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

[ben m]

No, I'm just ignoring you pretending that your contrived "numbers" are definitive

Contrived indeed---I gave you the most optimistic numbers, the ones most likely to make your theory work. They failed. The least-contrived numbers make your theory fail even harder, want to see?

or that the single model I presented is the only one that might ever have value.

Yes it does. E&M is not all that complicated, Michael. There's a short list of forces and very simple equations that govern them; I listed ALL OF THEM. I don't need to know which ones you used in which order in your old hypothesis; I don't need to know which ones you might use in the future in your next hypothesis. All of the possible EM forces on a star are tiny, tiny, tiny forces. That's true of the direct E and B forces, that's true of forces mediated by plasma waves or suchlike, and so on down the list.

What are you hoping to add in a future EU theory? It has to be some new force law that Maxwell missed, otherwise I ruled it out already.

 

[ben m]

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"!

So you want to stuff the gaps of your ignorance with a vague hope that someday someone will find some combination of E&M laws that work out differently than any calculation you've ever seen.

You've done exactly zero work towards making this supposed-future-hypothesis come about. You've done exactly zero work identifying inadequacies in today's EM "hypotheses" (Perratt's for example), much less in removing those inadequacies. That's pretty shaky ground (i.e. no ground at all) for predicting the future success of a hypothesis.

Imagine, by analogy, an income tax denier. "I don't file taxes," he says, "because the income tax doesn't exist because the UN invalidated it in 1983.". (The UN did no such thing.) "The income tax doesn't exist because Ohio was not legally a state until 1945". (Not true---the income tax is the valid law of the land and you have to pay it.) "Hey, I'm sure that the income tax is invalid, and obviously someone will explain why someday. Stop criticizing me for not having all the answers. All I know is I won't pay the tax."

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you want to stuff the gaps of your ignorance with a vague hope that someday someone will find some combination of E&M laws that work out differently than any calculation you've ever seen.

That seems like a better bet to me than hoping some new form of energy exists in nature.

FYI, I also pay my taxes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Contrived indeed---I gave you the most optimistic numbers,.....

No you didn't. In fact you started with the "least optimistic" assumption possible, specifically that the EM field would need to *DIRECTLY* effect the stars themselves instead of everything else.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why should I care what Alfven called it.

You should care because he wrote MHD theory and understood it.

The world has moved on. Get over it.

The "world" as you call it is still peddling pseudoscience. I've gotten over their pseudoscience just fine.

Neither am I. I don't even know what "blunder theory" is.

It's where you stuff "dark energy" into GR.

Funny that. Considering that it was something YOU made up!

Not me. I don't believe in dark energy, singular or plural.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The energy density we describe has effects which work against Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity, discovered in 1687, turns out not to be correct. The correct theory of gravity is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Ya but Einstein's GR didn't say squat about "dark energy". You stuffed that in there all on your own and *STILL* have the nerve to try to pass it off as "GR theory". Baloney. That's false advertising. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[ben m]

No you didn't. In fact you started with the "least optimistic" assumption possible, specifically that the EM field would need to *DIRECTLY* effect the stars themselves instead of everything else.

Sorry, MM:

a) You've previously countered the "EM doesn't move stars" calculations with "YES THEY DO STARS R MADE UV PLASMA AND TBE SUN IZ CHARGED". Pardon me for evaluating this, your actual hypothesis.

Anyway, I'm glad that you finally accept that this is absurd. This should allow you to finally drop Perratt's nonsense (which is exactly this scenario). I don't recall seeing anything as silly as this in Alfven.

(b) The new "EM-pushes-plasma, stars follow plasma due to gravity" thing is so ridiculously unphysical that it initially didn't occur to me. After you made it up---on the spot last week---I showed you the Bullet Cluster evidence confirming the exact opposite behavior you dreamed up. (Remember? right here.). Anyway, want me to do the standard Newton/Maxwell calculations for your new "gravity tractor" scenario? I can, it's no trouble---actually it will be sort of fun.

 

[ben m]

Ya but Einstein's GR didn't say squat about "dark energy". You stuffed that in there all on your own and *STILL* have the nerve to try to pass it off as "GR theory". Baloney. That's false advertising. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The cosmological constant was what we now call dark energy. Same units, same energy-density-negative-pressure meaning, same place in the field equation, same effects on the motion of galaxies. The connection between the cosmological constant and vacuum energy density was made by Lemaitre in 1934 and was well-understood by Einstein, Eddington, et. al. Dark energy is a new name for it with a (very) little more generality.

