Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
In your opinion, what is the "strongest" "overwhelming scientific evidence" against EU theory?
Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
In your opinion, what is the "strongest" "overwhelming scientific evidence" against EU theory?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
de·lu·sion [di-loo-zhuhn] noun - 1. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.
I have never seen an "EU theory" which had any content other than "Let's discard the possibility of new physics and daydream that E&M does the job."
The strongest evidence against every individual EU theory claim is this: fact that the observed accelerations are utterly incompatible (in magnitude, direction, velocity-independence, species independence, etc.) with the accelerations that EM force laws (or particle winds) are capable of exerting. In a nutshell: real-world electromagnetism simply doesn't predict the things you daydream that it predicts. Every time you have said "look at thus-and-such in the data, EM forces can do that"---you have always been guessing wrongly about what EM forces can do.
I find it particularly amusing that these EU folk are the ones screaming about how the mainstream ignores EM and yet they are the ones that are completely incapable of understanding the Maxwell's equations and the real basics - like whether the effects of an electric or magnetic field are the same or different for negatively and positively charged particles.
See ben m's calculations from a few days ago (below). You have not directly addressed these calculations. You've been asked directly about these calculations and you've only been able to respond with unconvincing, hand-wavy replies.
As I stated before, I find Ben's work to be a very comprehensible beat-down of the EU theory. I think it is your job to refute all or part of this with EU theory before you can change my mind. Otherwise, I believe there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" against EU theory.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That's simply not true from my perspective Ben. EM fields can and do cause plasma to accelerate. I showed you "a" way to generate "a" consistent redshift process between different objects using the EM field. Yes, it's a very limited example because unless the acceleration is consistent on all axis, it doesn't explain everything we observe. If we try to balance acceleration and velocity in each direction, we'd need on almost omnidirectional particle/EM field. I can't explain all the details yet, but I can definitely see how an EM field could cause a continuous plasma acceleration process, and I can see how that field strength could change over time.
I've never seen "dark energy" accelerate a single atom Ben. Why should I believe it even exists, or that these acceleration/velocity patterns have anything at all to do with mythical "dark energies"?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You mean like that fact you can't get "dark energies" to accelerate a single atom, and you can't even tell us where it comes from? Talk about delusions. You don't have a single empirical leg to stand on.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You pegged the irony meter on that one since you "daydream" about a new form of physics related to "dark energies" and simply discard physics entirely.
And you still don't understand. The reason EM fields cause "plasma" to accelerate is that F = qE + qv x B, and F = ma, so within a plasma (ions, dust, electrons) where q is large and m small, you can get large accelerations from small forces; since q has two possible signs force act in both directions, leading to complex and characteristically short-range interactions. I already showed you how the same laws can not cause stars or galaxies to accelerate.
You're still guessing that it will work using vague mental pictures, NOT using the actual laws of E&M. Your guesses are still wrong.
You're the one discarding physics Michael. You've not done a single physical calculation.
If you think dark energy is a bad hypothesis, why don't you propose a better one?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, you discarded physics because you discarded empirical physical experiments. "Dark energies" are not "physics", they are "make believe" energies. All you see is a pattern of acceleration at worst case, but "dark energies" have nothing to do with that pattern of acceleration because "dark energy" can't accelerate a single atom.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I just did Ben. It's not "perfect", not by a long shot, but it's a hell of a lot better than "my make believe invisible energy friend did it".
Your hypothesis is far worse than "not perfect", it is 100% ruled out already. I gave you the numbers, are you just pretending I didn't?
Last edited:
Not at all. Empirical physics gave us Maxwell's equations and physical experiments have supported Einstein's theory of general relativity. You are the one who is butchering both of these.
What are "dark energies"?
Again, what are dark energies?
Chucky
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 324
As a an interested layman reading and following as many of the links given as I've had time for: how about all of the evidence Mr. Mozina?
It just seems to me that the way to understand something is to start with the most recent, complete results and then work backwards to find where something fails. But not having the mathematical talents to understand the mechanics intimately all I might do is root for what seems most logical to me from the sidelines. Why do you treasure a few papers written decades ago, before half of what is known of modern physics was understood? If I wanted to argue Alan Guth's theory of inflation, I could not do so until I could understand the equations he used, found a mistake, and then proved it to him. If one can't do the math to even look for a mistake, how can their interpretation be argued at all? One cannot truly understand the mechanics. At best, one has only incomplete analogies to work from. Analogies by nature cannot be completely correct.
It just seems to me that the way to understand something is to start with the most recent, complete results and then work backwards to find where something fails. But not having the mathematical talents to understand the mechanics intimately all I might do is root for what seems most logical to me from the sidelines. Why do you treasure a few papers written decades ago, before half of what is known of modern physics was understood? If I wanted to argue Alan Guth's theory of inflation, I could not do so until I could understand the equations he used, found a mistake, and then proved it to him. If one can't do the math to even look for a mistake, how can their interpretation be argued at all? One cannot truly understand the mechanics. At best, one has only incomplete analogies to work from. Analogies by nature cannot be completely correct.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well, while there is "evidence" of "acceleration", there's no evidence "dark energy" had anything at all to do with that observation of acceleration. While there is "evidence" of a relatively homogeneous layout of matter, again, there is absolutely no physical evidence that "inflation" had anything to do with that observation. There's no physical connection between "observation" and the "cause" because being assigned to that observation by the mainstream. There is evidence we can't account for all the mass in a galaxy. Again, there is no physical evidence that any of that missing mass is contained in exotic material.
This debate isn't ultimately about "mathematics" or mathematical talents. Its about "physics" and their physical inability to link "acceleration" with "dark energy" that blows their claim. It's the physical inability to get "inflation" to exist in nature that makes me "lack belief in inflation". It's their physical inability to produce any "dark matter" that is at issue here. They'd love you to believe this is about math, but it's about physics, specifically their inability to physically and empirically demonstrate their claims. You don't need math skills to ask for a physical demonstration that a car running on electricity actually "accelerates". Seen anything run on "dark energy"?
Because the mainstream *STILL* can't explain things like solar wind, something that Birkeland "predicted" over 100 years ago!
There weren't any mistakes in his "equations". His mistake was assigning math formulas to invisible, dead stuff. It's like trying to find a mathematical mistake in an equation describing the number of invisible elves that fit on the head of a pin. The math isn't the problem or the issue.
That isn't the case, nor is it even relevant since my beef isn't with the "math" in the first place.
I've had a number of years of calculus so I can follow along in terms of the math. It's not however a mathematical problem in the first place, it's a *PHYSICAL PROBLEM* because they can't physically demonstrate their claim. Their only recourse is now to attempt to convince you that if you (or I) only knew more math we would "get it" and we would not need to see an real experimental evidence of their claim. What they never want you to see is that their problem isn't in the math. The problem is that they "made up" a fudge factor for their mathematical models. In fact they created a model that is 96% metaphysical fudge factor, and only 4% actual physics.
It's just like my analogy about how many invisible elves fit on the head of pin. *IF* you accept the existence of invisible elves *and* you accept the properties I assign to them (their size for instance), *THEN* the math is fine. *IF* however you insist I demonstrate the existence of invisible elves and the properties I have assigned to my mythical entity, my whole show fall apart. In this case, their math is fine. They just cant produce the physics to demonstrate that dark energy exists, or that it causes acceleration in the patterns they claim. Other than that small flaw, it's about as good of any theory as the number of invisible elves fit on the had of a pin, and the math is just about as useful.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, I'm just ignoring you pretending that your contrived "numbers" are definitive or that the single model I presented is the only one that might ever have value. Just because I can't adequately explain it yet with empirical physics does not give you the right to stuff the gaps of my ignorance (or yours) with "dark energy"!
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'm not the one peddling what Alfven called "pseudoscience", and I'm not the one trying to stuff invisible metaphysical friends into a variation of "blunder theory" and trying to pass it off as "General relativity theory". Look in the mirror my friend. That's the guy butchering GR theory and MHD theory.
They are figments of your collective imagination.
Last edited:
Why should I care what Alfven called it. The world has moved on. Get over it.
Neither am I. I don't even know what "blunder theory" is.
Nope.
Funny that. Considering that it was something YOU made up!