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

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

We know by now that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering these questions. But he may shock us and the list is still an interesting summary of his mistakes and misunderstandings.
I added a couple more.


It would be nice if MM could point us to the answers to any of these if I have missed them.
  1. Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
    First asked 7 January 2010
    Note that baryonic mass includes all the things you have mentioned, e.g. rocks, planets, electron, ions, plasma, black holes, etc.
  2. Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
    First asked 8 January 2010
  3. What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
    First asked 9 January 2010
  4. Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
    First asked 12 January 2010
  5. Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force and so positive pressure?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  6. What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  7. What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  8. What is the source for BBT models prior to 1990's predicted deceleration?
    First asked 2 February 2010
  9. Can you understand that dark energy is observational and not metaphysical?
    First asked 2 Februaray 2010
Some of Michael Mozina's debating tactics that reveal the depths that he has to descend to because he has no science to backup his claims:
Answered questions:
  1. Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
    Birkeland made a rough calculation on page 721 of his 1908 book of the average density of matter that is not in stars.
    That calculation was correct at the time given the knowledge of the universe. The calculation is wrong now since we know more about the universe.
  2. A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
    Is seems that MM cannot answer these simple questions on pressure other than regurgitating his usual Casimir effect is "relative pressure" from atoms. So I answered it for him in as simple a manner as possible. He still cannot understand it.
P.S.
 
Tim Thompson said:
I suggest you seek out The Expanding Universe by Sir Arthur Eddington (Cambridge University Press, 1933; still in print). He has quite a bit to say about the cosmological constant (which he calls the cosmical constant). He considered it an absolute requirement for general relativity to be a complete theory and thought Einstein was wrong to abandon it; just look up cosmical constant in the index. The book is readable by a general audience. There is also a fair amount of discussion of the cosmological constant in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (W.H. Freeman & Co., 1970; also still in print). Builds strong muscles just lifting its 1279 pages off the shelf and definitely not for a general audience. However, bits & pieces of the discussion might be accessible. Although Einstein never liked the cosmological or cosmical constant, it never went away.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think it's time you guys give us your "genesis" chapter that starts something like:
Click to expand...

I worry, MM, that talking about inflation again will distract you from the issues you have repeatedly brought up as the Big Problems With Cosmology:

a) You repeatedly insisted that "negative pressure" was nonsense, that gravity could only attract, that GR could never predict inflation, and so on. You now appear to agree that GR generates an acceleration-prediction from a positive-vacuum-energy source hypothesis.

b) You repeatedly insisted that EM cosmology had been ignored, and if EM forces were included we would see that dark energy was unnecessary. You now appear to agree that no actual "inclusion" of EM forces has ever been shown to work, and that each one we went into detail on was shown to fail.

Finish the arguments you start, Michael. You just spent a 1000-post thread on two lines of argument based entirely on ignorance. Please spend some time trying to absorb that before changing the subject, eh?

Lesson #1: your mental-picture version of an inconsistency-riddled mainstream cosmology is baloney. There are no minus-sign errors, simple mispredictions, etc. We shouldn't need a 1000-post thread to pound that into you. The next time you think Guth/Perlmutter/Einstein/etc. made an obvious howler of a math error, the burden is on you to identify the error.

Lesson #2: Everything in this thread has boiled down to "I really, really think the vacuum energy is zero and something else is causing acceleration." Yet you clogged a 1000-page thread with tangential accusations, including the assumption that everyone was wrong about everything. A thread about "we ought to assume lambda=0 until we have two independent lines of evidence" might have been interesting. This wasn't it; this was "the first ten things that pop into my head about lambda obviously beat 90 years of scholarship". That sucked.
 
ben m said:
The next time you think Guth/Perlmutter/Einstein/etc. made an obvious howler of a math error, the burden is on you to identify the error.
Click to expand...


Or the burden of proof could equally be if such mathematical models have actually been worthwhile, or caused more confusion than good, than actual direct errors.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Ignoring a certain paper that I posted are we then reality check?
Click to expand...
If you mean Timothy E. Eastman's opinions about current cosmology published in the Journal of Cosmology then yes I am ignoring this derail from Michael Mozina's opinions about dark matter, inflation and cosmology.

If you want to discuss it then create a new thread.
 
sol invictus said:
A couple of comments on this CC business.


  1. as far as I know the only source for Einstein having said that the CC was his biggest blunder is Gamow 40 years or so after the fact. So one might take that with a grain of salt.

  2. GR does not belong to Einstein. GR is a theory that exists independently of Einstein, Einstein's beliefs at various times, and Einstein's motivations at various times. In fact Einstein's beliefs and motivations are totally irrelevant to any discussion of the value of the CC.

  3. the CC is in fact unique in several ways:

    • Thought of as a geometrical term, it is the only modification of the Einstein-Hilbert action that is consistent with general covariance, effective at "long" (i.e. longer than the Planck length) distances, and that doesn't involve inverse powers of curvature and derivatives. In other words, by the standard logic of effective field theory, it must be included as a parameter and cannot simply be set to zero by fiat. Put another way, even if one sets it to zero in the classical action, it will re-appear at 1-loop due to quantum corrections. And if one sets it to zero in the 1-loop effective action, it re-appears at 2-loops. It's very hard to squash, and it's very hard to get it to be small enough, let alone zero (which is known as the "cosmological constant problem").

    • Thought of as an energy density, the CC fits perfectly into Einstein's equations. Contrary to what ben said, the equation in PS's post above is completely general (those are Einstein's equations, with no special assumptions). That equation doesn't just apply to homogeneous and isotropic universes, it applies all the time. And T_\mu \nu includes the cosmological constant. The CC is a form of energy and pressure, and therefore it's an additive term that changes the diagonal elements of T. It can arise in many ways: from quantum vacuum energy as above, from a scalar field potential that's non-zero in a minimum, from a 4-form "electric" flux (don't go bananas MM, that's not a standard electromagnetic field energy, it's something much weirder involving significant new physics), or simply from a shift in the zero-point of potential energy.

  4. as ben has been emphasizing, GR is a theory of gravity, not a theory of energy and mass. GR tells us what the gravitational field is given the stress-energy that sources it, just as Maxwell's equations tell us the electromagnetic field given the charges and currents that source it. Maxwell's equations cannot tell us what the charges and currents are at some instant; they can only tell us what the fields will be if the charges and currents are something at that instant (and, coupled with some more equations, what everything will look like later or earlier).

    By exactly the same token, GR cannot tell us what the value of the CC is. All it can tell us is what the universe will do given its value. The CC is an input, a source; at least as far as physicists understand now it must be fixed by observation and experiment, and cannot be fixed by theory or set to zero.
Click to expand...

Very helpful. Thanks.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I very much doubt you'll get this. The people who have suffered explaining the process numerous times are now probably too embarressed to keep touting that nonsense so have given up.

I'll have a go though.

Nothing went bang.

Oh dear, the most basic princple of cause and effect broke down straight away.

Wouldn't it be crazy if a theory like that gained popularity eh? :)
Click to expand...
What a lot of gibberish.
 
Zeuzzz said:
You having trouble with the words? spelling? grammer? I can help.

If you having trouble with the meaning then you need to explain why.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a collection of sentences which bare little relation to one another.
 
sol invictus said:
Thought of as an energy density, the CC fits perfectly into Einstein's equations. Contrary to what ben said, the equation in PS's post above is completely general (those are Einstein's equations, with no special assumptions). That equation doesn't just apply to homogeneous and isotropic universes, it applies all the time. And T_\mu \nu includes the cosmological constant. The CC is a form of energy and pressure, and therefore it's an additive term that changes the diagonal elements of T. It can arise in many ways: from quantum vacuum energy as above, from a scalar field potential that's non-zero in a minimum, from a 4-form "electric" flux (don't go bananas MM, that's not a standard electromagnetic field energy, it's something much weirder involving significant new physics), or simply from a shift in the zero-point of potential energy.
Click to expand...

I'm going to admit confusion on this point. (It's actually something that's confused me for a while; hopefully someone here can help me.) Isn't the cosmological constant term a different term than the stress-energy tensor? If it was part of the ordinary energy/pressure density, then why would it need a separate term? And isn't it (in the context of GR, anyway) supposed to be constant over all space and time--i.e. intrinsic to the geometry of spacetime?

As I've said, my understanding of GR is pretty meager. Hopefully one of you can lead me in the right direction.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I very much doubt you'll get this. The people who have suffered explaining the process numerous times are now probably too embarressed to keep touting that nonsense so have given up.

I'll have a go though.

Nothing went bang.

Oh dear, the most basic princple of cause and effect broke down straight away.

Wouldn't it be crazy if a theory like that gained popularity eh? :)
Click to expand...
The last couple of posts looks like you want an actual response to this as a serious display of your knowledge of cosmology.

The response is that you are displaying an ignorance of the Big Bang theory that could only be gained by depending on unreliable science (news articles?).

BBT states nothing about the origin of the universe.

It states: Something went bang. Before that we know nothing and speculate a lot.

Wouldn't it be crazy if a theory like that gained credibility by the collection ofscientific evidence eh? :)
 
ben m said:
I worry, MM, that talking about inflation again will distract you from the issues you have repeatedly brought up as the Big Problems With Cosmology:
Click to expand...

I'm thinking you don't have the guts to even try such a thing. I think Zeuzzz has you pegged.

a) You repeatedly insisted that "negative pressure" was nonsense,
Click to expand...

Actually what I said is "negative pressure in a vacuum" is nonsense. Guth's magic vacuum is nonsense. That's what I said. I'm sure you could figure out a physical way to put 'negative pressure" on a surface in a physical/mechanical way, but no vacuum contains "negative pressure". That idea is nonsense and Guth used that nonsense to "pull" his mass thingy apart.

that gravity could only attract,
Click to expand...

Let's see you jump off the planet superman.

that GR could never predict inflation,
Click to expand...

GR could never "predict" inflation. You made that up all on your own.

and so on. You now appear to agree that GR generates an acceleration-prediction from a positive-vacuum-energy source hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Hello? I'm the one that pointed out the solar mechanics that blew away any notion that we needed "negative pressure" to get "acceleration' of matter.

b) You repeatedly insisted that EM cosmology had been ignored,
Click to expand...

Yep. You've ignored Birkeland's work for almost 100 years now. Bruce for about 60 and Alfven for about 50 years. You're still in hard core denial about the "circuit" approach to MHD theory.

and if EM forces were included we would see that dark energy was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The EM field is the only known force of nature that "naturally" accelerates matter on a daily basis, even inside our solar system. If there is a "likely cause" of massive acceleration, the EM field is the obvious first option to fully explore. You folks haven't scratched the surface yet, because you can't even recognize a "solar discharge' when you see one in multimillion dollar satellite images.

You now appear to agree that no actual "inclusion" of EM forces has ever been shown to work, and that each one we went into detail on was shown to fail.
Click to expand...

No, I'm simply admitting that *I personally* haven't figured out a way to do it *yet*, but my personal ignorance in the moment is no crystal ball about the future. The EM field is still the most likely culprit and I personally haven't stopped trying to figure out a way to explain the observational evidence with an EM field. I'm sure other people are thinking about the very same issue. I have confidence that someone will figure it out, if not me personally.

Finish the arguments you start, Michael. You just spent a 1000-post thread on two lines of argument based entirely on ignorance. Please spend some time trying to absorb that before changing the subject, eh?
Click to expand...

Nobody is changing the subject. I simply want to see you put together a cohesive argument from start to finish and see how "unified" your beliefs actualy are when it comes right down to it.

Lesson #1: your mental-picture version of an inconsistency-riddled mainstream cosmology is baloney.
Click to expand...

So set me straight and put together a consistent, logical, rational creation event from start to to finish, what started it, what happened in what order,etc.

There are no minus-sign errors, simple mispredictions, etc.
Click to expand...

Guth's minus sign for "pressure" in a "vacuum" was certainly an error of epic proportions in the final analysis. The lowest possible energy state for a vacuum is zero, not negative infinity. That's a serious physical and mathematical error. Period.

Lesson #2: Everything in this thread has boiled down to "I really, really think the vacuum energy is zero and something else is causing acceleration."
Click to expand...

Correction. It has boiled down to the physical reality that the lowest possible "pressure" state for a "vacuum" is zero. It's actually higher than zero because we can't remove all the kinetic energy from any vacuum, even if would could remove every single atom. Nature's "vacuums" are universally positive pressure environments, with neutrinos, photon and matter everywhere.

Yet you clogged a 1000-page thread with tangential accusations, including the assumption that everyone was wrong about everything.
Click to expand...

Oh boloney. You're the one's claiming WIKI is wrong about every topic under the sun. I'm just picking on your three invisible friends, not the entire scientific community.

A thread about "we ought to assume lambda=0 until we have two independent lines of evidence" might have been interesting. This wasn't it; this was "the first ten things that pop into my head about lambda obviously beat 90 years of scholarship". That sucked.
Click to expand...

What "sucked" IMO was the chorus of "liar liar pants on fire" when I simply tried to point out that Einsteins use of the constant was not designed (by him) to create anything other than a static universe. What sucks is that you folks won't even put a up a cohesive "genesis story" for fear of having it picked apart, line by line, concept by concept.
 
MM:

As I have followed this debate about the CC and dark energy, a question has occurred to me. Some people here have accused you of not understanding the mathematics of GR, perhaps unfairly -- I don't know you and I don't have any way to evaluate that kind of comment. So, I was wondering just how familiar are you with the following equation?

[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]

Do you understand the nature of the various elements? Are you able to explain the mathematical meaning of [latex]R_\mu_\nu[/latex], the Ricci curvature tensor, for example?

I am not asking this to disparage your knowledge but would like to know so I can better understand your state of knowledge and basis for the discussion here.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually what I said is "negative pressure in a vacuum" is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yet you also said that the "CC in the EFE gives acceleration, matter in GR gives deceleration" is correct, and you apparently agreed with all of the signs in a gas-vs-Casimir comparison. In both cases, whatever else is going on, the vacuum has the opposite dU/dV of an ordinary gas. Ordinary gases have positive pressure. Vacuum energy has the opposite.

You're not disagreeing with any of the science any more, you're just complaining about the terminology.

GR could never "predict" inflation. You made that up all on your own.
Click to expand...

Acceleration, not inflation. We'll get to inflation later. Anyway: we just spent five pages establishing that The EFE is the GR prediction for motion in response to sources. If the source is vacuum energy, GR predicts acceleration. Did you forget?

Hello? I'm the one that pointed out the solar mechanics that blew away any notion that we needed "negative pressure" to get "acceleration' of matter.
Click to expand...

... then you agreed that you had no idea how to "get" acceleration of massive objects. You said that you "bet" someone would figure something out in the future.

Yep. You've ignored Birkeland's work for almost 100 years now. Bruce for about 60 and Alfven for about 50 years. You're still in hard core denial about the "circuit" approach to MHD theory.
Click to expand...

... the circuit MHD theory that neither you nor anyone else has actually used in quantitative cosmology? In a quantitative cosmology discussion, yes, I ignore it.

The EM field is the only known force of nature that "naturally" accelerates matter on a daily basis, even inside our solar system.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does a very good job of obeying Maxwell's Equations and making forces which obey Newton's Law. That's all it does, and that's how I know it doesn't work on astronomical scales.

The EM field is still the most likely culprit and I personally haven't stopped trying to figure out a way to explain the observational evidence with an EM field.
Click to expand...

Then why was the a = q/m E calculation such a surprise to you in this very thread?

Guth's minus sign for "pressure" in a "vacuum" was certainly an error of epic proportions in the final analysis. The lowest possible energy state for a vacuum is zero, not negative infinity. That's a serious physical and mathematical error. Period.
Click to expand...

For the 100th time: negative pressure arises from positive energy, but positive dU/dV. Repeat after me: the cosmological constant has positive energy density and negative pressure. the cosmological constant has positive energy density and negative pressure. the cosmological constant has positive energy density and negative pressure. Do we need another 1000 posts to get that through to you?
 
Michael Mozina said:
The EM field is the only known force of nature that "naturally" accelerates matter on a daily basis, even inside our solar system.
Click to expand...

News Flash!... I'd like to report my discovery that I am currently accelerating around the sun in an elliptical orbit and, contrary to MM's assertion, the EM fields surrounding me have very little to do with it.

... now back to the 8th lather, rinse, repeat cycle.
 
So let's go through again:

  • MM has absolutely no idea what "negative pressure" even refers to. He seems to think it's invalid because by definition it requires negative energy. I now have no idea what he has learned, failed to learn, or is deliberately ignoring from the past 1000 posts. Trying again:
    • Theoretically speaking, there is no question that "negative pressure" is what you expect from positive vacuum energy. MM's statements to the contrary are flat misunderstanding.
    • GR-wise, there is no question that a negative pressure term gives outward acceleration. MM's statements to the contrary are flat misunderstanding.
    • In observations, 100% of available data are perfectly consistent with the hypothesis of a vacuum energy density of +10^-27 g/cc. MM's statements to the contrary are flat misunderstanding.
    • Several major pieces of data are inconsistent with the midcentury hypothesis of a vacuum energy density of zero. MM does not seem to dispute this.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Hello? I'm the one that pointed out the solar mechanics that blew away any notion that we needed "negative pressure" to get "acceleration' of matter.
Click to expand...


Actually you've never demonstrated that you have the qualifications to speak knowledgeably on the issue of solar mechanics, and often demonstrated that you don't. You've also shown without a doubt that you don't understand the concept of negative pressure as it's being discussed in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom