicists in these discussions do, or actually especially them. How about stopping the lying, which I asked you to do a long time ago, and stopping the tantrums, and starting to answer some of the legitimate, direct, reasonable questions these fine people are asking you? Really, do you simply not want anyone to ever take you seriously? Because you can be certain that nobody does now.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dark Energy and Empirical Science VII

Michael Mozina said:
Dark energy doesn't "accelerate" anything in a lab.
Click to expand...
One must be careful to place Mozina's comments in the proper perspective ...

To begin with, "dark energy" is the cause of cosmological acceleration by virtue of the simple fact that the name of that cause, the physical properties & nature of which remain unknown, is "dark energy", in exactly the same sense as Michael Mozina's name just happens to be "Michael Mozina". But Mozina rails on nonetheless, never really making it clear what his pathological objection to the name really is.

But more substantially, let us remember this ...
Tim Thompson said:
The string is definitely stretching, you just can't measure it, so local observations alone don't tell you what it's really doing. Now if we look again at the Hubble constant, 1 Mpc is about 3.09x1019 km. So just do (70 km/sec)/3.09x1019 km (and don't rationalize the units so you can see what's happening more clearly), you get 2.27x10-18 km/sec of velocity per km of distance. That's 2.27x10-15 meters, and that's a nuclear diameter distance scale. I have heard that one might be able to measure such an effect using quantum non-demolition techniques, but I don't know if that can really be done. In any case, it is obviously either just plain impossible to do, or just can't be done with current technology.
Click to expand...

Mozina rails on about how "dark energy" does not show up in a laboratory. But what if the accelerated expansion of the universe were in fact caused by good old classical electromagnetism? Would that effect show up in a laboratory? The answer is "no, it would not". It is not possible, under any conditions, to replicate cosmological expansion in any laboratory on Earth by any technology that we now have in practice, no matter what the cause my be, because the effect is literally too small to measure over laboratory distance scales. So Mozina's complaint is meaningless tripe.

But remember this too: Although Mozina uses the word "empirical", he does not actually mean "empirical" because he has carelessly chosen to redefine both the word & the concept behind it to suit his own personal prejudice. What he really means is mozperical, a peculiar form of intellectual inquiry where all observations outside of a controlled laboratory environment are dismissed as meaningless. I have addressed this point directly many times now, e.g., from February 1, 2010 ...
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.

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...

Never once has Mozina ever even acknowledged the existence of this criticism, let alone dare try to answer it. So expect an endless repetition of the same thing over & over, ad infinitum. It safe to assume that everything Mozina says is wrong, and most of what he says is just plain impossible.
 
Mozina-Birkeland Dark Matter Falsified

Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would NOT be found in suns or even slow moving plasma.
Click to expand...
Well, I for one do not believe anything you say about Birkeland without documentary evidence to support it. However, if in fact Birkeland predicted what you say he did, then that prediction has already been falsified by observation, as I already pointed out before ...
Tim Thompson said:
Michael Mozina said:
Your "dark matter" in Birkeland's world is simply "fast moving orbiting material" in rings around the galaxy.
Click to expand...
Curiously, "dark matter" picked up that peculiar monicker by virtue of being, well, dark. If all this material orbiting the galaxies is charged (i.e., a plasma), as you seem to imply, then it will be quit bright. Charged particles emit electromagnetic waves whenever they are accelerated, one of those annoying aspects of electromagnetism that we all have to get used to. They will emit radio waves, and the power of the emitted radio waves will tell you a lot about the matter emitting them, including how much matter there is. We do see radio emission from extragalactic environments, but we don't see all of this "dark matter" you are talking about. Therefore we know, by virtue of the scientifically time honored practice of observation that such matter is not there. If, on the other hand, it is not ionized, not a plasma, and just plain neutral matter, then it will emit thermal radio waves, which we also do not see. And finally, it can't be organized in a "ring" around the galaxy, because galaxy and galaxy cluster dynamics requires the dark matter to be distributed in a more or less spherically symmetric halo. So this one won't fly.
Click to expand...
We already know by virtue of direct empirical observation that the matter you claim Birkeland predicted is not there in sufficient quantity to account for the effects ascribed to dark matter.

Michael Mozina said:
What most amazes me that is your 'dark matter" is mostly located right where Birkeland's theories predict "rings of matter" to form.
Click to expand...
What amazes me (well, not really any more) is that I have to tell you yet again that dark matter is not distributed in "Mozina-Birkeland rings", but rather in roughly spherically symmetric halos, as required by dynamics.