Geez, most crackpots try to criticize Einstein for putting the cosmological constant into his equations---you're trying to criticize the cosmological constant because Einstein didn't put it in? What the heck?

 

[ben m]

And you still don't understand:

GR: the theory of gravity that describes "how spacetime responds to energy, and how things move in spacetime".

Cosmology: "what particular sort of energies are actually affecting the spacetime we happen to live in".

It's like: Newton's Law of Gravitation tell you how gravity works. a = 9.8 m/s/s is what Newton's Laws tell you about gravity near our particular planet. If you go to Mars and find a = 3.7, that doesn't mean "Newton was wrong", it means his law is working with different masses and distances. Similarly, the various changes to cosmology (Einstein static, Hubble expanding, Lambda-CDM accelerating) are not changes to GR; they're different ideas about what GR is working with.

 

[Chucky]

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.

No, I'm not talking about the evidence that you are presenting. I don't see you countering their arguments on their terms, particularly regarding the math they present. I'm not letting go of that part of my observation.

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"?

There is a particular level of math that describes what the physics are for this stuff. There are models that describe some basic properties to an astounding level of accuracy. There is no way to measure physics without the math as the metric. I couldn't make your argument or any like it here without at least crossing that bar that I see presented here. If I couldn't demonstrate to those who can read the math what I think are mistakes, I couldn't continue the argument until I could.

Yes, there is a level of math that goes off from physics, and I believe that there are some great differences between physics and pure mathematics. But I'd need to be able to go over the math that's being presented here before taking the next step by preparing to then argue with Guth or Hawking or someone. Who's going to listen to me if I can't do at least the scut work?

Dark energy is only being observed on the largest of scales in the universe. Who else is claiming that it has effects on anything else?? We're on a collision coarse with the Andromeda galaxy in a few billion years, it is not moving away from us. Thus, even our local group is not observed to react to it, only larger swaths of the universe are being described as doing so. I'm not aware of any claims that anything smaller is effected.

Because the mainstream *STILL* can't explain things like solar wind, something that Birkeland "predicted" over 100 years ago!

What do you mean by "predicted" in quotes? Has the prediction not been born out? If Birkeland was right, again, the key he would leave them is the math. Has anyone been basing the ongoing physics on those specific equations? That's how science is checked. By no means is it strictly math but you cannot escape that there must be math shown, eventually, for everything. The physicist starts it, then the mathematicians expand it if it's useful to them. But so long as the physicist's equations are coherent, they will be used if they model something that agrees with everything else. Either it's useful or abandoned.

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.

My understanding is that you have that completely backwards. His formulas assigned what were the results. You may not like them but if he had assigned them to a figment of his imagination, he'd have been laughed down years ago. Everyone would have been proving them false and who might remember him today? If people approve of this theory it is because so much of the basic physics are explained by it. In turn physicists of all stripes can say over and over that their observations match the mathematicians' predictions as well and visa-versa again.

That isn't the case, nor is it even relevant since my beef isn't with the "math" in the first place.

Again, from your point, you have no problem with the math. But it is relevant because everyone else has a huge problem with it. Besides, you could quickly end their dissensions. I would have a problem with the math when if they say it disproves my ideas. But I don't see how I could defend against it, or even determine if they were punking me until I could check on it. Then I would demonstrate to show them whereI don't understand that.

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.

Wow. Then if you follow it why aren't you answering equation for equation? How can you not have problems with the math when they say yours is wrong? As I just said, it makes your argument so much easier to settle if you are seeing problems in the math. How can that not be the first place to start? The math must describe the physics you are talking about just as much as it must describe theirs. Again, how does one do physics without math to measure the descriptions. Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see how it could be done. Math is the only exact metric at the end of the day. When enough people see the math one of three things happen. One is that they accept it. Or, if it isn't quite right, or can be said in an easier fashion, it gets double checked and then cleaned up on both the experimental and theoretical sides. Both working towards the middle. Or it is incorrect and forgotten.

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.

Properties can be assumed philosophically, but in science whether it's sociology, geography, chemistry, economics, or physics, whatever the properties are, they must have matching equations that fit everyone else's science. Otherwise there is no exact way to describe to other scientific disciplines what they will see and base their evidence on. Or when being measured against the physicist's slide-rule.

 

[ben m]

That seems like a better bet to me than hoping some new form of energy exists in nature.

That's the worst reason ever. "I don't care about cosmology observations. Either the stars are doing something I've seen observed in a vacuum chamber, or ... or ... well, I bet they are!"

Sorry, MM, the stars are undergoing motions of a type that no one has ever observed in a vacuum chamber. That's an observational fact. You, like everyone who has tried, have failed to explain the observed motions using familiar physics.

Nature is forcing us to conclude that there's new physics at work.

If you think this is wrong or broken---well, blame the vacuum chambers for not being big enough. Blame the Andromedans for not installing their end of the GPS system. Blame our ancestors for not launching Pioneer 10 10,000,000,000 years earlier so we could track it intergalactically. Don't blame the vacuum, which seems to be quietly sitting there with an energy density and not particularly caring whether humans can experiment on it or not.

 

[Reality Check]

What do you mean by "predicted" in quotes? Has the prediction not been born out? If Birkeland was right, again, the key he would leave them is the math. Has anyone been basing the ongoing physics on those specific equations? That's how science is checked. By no means is it strictly math but you cannot escape that there must be math shown, eventually, for everything. The physicist starts it, then the mathematicians expand it if it's useful to them. But so long as the physicist's equations are coherent, they will be used if they model something that agrees with everything else. Either it's useful or abandoned.

I think that you will find that Michael Mozina's use of quotes often appears random.

But in this case Michael Mozina is using "predicted" correctly since Birkeland never made a scientific prediction (no quotes). What Birkeland stated was

It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space.

from THE NORWEGIAN AURORA POLARIS EXPEDITION, 1902 - 1903, secon section published 1913, page 720.

However Birkeland never formed any mathematical model for what we know as the solar wind today. He did have a mathematical model for pencils of cathode-rays (electrons) being emitted from sunspots where the speed of the electrons was a few 100 km/s short of the speed of light. That is obviously (except to MM ) not the solar wind.

 

[GeeMack]

However Birkeland never formed any mathematical model for what we know as the solar wind today. He did have a mathematical model for pencils of cathode-rays (electrons) being emitted from sunspots where the speed of the electrons was a few 100 km/s short of the speed of light. That is obviously (except to MM ) not the solar wind.

Kristian Birkeland certainly was a legitimate scientist, but he was contemporary to the late 1800s through early 1900s. There is newer material to work with, newer research, better quality data, essentially a whole new, better developed, better understood world of science which Michael willfully ignores. Truth is, almost nothing that Michael attributes to Birkeland was actually part of a specific, scientific theory proposed by Birkeland. Nearly all of Michael's crackpot ideas are his own, his very own, and blaming Birkeland and Alfven and Bruce is just Michael's way of not having to take responsibility for his own dismal failures.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant II

No you didn't. In fact you started with the "least optimistic" assumption possible, specifically that the EM field would need to *DIRECTLY* effect the stars themselves instead of everything else.

Is this supposed to be some of that physics you said you were going to teach us? OK, I'll bite. So the electromagnetic field does not accelerate stars, just "everything else". OK, and how exactly does "everything else" couple to the stars so that it can push them along at exactly the same speed as it does, and accelerate it at exactly the same rate as it is accelerated? What physical force is responsible for this (remember, it must be a force we can measure in controlled laboratory experiments here on Earth). Does it not need to operate at 100% efficiency, in order to accelerate the stars at the same rate as it is itself accelerated, without even a visible time lag?

Meanwhile, as I have pointed out elsewhere (90% Stars), roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is in stars. So how does 10% of the mass of the universe ("everything else") push around 90% of the mass of the universe (stars). That looks like a pretty good trick to me.

See my post: Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant where I point out that we have already ruled out both electric & magnetic fields as the source of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I also point out copious observational evidence for the existence of cosmological "dark energy". You have not yet responded to this detailed post. In the past you have always rejected astronomical evidence on the grounds that it is not performed in a controlled laboratory experiment, and is therefore neither empirical nor scientific. This is a use of both words ("empirical" & "scientific") which is peculiar to yourself alone. Do you still respond in like fashion?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Inflationary cosmology is real science

On this thread, it is not just a matter of claiming that inflationary cosmology is deficient, or even just plain wrong. It is a matter of Michael Mozina claiming that inflationary cosmology does not qualify as science at all, by any standard. I find that to be a preposterous notion. So here I present just a few examples of the recent, valid scientific literature on inflationary cosmology. Read the papers for yourself, to the extent that you can, and decide for yourself if this is a valid scientific undertaking. And do note that by "valid" I do not mean to imply "correct" in any way. I mean only that the methodology employed constitutes a valid exercise of the scientific discipline. We all know that it is quite possible to be eminently scientific but at the same time quite wrong.

Lectures on inflation and cosmological perturbations
David Langlois
56 pages, 5 figures; Lectures given at the Second TRR33 Winter School on cosmology, Passo del Tonale (Italy), December 2008
Abstract - "The purpose of these lectures is to give a pedagogical introduction to inflation and the production of primordial perturbations, as well as a review of some of the latest developments in this domain. After a short introduction, we review the main principles of the Hot Big Bang model, as well as its limitations. This motivates the study of cosmological inflation induced by a slow-rolling scalar field. We then turn to the analysis of cosmological perturbations, and explain how the vacuum quantum fluctuations are amplified during an inflationary phase. The next step consists in relating the perturbations generated during inflation to the perturbations of the cosmological fluid in the radiation dominated phase. The final part of these lectures gives a review of more general models of inflation, involving multiple fields or non standard kinetic terms. Although more complicated, these models are usually motivated by high energy physics and they can lead to specific signatures that are not expected in the simplest models of inflation. After introducing a very general formalism to describe perturbations in multi-field models with arbitrary kinetic terms, several interesting cases are presented. We also stress the role of entropy perturbations in the context of multi-field models. Finally, we discuss in detail the non-Gaussianities of the primordial perturbations and some models that could produce a detectable level of non-Gaussianities."

Topics in Inflationary Cosmology and Astrophysics
Matthew M. Glenz
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2008 (Center for Gravitation and Cosmology)
Abstract - "In this dissertation, we introduce a general way of modeling inflation in a framework that is independent of the exact nature of the inflationary potential. Because of the choice of our initial conditions and the continuity of the scale factor in its first two derivatives, we obtain non-divergent results without the need for any renormalization beyond what is required in Minkowski space. The second part of this dissertation deals with a post-Minkowski approximation to a binary point mass system with helical symmetry. The third part of this dissertation discusses the detection sensitivity of the IceCube Neutrino Telescope for observing interactions involving TeV-scale black holes produced by an incoming high-energy cosmic neutrino colliding with a parton in the Antarctic ice of the South Pole. We also include in this dissertation a brief summary of relevant cosmology and an appendix giving a parameterized, exact radiation-reaction solution."

An introduction to inflation and cosmological perturbation theory
L. Sriramkumar (Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad, India)
Invited review for Current Science
Abstract - "This article provides an introductory review of inflation and cosmological perturbation theory. I begin by motivating the need for an epoch of inflation during the early stages of the radiation dominated era, and describe how inflation is typically achieved using scalar fields. Then, after an overview of linear cosmological perturbation theory, I derive the equations governing the perturbations, and outline the generation of the scalar and the tensor perturbations during inflation. I illustrate that slow roll inflation naturally leads to an almost scale invariant spectrum of perturbations, a prediction that seems to be in remarkable agreement with the measurements of the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background. I describe the constraints from the recent observations on some of the more popular models of inflation. I conclude with a brief discussion on the status and certain prospects of the inflationary paradigm."

And I do point out that, although inflationary cosmology is the majority opinion, alternative theories are certainly on the table for serious consideration. The minds of the community of scientists are not as closed as some might want you to believe.

Alternatives to Cosmological Inflation
Robert H. Brandenberger
to be published in the proceedings of CosPA08
Abstract - "The inflationary paradigm, although very successful phenomenologically, suffers from several conceptual problems which motivate the search for alternative scenarios of early universe cosmology. Here, two possible alternatives will be reviewed. - "string gas cosmology" and the "matter bounce". Their successes and problems will be pointed out."

Furthermore, see my post from June 2009, Inflationary Cosmology and Falsifiability, quoting my earlier post Testing Inflation from February, 2009, nearly a year ago already. I provide published papers demonstrating valid tests of inflationary cosmology against astronomical observations, a theme also represented in the papers shown above. But Mozina rejects all of this without even bothering to read the papers, because they are not controlled laboratory experiments. By Mozina's standards, anything that is not a controlled laboratory experiment does not qualify as valid science, leaving a host of practitioners of astronomy, zoology, geology, archaeology & etc. evicted from science altogether.

One must understand the ultimate & obvious truth here: Mozina is driven by a religious & philosophical compulsion that rejects all scientific reasoning that does not conform to his personal preconception of the way the world should be. To do this he will go to any length including inventing his own redefinitions of words & concepts, and the elevation of personalities to divine status, such as his demigod Alfven, who cannot have ever said or done anything regarding plasma physics which could possibly have been wrong.

Until & unless Mozina changes, there is no real value in this entire conversation except one: Pay close attention to the positions Mozina advocates and assume that the opposite is the real truth. Do that and you are not likely to go wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

You should care because he wrote MHD theory and understood it.

So what...
a) Newton came up with our first theory of gravity. Do we reject general relativity, which matches the data better than Newtonian gravity, because it wasn't devised by its original creator. Of course not, that would be idiotic. As is deifying Alfven.
b) Its utterly irrelevant on cosmological scales, as has been illustrated many many many times now.

The "world" as you call it is still peddling pseudoscience. I've gotten over their pseudoscience just fine.

You can state that has many times as you like. You're wrong.

It's where you stuff "dark energy" into GR.

Funny that. Because Einstein's blunder (whether he actually said that or not) was not to stick in a cosmological constant, but to stick in one that exactly balanced with gravity to create a static universe. This was a blunder because:
a) It gave the Universe an unstable equilibrium - a perturbation to the system would have either cause the universe to start collapsing or start expanding indefinitely.
b) There was little evidence to support the assumption that the universe was static.
c) With regards to b), Einstein could have predicted the expansion. Instead he chose to vilify those who did.

You should take special note of point c). Its a clear case of someone who constructed a theory being wrong about the conclusions of their theory. Einstein was not God, he got things wrong. He understood GR and he still got things wrong. He was, after all, only human. Likewise, Alfven did some great work I have no doubt. But that doesn't make him infallable.

The really important thing to note, however, is that the world moves on. And science moves on. Most significantly, brand new data comes to light. Sometimes we can't ask the original theorist behind the theory what they make of the new data because they're dead. Personally, if he were alive today, I think Einstein would agree with a non-zero CC given the new data. Why would I think that? Well he'd already made this blunder once before - demanding the CC be a specific value just to support his world view of how the Universe should be. I think he's unlikely to make the same mistake again. But who knows? And, to be honest, of what relevance is it? Science moves on. The opinions of great scientists who are sadly no longer with us become less and less relevant as the data mounts up and the new generations of scientists leave them behind.

Not me. I don't believe in dark energy, singular or plural.

I didn't say you believed in it. I said you made the term "dark energies" up. Why? Who knows. I can hazard a guess. My best guess is that you are utterly incapable of forming arguments based on physics and have to resort to trying to smear things by making them sound unscientific. Your ridiculous renaming of inflation as Godflation springs to mind. Well, its pathetic, its juvenile and highlights for everyone to see your complete inability to construct a meaningful, physics-based, argument. You should be sorely embarrassed.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Chucky!

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I'm not talking about the evidence that you are presenting. I don't see you countering their arguments on their terms, particularly regarding the math they present. I'm not letting go of that part of my observation.

How does one counter the number of invisible elves that fit on head of a pin mathematically? Why would you even try to do that? Their problem isn't math, it's a complete lack of physical support for their idea that is the problem.

There is a particular level of math that describes what the physics are for this stuff.

Well, not really. Physically (empirically) speaking "inflation" and "dark energy" are figments of their collective imagination. These things do not now and never have physically existed in nature as 'physical stuff'. They simply created mathematical models with make believe entities that do not exist in nature. It's doesn't describe "physics", it describes "make believe" physics.

I'm going to go grab a cup of coffee and I'll pickup where I left off. Welcome to the board and to the conversation by the way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, there is a level of math that goes off from physics, and I believe that there are some great differences between physics and pure mathematics. But I'd need to be able to go over the math that's being presented here before taking the next step by preparing to then argue with Guth or Hawking or someone. Who's going to listen to me if I can't do at least the scut work?

Here's a relevant example with Guth. According to Guth, his mythical brand of a "vacuum" has "negative pressure". In the math formulas he uses, that "negative pressure" in a vacuum ultimately shows up as a minus sign in his formulas that act to "pull" his mass thingy apart. *IF* we simply accept that a vacuum can have/hold "negative pressure", then the math is fine. If however we look at the "physics" of a real vacuum, it is physically impossible for any vacuum to have "negative pressure". The lowest possible pressure state of any vacuum is "zero" and no such zero state vacuum even exists in nature. All vacuums have "positive pressure". Is Guth's mistake rooted math or physics?

Dark energy is only being observed on the largest of scales in the universe.

No, "dark energy" has not been observed. "Acceleration" has been observed. Dark energy can't have anything at all to do with that "acceleration" because "dark energy" is a no show in the lab and it can't move a single atom.

Who else is claiming that it has effects on anything else??

How does it even have any effect on anything if it can't be shown to even exist?

What do you mean by "predicted" in quotes?

I mean he built real physics experiments that 'taught him' things that he did not know before his experiments began. These are true "predictions' born of experimentation, unlike Guth's "postdicted" inflation theory that he made up in his head to fit the observations in question.

Has the prediction not been born out?

Yep. The solar wind is full of high speed charged particles of both types (positive and negative) just as he "predicted" from his experiments. The "discharges' he created in his experiments also have been born out with satellite evidence.

If Birkeland was right, again, the key he would leave them is the math. Has anyone been basing the ongoing physics on those specific equations?

Yes.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

That's how science is checked. By no means is it strictly math but you cannot escape that there must be math shown, eventually, for everything.

But when presented with mathematical support, they simply ignore it! What now?

The physicist starts it, then the mathematicians expand it if it's useful to them. But so long as the physicist's equations are coherent, they will be used if they model something that agrees with everything else. Either it's useful or abandoned.

It's "useful" to me, but abandoned by them. Now what? Evidently math isn't any more valued by them than anything else. They don't care about the math or the physics in the final analysis, they only care about "being right" and "being right" means they attempt to ignore/minimize the role of electrical currents in space. They go out of their way to do so.

My understanding is that you have that completely backwards. His formulas assigned what were the results. You may not like them but if he had assigned them to a figment of his imagination, he'd have been laughed down years ago. Everyone would have been proving them false and who might remember him today? If people approve of this theory it is because so much of the basic physics are explained by it. In turn physicists of all stripes can say over and over that their observations match the mathematicians' predictions as well and visa-versa again.

His formulas are based on *mythical make believe things*. It's like me whipping up a formula about "Godflation", pointing at the sky and claiming "Godflation did it". The math he created has no physical relevancy to anything because he didn't apply that math to a known force of nature, he "made up" something in his head! Inflation isn't real. It's a figment of Guth's imagination. It's not even physically possible to verify the existence of inflation because supposedly it no longer exists. It's like a dead deistic religion and has zero scientific value in the present moment.

Again, from your point, you have no problem with the math. But it is relevant because everyone else has a huge problem with it.

They only pretend to have a huge problem with math only to distract you. If math were the deciding factor, that paper on electrical circuits in the solar atmosphere would be important to them. It's not important to them so they simply ignore it. They don't care if the math is correct or incorrect. All they care about stuffing the electric genie back in the bottle at all costs.

It's not even technically possible to compete with Guth's magic-make-believe math because no known force of nature would result in faster than light expansion. Only make believe forms of energy do that. How does one compete with magic?

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:

Theories about dark energy have been developed using known laws of physics to explain an observed phenomenon. Clearly, alternative explanations, like EM fields for dark energy have been definitely ruled out. You are like a cornered rat flailing around for an escape; it's unfortunate that you can't step back and see how absurd your reasoning is.
Don't you find ben m's explanations about the inadequacy of EM effects to account for the observed cosmic acceleration troublesome? His comments about the strength of the forces involved are quite conclusive, yet you do not directly respond, but instead you persist in making wild irrelevant statements. Do you even bother to read and understand his explanations? It seems you don't, since you never respond with anything more than comments about fairies on pins and other equally childish babbling.
If you disagree with my post you can easily show me that I am wrong by responding to ben m with a meaningful mathematical demonstration showing that the magnitude, effects and directionality of EM fields could account for the observed acceleration.
If you cannot do that, we can only conclude that your beliefs are faith-based and have nothing to do with real science.