|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
26th September 2010, 11:14 AM | #4201 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Well, D'rok was in fact correct on that point Tim, but God only knows what you mean by an "magnetic seed" in the absence of "current flow" You're still in blatant denial of the "current flow" that is REQUIRED to sustain your magic "magnetic seeds". What exactly is a "magnetic seed" Tim?
Quote:
Quote:
When you make any empirical (here on Earth) connection between "dark" invisible stuff and photons, let me know. Until then it's a "religion" that is based on "blind faith in the unseen".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
26th September 2010, 11:54 AM | #4202 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
What on Earth is ""current flow""?
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately for you, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why any competent scientist would restrict observations of the Universe as a whole to those observations that can be made on Earth. The only reason that all physical phenomena would be observable on scales of human conveinience would be if the Universe was designed for humans. Which one may think was the case if one was devoutly religious and loved bringing God in to everything for no apparent reason...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
26th September 2010, 01:27 PM | #4203 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I will keep reading these actual articles and posting relevant details.
Kusenko cites a very nice review article from Widrow, 2002: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207240
Originally Posted by widrow
Look, the current density is right in there. Nobody's ignoring it. Widrow continues following Maxwell's Equations and gets to a consequence, a simple fact about astrophysical plasmas:
Quote:
The paper goes on through the observational data, then into models. A historical aside
Quote:
Remember, of course, this is coming from the pen of someone who just (and I quoted him) went through Maxwell's Equations, including current densities of course, in order to find the properties of these plasmas and fields. In figure 9 he shows the current explicitly. On page 44 he brings current densities back explicitly---a few calculations take us outside of the MHD approximation. The first involves diffusive charge separation (like that encountered behind the Moon).
Quote:
To my surprise, electrostatic fields come in:
Quote:
Quote:
And another:
Quote:
After much discussion of these "late universe" fields sources, Widrow gets around to early-universe sources.
Quote:
Quote:
On the whole, a good review article and yet another patented Mozargument. a) Mozina quotes a popular-press article as though it supports him. b) The actual article doesn't support him at all. c) The article and the references therein, in fact, explicitly contradict pretty much everything Mozina has ever said. |
26th September 2010, 01:35 PM | #4204 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
You haven't offered a speck of criticism of the current best-explantion theories other than to say you can't possibly believe it. Given that, and the fact that your lack of qualifications to understand science at any level has been repeatedly demonstrated, and what you have above is simply a lengthy argument from incredulity and ignorance. |
26th September 2010, 03:39 PM | #4205 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Quote:
|
26th September 2010, 05:44 PM | #4206 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You are confused (as usual ).
Quote:
Nothing in that quote is about "non current carrying plasma". Charge separation is not current. Plasmas always can carry currents. Plasmas are highly conductive as anyone who knows anything about plasma physics or can read Wikipedia knows. There is no such thing as a "non current carrying plasma". If you bothered to read the entire quote or the cited paper then you will see that this means that the displacement current in Ampere's law can be neglected. And before you get your knickers in a twist about the word current in displacement current, it is not necessarily an actual current. It is a basically a contribution from polarization of the medium that is treated the same as a current, not an actual "current flow" (to use MM-speak). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
26th September 2010, 05:53 PM | #4207 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
(Still following up.) Hey, this is great stuff. Ludwig Biermann (1907-1986) was a German astronomer---I had never previously heard of him. If for some reason I had to invent an astronomer to dismantle Mozina-style science, I don't think I could have invented someone better at it than Biermann.
In particular, in the early days he was able to place limits on the Sun's power source before Bethe had pinned down the details of that source; Biermann was able to say (quite accurately) that any central energy source would violate GR if it was too small, but it would be fine if the power source extended over the inner few percent of the Sun. Biermann then made major contributions to solving the hydrostatic and radiative equilibrium conditions that hold up the rest of the Sun. He showed that these equations implied that the outer surface of the Sun is convective, and (and this is great) he and Schwartzchild showed that granule convection could power magnetic processes that super-heat of the corona. Then he showed that a superheated corona would blow away a cloud of neutral plasma, and that this plasma would explain the force observed on comet tails. That, not the electric currents Mozina pretends Birkeland predicted, is what we observe in space and call the solar wind. The best thing is that Biermann knew how science works. He realized that his stellar calculations couldn't be made accurate unless he was plugging in the correct atomic physics constants, so he spent a long time working to build more accurate opacity tables. (The PC approach seems to be "The first calculation I ever did must have been right; I can stick to it only if I avoid plugging in accurate details.) He did the same thing with his solar-wind predictions, realizing that his initial calculations made approximations, and spending decades working on including more-accurate physics details. So here we have the guy who actually predicted the solar wind, and was recognized for such with a Bruce Medal and an RAS Gold Medal (unlike Birkeland, who barely worked on this topic, and according to the NY Times he only "predicted" a giant DC current which is not observed.) Moreover, Biermann made his prediction by applying the actual laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and atomic physics to the observed Sun---not by plugging a brass sphere into a power supply. And he can't possibly be accused of ignoring electricity or current, because indeed he discovered one of the most important actual electric-field-generating processes in astrophysics. I like him. |
26th September 2010, 09:28 PM | #4208 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Electric Currents and Magnetic Fields: Denial?
Let us now examine Mozina's claims in the light of reality. Consider the review paper that ben_m has referenced: Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields by Lawrence Widrow, Reviews of Modern Physics 74(3): 775-823. Now let's see how Widrow manages to deny electric currents as a source for magnetic fields.
"The very first magnetic fields may have been created during an early universe phase transition. These events typically involve fundamental changes in the nature of particles and fields as well as significant release of free energy over a relatively short period of time, two conditions that lead naturally to electric currents" (Widrow, preprint pages 49-50) "If the number densities of the light quarks up, down and strange (charges 2/3, -1/3 and -1/3 respectively) were equal, the quark-gluon plasma would be electrically neutral. However, the strange quark is heavier than the other two and therefore less abundant so that there is a net positive charge for the quarks. This charge is compensated by an excess of negative charge in the lepton sector. Shocks that develop during the nucleation of hadronic bubbles are characterized by strong pressure gradients which affect the quarks and leptons differently. Therefore, electric currents develop as bubble walls sweep through the quark-lepton plasma." (Widrow, preprint page 50) "As hadronic regions grow, there is a tendency for baryons to concentrate in the quark phase. Essentially, the bubble walls act as 'snowplows' sweeping up baryons. In doing so they create currents of order J ~ en+v where n+ is the number density of positive charge carriers in the quark phase and v is the typical velocity of the bubble walls." (Widrow, preprint page 51) "Magnetic fields due to a charged scalar field were considered by Calzetta, Kandus & Mazzitelli (1998) and Kandus, et al., (2000). These authors found that charged domains form during inflation which give rise to currents and hence magnetic fields during the post-inflation era." (Widrow, preprint page 53) Now consider a more recent review paper, Primordial Magnetogenesis by Kandus, Kunze & Tsagas, a 99 page preprint submitted to Physics Reports 23 July 2010. In what manner do they choose to deny the current flow required to generate magnetic fields? "We begin by analyzing several mechanisms of magnetogenesis that could have operated during the reheating epoch of the universe, namely parametric resonance, generation of stochastic electric currents and the breaking of the conformal invariance of the electromagnetic field by cosmological perturbations." (Kandus, Kunze & Tsagas, preprint page 5) "Post recombination mechanisms of magnetic generation appeal to astrophysical processes and to battery-type effects. It has been proposed, in particular that the Biermann-battery mechanism can produce seed B-fields, which the dynamo could subsequently amplify on galactic scales and to the observed strengths. The Biermann effect (Biermann, 1950), which was originally discussed in the stellar context, exploits differences between the electron and ion acceleration that are triggered by pressure gradients. These will first give rise to electric currents and subsequently lead to magnetic fields by induction." (Kandus, Kunze & Tsagas, preprint page 29) "Once outside the Hubble radius, the aforementioned quantum-mechanically excited modes are expected to freeze out as classical electromagnetic waves. The latter, which initially appear like static electric and magnetic fields, can subsequently lead to current-supported magnetic fields. This happens after the modes have re-entered the horizon in the radiation era, or later during the dust dominated epoch. Note that, after the second horizon crossing, the currents of the highly conductive plasma will also eliminate the electric component of the Maxwell field, leaving the universe permeated by a large scale B-field of primordial origin." (Kandus, Kunze & Tsagas, preprint page 32) These are only a few samples from two significant review papers. There are a great many more out there, but this will do. Everybody knows that electric currents are required to generate magnetic fields, and that fact is explicitly acknowledge and recognized throughout the entire disciplines of astrophysics and cosmology. Mozina's claims have never been true in the past, and are absolutely false now. If he continues to make this claim, that "we" are "in denial" regarding electric currents and magnetic fields, especially after seeing this demonstration of evidence to the contrary, then we will know for an established fact that Mozina will prefer to lie openly rather than admit the error of his ways. Remember this post and hit Mozina with it every time he tries to sell that claim again in the future. |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
27th September 2010, 04:50 AM | #4209 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
|
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
27th September 2010, 11:26 AM | #4210 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Dark Energy and Empirical Science VIII
|
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
27th September 2010, 01:24 PM | #4211 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
28th September 2010, 08:01 AM | #4212 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Since Michael seems to have abandoned this thread, it looks like he has accepted the theories of dark energy/dark matter as being well reasoned, thorough, and fully scientific explanations as a cause for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Or at least he's come to understand that his criticism and alternative explanations were nothing more than arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and lies. Of course any sane intelligent person knows that isn't enough, as far as legitimate science is concerned, to be valid criticism or a reasonable alternative explanation. That would be, you know, any sane intelligent person.
|
28th September 2010, 11:40 AM | #4213 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Nah, I'm just letting it "simmer" for awhile. It's fine, your invisible inflation and dark energy friends won't be showing up on Earth anytime soon.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem GM is that your whole argument is an "invisible friend of the gaps" argument. Anything "unexplained" gets stuffed liberally with your impotent (on Earth) metaphysical gap fillers. That's a "religion", not "science". |
28th September 2010, 11:44 AM | #4214 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
28th September 2010, 11:47 AM | #4215 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
No, Micheal. Just you.
For example, this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...906.0905v5.pdf describes a cosmological model which may not require dark energy. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right, but either way it's science. And that's something that you have demonstrated time and time again that you can't recognize or understand. Your problems are so fundamental that you can't even get definitions correct. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
28th September 2010, 11:53 AM | #4216 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
No, actually that seems to be where you get yourself in trouble with MHD theory. You're using a concept Alfven applied to *DENSE NON CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA*, and you're trying to treat *LIGHT* plasma that carries current in exactly the same "frozen in" manner. It doesn't work. Alfven from Cosmic Plasma:
Quote:
|
28th September 2010, 12:26 PM | #4217 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Of course the accelerated expansion of the Universe is measured by human beings in labs right here on Earth. It doesn't matter in the eyes of science whether that effect occurs at a scale where we can put some in a jar or poke it with probes. If your position is that an effect must exist right here on Earth for it to be real, then you're arguing from ignorance.
Quote:
Once more I'll remind everyone that your qualifications to communicate in a rational and intelligent manner on any issue of science has been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. Your comment above adds support to the notion that you are not qualified to communicate in a rational manner, since it appears to be either a non sequitur or a severe misunderstanding of what I wrote.
Quote:
That is true. You may believe in any fantasy or assortment of fantasies you wish. You may indulge yourself in any delusion that suits your whim. But since your qualifications to understand science at the level of a typical ten year old child have been challenged, and you have been unwilling or unable to show that you indeed posses any such qualifications, then your acceptance or rejection of any particular scientific concern is entirely unqualified and may therefore be dismissed as wholly unfounded.
Quote:
I point out your lies when you lie. I've politely asked you several times to stop using lies as arguments. If you choose to continue, please take responsibility for your own choice. And I think it's fair to say that sane intelligent people, on the whole, understand that building a case to criticize and/or explain anything, based almost exclusively on lies, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance, and expecting that case to have any validity whatsoever, is not particularly sane and/or intelligent.
Quote:
When you have a valid, scientific criticism of the current, most complete theories to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, I'm sure the entire world of science will be glad to hear it. When you can offer a legitimate alternative explanation, supported by real science and described in real math like real physicists use to communicate their theories, the entire world of science will be your audience. As it is you have no such reasonable criticism, nor do you have any valid alternative explanation. You have lies, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance. And you know that's all you have. You hop around various Internet forums spewing those feeble useless arguments, insulting everyone who attempts to help you understand where your mistakes are, shunning math, and ignoring legitimate science. And meanwhile the world of science continues to move ahead without paying your arguments the least bit of attention, because arguments from incredulity and ignorance aren't really arguments at all. They're logical fallacies. When that's all you've got, and that is all you've got, it means you're wrong. |
28th September 2010, 01:02 PM | #4218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
There is no thread on the scientific theory of the sun ("solar thread") that I have seen so it would be impossible for ben m to post there.
There are a couple of threads about physically impossible crank ideas about the sun. There is no point in ben m posting actual science in threads about already debunked ideas. I did a quick search for Biermann & Schwartzchild and came across this interesting paper Solar atmospheric heating by hydromagnetic waves It cites both H. Alfven (e.g. his 1950 book Cosmic Electrodynamics) and Biermann (a 1948 paper). ETA Ludwig Biermann Bibliography |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
28th September 2010, 10:37 PM | #4219 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Frozen Field Approximation I
See Mozina's post for the full extent of his quote from Alfven. The assumption apparently made by Alfven, that most astrophysical plasmas do not conform to the conditions required for the frozen-field approximation, is now known to be wrong. Before I go on, remember this, from 11 February 2009:
One must fully comprehend that Mozina's blind reliance on Alfven, to the exclusion of everything done in science since Alfven was active, is purely religious and has nothing at all to do with science. That kind of blind faith in any authoritative figure in science must always be rejected, no matter what the science, and no matter the qualifications of the authoritative figure. Science succeeds or fails on its own internal strengths & weaknesses, not on the declarations of authority, despite Mozina's obvious belief that authoritative imprimatur is all that science requires. Why bother with observations? Why bother with controlled laboratory experiments? What use could they possibly be, when the authority of Alfven settles everything? It is critical to realize that astrophysical plasmas were not well explored when Alfven was active, so there was precious little factual information on which to build a science. Alfven relied mostly on his own intuition, which failed him in this case because it was built on engineering & laboratory experience that did not properly replicate the physical conditions of space & astrophysical plasma. But we must also realize that Mozina fails not only to understand plasma physics, he does not really understand Alfven either. Look again at what Alfven said: "One of the requirements for using the `frozen-in' field concept is that E|| = 0. In order to satisfy this, the electric conductivity parallel to the magnetic field, ||, must be infinite." In order for a magnetic field to be literally frozen into the plasma, the conductivity has to be literally infinite, which will never happen in any physical reality, so it is a trivial observation that no magnetic field can ever be literally frozen into any physically real plasma, and literally everybody in plasma physics knows that very well. But what else does Alfven say? He says this: "we find that under cosmic conditions, || is usually so large that we can regard it as infinite." And what does that mean in any practical sense? It simply means that the mobility of the magnetic field lines relative to the plasma depends on the conductivity. The higher the conductivity, the slower the diffusion of the magnetic field through the plasma, and the more "practically frozen" (not of course literally frozen) it will appear to be. Now, if you are interested in physics that happens in the plasma on a time scale short compared to the diffusion time scale (set by the conductivity), then you can treat the magnetic field for that application as being "frozen". On the other hand, if you are interested in physics that happens on time scales that are long compared to the diffusion time scale of the magnetic field in the plasma, then you cannot use the "frozen" approximation at all, and must be mindful of the mobility of the magnetic field in that application. This in fact is exactly how the frozen field approximation is used in astrophysical plasma physics, and it is in fact precisely in keeping with the rules laid down by Alfven. His mistake was in his assessment of the physical characteristics of the plasma, for which he had not enough factual information at hand. But his assessment that magnetic fields are never really frozen into a plasma was correct, and modern plasma physics adheres to that assessment. Now, with that said, allow me to repeat myself from 12 March 2009 My quotes from over a year ago show that we are accomplishing nothing in this thread. Mozina continues to make the same tired claims, and we continue to provide the same refutations. The claims and the refutations might be cloaked in slightly different language, but the substance of both remains unchanged. Mozina himself is beyond hopeless, far too deeply engaged in his own private world of ignorance & stupidity. All we can do is repeat & repeat & repeat until one side or the other just gives up from sheer boredom. Such is our fate. Finally, let me finish with an interesting relevant paragraph:
|
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
28th September 2010, 11:52 PM | #4220 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
Just to add to Tim's great message (can't write long stuff at the moment, because I am attending the Cluster 10th birthday confernce), it is not easy to find breaking of the frozen in condition of the magnetic field in the Earth's magnetosphere. To measuring accuracy what is found is that the electric fields are completely given by vxB.
However, lately there have been papers looking at this breaking of the frozen in condition, Tony Lui et al. (2007) found break down far down the tail at Cluster's apogee (19 Earth radii) during substorm expansion phase, and a paper by Rickar Lundin et al (2005) take it a step further with the Cluster data and look on different scales whether or not the condition is met. They find that there are regions in the Earth's magnetoshere where the frozen-in condition does not apply. This is not surprising, but it is good to have actual experimental evidence for it. So, back to the magnetic reconnection session, hey, nobody is running out of the room screaming pseudo-science! |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
7th October 2010, 01:58 AM | #4221 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
http://www.universetoday.com/75164/m...otation-curve/
In before someone else abuses the content. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
7th October 2010, 09:30 AM | #4222 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
10th October 2010, 08:04 PM | #4223 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Neat! Note the (at first glance) careful and accurate use of ordinary science.
a) The authors identify a specific piece of data that's not currently well modeled. (They do not rail generically against "paradigms" or "ignorance".) b) The authors cite the recent relevant data, and cite a large suite of attempts to explain that data, which makes it clear that there IS something that needs explaining. (They do not paste together fifteen random Google results as evidence for a vague epistemological problem.) c) They do a *mathematical* comparison between (a) a clearly-stated magnetic force law and (b) numerical data, with error bars, from clearly-stated sources. The comparison is done in a standard way (chi-squared) and the result suggests that the agreement is good (chi^2 decreases from ~10 to ~1 with one added parameter). They do not insist that math is irrelevant or misleading. d) They obtain a magnitude and direction for the magnetic field that would make their model work (4.6 uG along the circumference) and compare it to well-understood and specific observations (Faraday rotation) of exactly the systems they're modeling. (They do not avoid this discussion altogether.) e) They do not discard dark matter. This model's inner disk is, as usual, dark matter dominated, and there's no indication of anything other than HI clouds experiencing the observed force. The difference? Ruiz-Granados et. al. get their magnetic-field hypothesis published in ApJ Letters, while MM et. al. hang around JREF and complain that astronomers ignore magnetic fields. |
11th October 2010, 05:03 AM | #4224 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
They also say that their model is testable, via specific *quantitative* observations (they do not say 'look at this picture! It PROVES my theory!!).
For those reading this thread, who are not as familiar with the relevant astrophysics as most of those who have posted to it are, the rotation curve in the outer part of M31's disk is derived from observations of gas (and/or plasma), not stars. |
19th May 2011, 03:11 PM | #4225 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...orphanplanets/
FYI, even less reason to believe in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter". |
19th May 2011, 03:37 PM | #4226 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
19th May 2011, 03:51 PM | #4227 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
19th May 2011, 04:26 PM | #4228 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Wrong: Since these orphan planets have not been detected in a lab (like dark matter has not yet been detected) and that is your primary criteria for the existence of anything, these orphan planets do not exist !
But if we forget about that crank belief then dark matter has even more evidence for its existence than orphan planets. Ophan planets: evidence from gravitational lensing. Dark mater: evidence from
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
19th May 2011, 04:47 PM | #4229 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Indeed, we've been through this 10*Exp[umpteen] times. Here's an example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=278
This is data from a microlensing survey. When astrophysicists first proposed that dark planet-y objects (MACHOs) might be the missing mass, the first thing they did was say, "hey, let's do a microlensing survey." They did. By 1994 it was obvious that MACHOs could not be more than 50% of the dark matter. (Astrophys. J. 424, 550) By 2003 it was obvious that MACHOs could not be more than 5% of the dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302325 In other words, microlensing is telling us unambiguously that MACHOs are not the dark matter. It was never telling us they don't exist at all---just that they're rare. How rare are they exactly? That's the new result---we've now seen enough MACHOs to have some idea of how many there are (rather than just putting upper limits on them). Planet-sized MACHOs, the new data tells us, make up a few times 0.01% of the mass of the Milky Way. Dark matter---the stuff that still, after decades of study, shows every indication of being nonbaryonic---makes up 80%. How do you look at data that says "planets are common enough to be 0.0001 of the Milky Way mass" and think it's a challenge for the dark matter hypothesis? |
19th May 2011, 05:19 PM | #4230 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
20th May 2011, 02:06 AM | #4231 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Way to pick a recent press release - one not relevant to cosmology rather than say:
http://www.aao.gov.au/press/wigglez2011/ |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
20th May 2011, 10:59 AM | #4232 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Several years ago (3?) we found out that the black holes in the center of galaxies are significantly larger than first estimated. Something like three years ago we found out that you folks grossly underestimated the amount of light and number of stars in a galaxy due to dust. For all you know there could be twice as many large stars in a galaxy as you first estimated. Two years or so ago we found out that you grossly underestimated the number of smaller stars compared to the "larger" ones we could observe. It turns out that there could be four or five times more small stars in a galaxy than you realized, meaning you guys probably underestimated the total number of ordinary stars in a galaxy by whole order of magnitude. Now we find out that there are more detached Jupiter sized objects out there than here are stars in the heavens. Even still, nothing has been done to rectify the "problems" in your "dark matter' theories, or to minimize the need for non-baryonic exotic forms of matter, not even a *SINGLE* percent. Why?
|
20th May 2011, 11:13 AM | #4233 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
20th May 2011, 11:42 AM | #4234 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
A factor of 2 won't save you. Especially if the distribution isn't right.
Quote:
Hence, they don't contribute as much to the mass of a galaxy.
Quote:
Lensing measurements demonstrate quite conclusively that these can't make up the missing mass.
Quote:
But it's not even true that physicists aren't looking for alternatives to dark matter. They are (for example). It's just that your preferred alternative is a joke. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
20th May 2011, 12:01 PM | #4235 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I'm not looking to be "saved", I'm looking to see if you folks make any real attempt to minimize the need for exotic brands of matter now that you know for a fact that you've been grossly underestimating the amount of ordinary matter in a galaxy.
My favorite line from that last article was this one:
Quote:
|
20th May 2011, 12:17 PM | #4236 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
First off, I already pointed out an example of efforts to explain observations without dark matter. And second, you're simply wrong: there is no evidence that the astronomy community has grossly underestimated the amount of ordinary matter in the galaxy.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
20th May 2011, 12:22 PM | #4237 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
The problem with the estimates for all these contributing factors for the mass of galaxies is that they require mathematics. Consequently, EU groupies remain hopelessly confused and will never understand the calculations that demonstrate the existence of dark matter. There is no logic to this; it's merely the way it is.
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
20th May 2011, 12:42 PM | #4238 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I just linked to, and re-explained, exactly that post.
The mass of the Milky Way is about 6x10^11 solar masses. We can account for less than ~1x10^11 solar masses by counting stars, dust, and gas. There's ~5x10^11 solar masses "missing", mostly in the Galactic halo. Previous research did not say "we counted every last thing". I never said that it did. If you think I did, you're lying or confused or both. Quote me if you disagree. What does research say? As I said, by the mid-1990s, research said whatever MACHOs/rocks/black holes are out there, they don't add up to 5x10^11 solar masses. By 2003 or so we said they don't add up to even 0.25x10^11 solar masses. Now we're saying that MACHOs do add up to ~0.0005 x 10^11 solar masses. Sure, there are probably undiscovered rocks/dust/gas/etc. out there. Whatever it is, it doesn't add up to 5x10^11 solar masses. Please note that this is precisely consistent with what I've said before. You misinterpreted it to make it sound wrong, and to make your own fantasies sound right? I'm not surprised, but that's your problem not mine. Let me put it another way. You owe $6000 to the mob. Vinnie The Fist shows up at your door and demands payment. You root through your safe; you log into your bank account and empty it out. "There's $1054.88, Vinnie," you say, "I honestly want to make good but as you can see there I don't have another $5000 to my name." Vinnie asks for the kid's piggybank. "OK, there's another $15.30, but you're going to have to accept that the next $5000 isn't there." Vinnie grins and pulls out the couch cushions. He finds some popcorn, a Lego brick, and two quarters. "You say there ain't no money, but lookit them shiny quarters." says Vinnie, "You better not be holdin' out on me." |
20th May 2011, 12:46 PM | #4239 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
20th May 2011, 01:30 PM | #4240 |
Technical Admin
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada's Texas
Posts: 1,495
|
|
__________________
One man's reason that something is not reliable evidence is another man's whine about how others won't buy 3 magic beans with the family cow. - hgc |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|