So the Mozina-Birkeland hypothesis that "dark matter" is just ordinary matter distributed in rings has been falsified by the observational facts that (a) the matter which should be visible in multi-wavelength astronomy is not visible, and dark matter cannot be distributed in rings in any case.
 
GeeMack said:
When someone asks you to direct them to the reference source, page, and paragraph that you claim supports something you say, why not simply point them to it instead of whining and moaning? When someone points out that you have been lying, why not just stop the lying instead of whining some more about being busted? When someone asks you to make yourself clear on some point that you've babbled about, why not use the terminology of the science that you claim to want to discuss so that people can actually understand what the hell you're trying to say?
Click to expand...
Just to emphasis GeeMack's point here, Micheal Mozina:
You have asserted a dozen things about Birkeland's work
An honest person would either
  • provide the citations to support the assertions or
  • admit that they wrongly interpreted Birkeland's work.
The fact that you have done neither for over a year (the first question was on 7th July 2009 :eye-poppi !) makes you into a dishonest person. So now we know that you have been lying about Birkeland's work for at least a year on this forum and for many years on other forum.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'll feel a current, not a charge. Don't you know the difference? You're obsessed with electric universe nonsense, and you can't even get one of the most basic aspects of electricity right? Wow. I'm not sure if that's tragically comic or comically tragic.
Click to expand...

Do you even have the slightest clue how AC works?
 
FYI D'rok, the conversation in question goes back to an analogy Newton used to describe gravity. He described it as a force on a string with a rock tied to the end of the string while spinning it around. I extended Newton's analogy (I think originally on BAUT) to include the force on the string from an acceleration component in the Z axis. My intent was to suggest that a sun *MIGHT* have (somewhat, not necessarily a lot) more mass that first realized, but that was all I was trying to suggest. I was not attempting to suggest that *ALL* missing mass was located inside of stars as you seem to believe. I'm with Birkeland. I think most of the missing mass is found in flying electron and ions of all kinds.
 
Reality Check said:
The fact that Micheal Mozina's twisted logic results in the universe outside of the Earth not existing has been pointed out many times.
Have a look at Tim Thomson's "What is "Empirical" Science? XXX) posts, e.g. What is "Empirical" Science? VII.
Click to expand...

The statement "God did it with electricity" is more "scientific" than the trilogy of invisible crapola that you're peddling.

Or my Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist? posts.
Click to expand...

What a stupid analogy. A sun give off visible light. It's not "dark" like all your mythical invisible friends.
 
Hey, Michael, your continued willful ignorance is noted. However, if you go back and read this post you'll get some very good pointers about how to improve your communication so that you don't continue to fail so miserably at presenting your argument. Your current success rate is somewhere around 0%. Wouldn't you like to bring that up a percent or two?

ETA: Actually in a way you could say your argument has failed significantly less than 0%. Your success rate is in the negative numbers, and here's why: There are many people who didn't know much about astrophysics or cosmology one way or another until they encountered some of your inane arguments in these threads. They' gone out on their own to do a little research and they've become aware of just how ridiculously wrong you are about pretty much everything you write. So not only have you never converted anyone to believing your cockamamie conjectures, you've helped many, perhaps dozens of people, to understand a bit about astrophysics and cosmology, and consequently to realize just how totally wrong you are! :D
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
To begin with, "dark energy" is the cause of cosmological acceleration by virtue of the simple fact that the name of that cause, the physical properties & nature of which remain unknown, is "dark energy"...
Click to expand...

Your premise is based *ENTIRELY* upon a logical fallacy, specifically a non-sequitur fallacy. There is no "cause/effect" link between acceleration and your impotent sky entity. That's "faith" Tim, not empirical physics. It's like me claiming "God energy is the cause of the cosmological acceleration by virtue of the simple fact that the name of the cause is , the physical properties & nature of which remain unknown, is "God energy". BS. There's no cause/effect link between your invisible sky entity and any other religious sky entity. Neither of them accelerates squat in a real experiment.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
FYI D'rok, the conversation in question goes back to an analogy Newton used to describe gravity. He described it as a force on a string with a rock tied to the end of the string while spinning it around. I extended Newton's analogy (I think originally on BAUT) to include the force on the string from an acceleration component in the Z axis. My intent was to suggest that a sun *MIGHT* have (somewhat, not necessarily a lot) more mass that first realized, but that was all I was trying to suggest. I was not attempting to suggest that *ALL* missing mass was located inside of stars as you seem to believe. I'm with Birkeland. I think most of the missing mass is found in flying electron and ions of all kinds.
Click to expand...
I am sure that D'rok, can figure out the mistakes in your post, MM. But I know that you cannot, so
Birkeland did not state anything about missing mass.
He stated that there woiuld be electrons and ions in space. That has been shown to be correct for the simple reason that we have detected them. You do know that something that has been detected is not missing?
​
Thanks for remindng me MM:
Where does Birkeland state that most of mass in the universe is in high speed moving particles?(14th September 2010)

Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work

P.S. Please cite Birkeland's "cathode solar model" (16th September 2010)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Do you even have the slightest clue how AC works?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit, actually. And it wouldn't matter if it was AC or DC. Do you even have the slightest clue about the distinction between current and charge? Or voltage and charge? No, you don't.

Wires don't need any net charge in order to carry current. Likewise with plasmas, and with the solar wind.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The statement "God did it with electricity" is more "scientific" than the trilogy of invisible crapola that you're peddling.
Click to expand...
The statement "we can us the scientific method to descrive the universe" is more scientific than the all of the impossible crapola that you're peddling.

Michael Mozina said:
What a stupid analogy. A sun give off visible light. It's not "dark"
...snipped usual mythical crap....
Click to expand...
What a stupid display of ignorance.
A star gives off light. Astronomers detect this light and thus the star.
Mass "gives off" gravity and this affects light. Astronomers detect this light and thus the mass.
 
What is Dark Energy? II

Michael Mozina said:
... Birkeland ... His model PREDICTS and *EXPLAINS* a method of particle acceleration. You observe "acceleration". How you know these things are "unrelated"? You don't! You *ASSUME* they are unrelated. ... That "acceleration" is most likely due to EM fields too. You don't want to hear it, but that is a fact. The EM field is *THE* most likely culprit if we're trying to explain an acceleration of a plasma universe.
Click to expand...
This is not true. It was not true the first time you said it, it is not true this time, and I predict that it will not be true next time you say it. Empirical observation proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that classical electromagnetism is ruled out as a putative cause for the observed cosmological acceleration. See, e.g., ...

From September 12, 2010
Tim Thompson said:
Curiously, "dark energy" picked up that peculiar monicker by virtue of being, well, dark. Cosmic rays, all of which are charged particles, are not dark. You said that, according to Birkeland, their mass inside the galaxies, was greater than the mass of the stars, a claim trivially ruled out by orders of magnitude, by virtue of the scientifically time honored practice of observation. Likewise, observation limits the cosmic ray sea to a sub-observable threshold. However, in the scenario you describe, entire galaxies (109 to 1012 solar masses) are pulled along and even accelerated by all these cosmic rays. The electromagnetic emission from those cosmic rays cannot avoid being "blinding", so to speak, and yet we see nothing. Furthermore, they have to produce an amazingly spherically symmetric acceleration, so that opposite ends of the universe are accelerated exactly the same. How does your dark sea of cosmic rays mange to pull that off? And finally, if the cosmic rays are pulling all of these galaxies along, then they must be losing copious amounts if energy (accelerating 1010 solar masses to a substantial fraction of the speed of light requires a great deal of energy, in case you hadn't noticed). So either they will run out of cosmic poop really fast, or they are being all pooped up by something to regain all that lost energy. What is that something?

In short, neither of these ideas stands up to even modest scrutiny. They are ruled out strongly both by observation and by well known basic physics. It's "back to the drawing board" for thee & they dark ideas.
Click to expand...

From February 9, 2010 ...
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 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...

The one and only reason that Mozina has ever given, to support the claim that cosmological acceleration must be of classical electromagnetic origin, is that electromagnetic fields are measurable in controlled laboratory experiments. Yet he chooses to ignore the fact that the cosmological acceleration of the universe is not consistent with laboratory electromagnetism. So here is Mozina's Big Chance (MBC) ...

A Challenge for Michael Mozina: In a controlled terrestrial laboratory experiment, recreate a galaxy of stars, dust, neutral gas and plasma, with a dynamic spiral structure. Then accelerate that galaxy, through the exclusive use of electromagnetic fields, to a speed of 1,000 km/sec without in any way altering the shape & form of the galaxy, particularly not altering the spiral patterns. If you cannot so that, or at least describe in technical detail how the experiment should be done, then by your own standard, your hypothesis cannot be "empirical", since it cannot be replicated in a controlled laboratory experiment.

Now, having laid down the gauntlet and challenged Mozina, let me finish with this ...
Tim Thompson said:
Dark energy, like dark matter, is an unknown in cosmology. We know it is there because we can see how it effects the universe in the form of an accelerated expansion, but we don't know what it is. However, just as is the case for dark matter, even if we don't know what it is, we know what it is not. Physics recognizes the existence of 4 and only 4 fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force (with the caveat that general relativity does not recognize gravity as a genuine force, treating it as geometry). So which of these 4 is dark energy? It can't be either the weak or strong force, they are extremely short range forces that show up only over nuclear distances, roughly 10-15 meters. It can't be gravity as we know it because gravity is attractive not repulsive. And it can't be classical electromagnetism, as illustrated in my posts above (electromagnetic fields are not at all "dark" in any sense). At once we see that all of the known forces are ruled out by observation.
Click to expand...
Mozina keeps claiming that we only assume that cosmological acceleration is due to mysterious "dark energy", but have no empirical reason for doing so. But is claim is ignorant, and by virtue of his ignorance, it is wrong. As a matter of real fact, real empirical observations (empirical, not mozperical) solidly rule out all 4 of the classical known forces in physics. Nothing that we already know can possibly be the cause for cosmological acceleration of the universe and that is knowledge not assumption.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Your premise is based *ENTIRELY* upon a logical fallacy, specifically a non-sequitur fallacy. There is no "cause/effect" link between acceleration and your impotent sky entity. That's "faith" Tim, not empirical physics. It's like me claiming "God energy is the cause of the cosmological acceleration by virtue of the simple fact that the name of the cause is , the physical properties & nature of which remain unknown, is "God energy". BS. There's no cause/effect link between your invisible sky entity and any other religious sky entity. Neither of them accelerates squat in a real experiment.
Click to expand...


There is an effect, observed and measured empirically, the accelerated expansion of the Universe. That effect has a cause, your refusal to accept perfectly valid empirical science notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
My intent was to suggest that a sun *MIGHT* have (somewhat, not necessarily a lot) more mass that first realized, but that was all I was trying to suggest. I was not attempting to suggest that *ALL* missing mass was located inside of stars as you seem to believe.
Click to expand...

That's even worse: you're speculating not on missing mass, but on extra mass, which for some unknown reason doesn't produce a gravitational signature. And that's better than speculating about mass which DOES have a gravitational signature that we have detected... how?

Make all the excuses you want to, Michael, but there's no actual consistency to your beliefs or your standards of evidence and logic. And everyone can see that quite plainly.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's even worse: you're speculating not on missing mass, but on extra mass, which for some unknown reason doesn't produce a gravitational signature. And that's better than speculating about mass which DOES have a gravitational signature that we have detected... how?

Make all the excuses you want to, Michael, but there's no actual consistency to your beliefs or your standards of evidence and logic. And everyone can see that quite plainly.
Click to expand...


But you don't understand. The missing mass is in the iron in the solid surfaces of the Sun and the other stars. Those scientists need to stop doing all that chicken scratchin' math and start reading Birkeland. He predicted it! :eek:
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm with Birkeland.
Click to expand...
No, you're not. Birkeland never knew about dark matter. Stop claiming your beliefs are somebody elses.

I think most of the missing mass is found in flying electron and ions of all kinds.
Click to expand...
So, in short, you believe that the missing mass which is dark and cannot be seen and therefore cannot interact through the EM force is to be found in the form of a light charged particle (and thus interacts through the EM force), collections of which would be about the easiest thing to detect in the Universe. And you wonder why people won't take you seriously?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If both wires are neutral, how exactly do you get shocked again?
Click to expand...

By the current, Michael. That's one of the most basic and fundamental facts about electricity. It's something many of us have known since we were children.

You pretend to care about physics, but it's just another of your lies. You've proven over and over and over that all you care about is getting attention. Grow up.
 
sol invictus said:
By the current, Michael. That's one of the most basic and fundamental facts about electricity. It's something many of us have known since we were children.

You pretend to care about physics, but it's just another of your lies. You've proven over and over and over that all you care about is getting attention. Grow up.
Click to expand...

You know, I've been burned many times in the past by *assuming* that you folks actually knew something about a specific topic. I think before I do that again, I would like to take a quick poll.

In a typical 110 volt extension cord or a box of Romex, there are three wires , a green (or bare) wire, a black wire and a white wire. Which of the these three wires (If any) is *NOT* neutral with respect to ground?

Don't be bashful. Let's hear your answer before we continue.
 
Last edited:
Michael, your intentional ignorance is noted... again. However, if you go back and read this post you'll get some very good pointers about how to improve your communication so that you don't continue to fail so miserably at presenting your argument.

Your current success rate at making your case is significantly less than 0%. Wouldn't you like to bring that up a percent or two? Do you have any desire at all to be taken seriously? Do you have any desire to actually make your point in a convincing way? Or is my guess correct (others have guessed this, too... Tim being one example) that you don't give a damn about the truth of your position and that you just want to talk all sciency and continue to troll web forums just for the fun of it? Is lying, incredulity, and ignorance all you've got?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom