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

[Chucky]

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

You have agreed that there is an acceleration expanding the size of the universe. First, they are showing with their math that the fully understood EM forces cannot produce the effects that you claim are at work. How can their math then, not be incorrect and why don't you show it? And again, they are using mathematics to describe other forces that they say may be at work. If they are wrong their math MUST show that they are wrong. Thus again if you don't show them the mathematical errors, you allow those errors to stand. My understanding is that there is a mathematical analog for all physical processes. Don't forget that Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg and others started with nothing more than math for many of their discoveries that have been proven correct with little or no evidence of any discrepancies to their formulas. If the math is correct, it will describe physical processes that some times are not even known to exist until there is a proof. Experimentalists and observers then find such things as black holes (or something that has nearly all the same properties) over an over again. That is not an uncommon way of doing science. How was Newton able to verify that his formulas were correct as to how gravity controls the orbits of planets unless he had a control group of other planets that he could try and manipulate to verify it? You claim that there was no way that he could do it. Do you accept any of Newton's work? Though you seem to accept various astronomical observations. If ANY of them are correct, they are not being done in a lab. Why don't you throw out every astronomical observation? The experimentalist in the lab is sometimes the last one to verify that a theory is correct.

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.

Thanks for the welcome Michael (and Dancing David). I don't believe that there is any way to determine if inflation is correct or not until one can disprove the math I wouldn't dream of arguing that stuff even if I was dead set against it because without knowing it I wouldn't have a place to start. I'd need to see how the numbers describe the physical and back again. And there are some scientists who don't like inflation, or specifics about it, but they argue at the same level with the same tools used to propose the theories or hypothesis in the first place. It seems to me that you are simply shaking your fist at theorists and not engaging them on their ground. You can't demonstrate lack of physical support without math. If they are wrong, again, there MUST be mathematics that make your case. If you do understand it, why don't you show the work? Physical properties cannot be accurately described without the mathematical metric.

 

[GeeMack]

Thanks for the welcome Michael (and Dancing David). I don't believe that there is any way to determine if inflation is correct or not until one can disprove the math I wouldn't dream of arguing that stuff even if I was dead set against it because without knowing it I wouldn't have a place to start. I'd need to see how the numbers describe the physical and back again. And there are some scientists who don't like inflation, or specifics about it, but they argue at the same level with the same tools used to propose the theories or hypothesis in the first place. It seems to me that you are simply shaking your fist at theorists and not engaging them on their ground. You can't demonstrate lack of physical support without math. If they are wrong, again, there MUST be mathematics that make your case. If you do understand it, why don't you show the work? Physical properties cannot be accurately described without the mathematical metric.

Welcome, Chucky. It didn't take you long to observe that Michael isn't considering the math. You are correct in noting that without a handle on the math, his criticism of the physics is, for the most part, unfounded. To put the position of this particular crackpot into its proper perspective, you might find a little biographical background enlightening. Chucky, meet Michael Mozina....

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...

8 pages, 30 posts per page...

Michael Mozina's 'Sun has a solid surface' idea​

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid​

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen ​

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

ManInTheMirror's claims concerning a BAUT conspiracy​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Current theory is no scientifically "better than" plasma cosmology.​

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

How the sun shines​

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...

Surface of the Sun​

... one of the most persistent, verbose, and wrong anti-scientists ever to cross the threshold of the Internet.

 

[Tubbythin]

How was Newton able to verify that his formulas were correct as to how gravity controls the orbits of planets unless he had a control group of other planets that he could try and manipulate to verify it? You claim that there was no way that he could do it. Do you accept any of Newton's work?

Moreover Newton discovered a whole new branch of mathematics when looking for support for his theory.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Alfven Was wrong!! III

I'm not the one peddling what Alfven called "pseudoscience", ...

Why should I care what Alfven called it. The world has moved on. Get over it.

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

This is deeply flawed thinking. What part of "the world has moved on" is too complicated for you?

Isaac Newton not only invented the classical theory of gravity, but the entire discipline of classical mechanics (Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica; The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687 ) and the entire discipline of optics (Opticks, Or, A Treatise on the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light, 1704). Of course he understood both quite well. But guess what? Modern physicists understand Newtonian gravity, classical mechanics and optics far beyond the level that Newton himself was able to achieve. They did not do that because they are intrinsically smarter than Newton, but because they have had centuries of experience Newton was denied.

James Clerk Maxwell invented classical electromagnetism (A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, 1864; A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 1873; Maxwell's Equations of Electromagnetism) and was one of the few inventors of modern statistical mechanics and thermodynamics (Maxwell's Equations of Thermodynamics). There can be little doubt but that Maxwell knew quite well what he was doing, and deeply understood all of these disciplines of physics. But guess what? Modern physicists understand all of these disciplines of physics far more deeply than did Maxwell. They did not do that because they are intrinsically smarter than Maxwell, but because they have had centuries of experience Maxwell was denied.

Albert Einstein invented special relativity (On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905 ), general relativity (The field equations of gravitation, 1915) and quantum mechanics. That's a pretty good track record for anybody, and nobody suggests that he did not understand these fields of physics quite well. But guess what? Modern physicists understand all of those disciplines of physics well beyond the level Einstein was able to achieve. They did not do that because they are intrinsically smarter than Einstein, but because they have had decades of experience that Einstein did not have, partly due to Einstein's deliberate rejection of what he erroneously thought was wrong (i.e., quantum mechanics), and partly due simply to time denied Einstein (i.e., modern advances in general relativity).

So Alfven invented MHD. Nobody thinks he was a big dummy. He got a Nobel prize and gets full credit for his invention of MHD. But guess what? Just as was the case for Newton, Maxwell & Einstein (smart guys all), modern physicists understand MHD much better than did Alfven. They do not do this because they are intrinsically smarter than Alfven, but because they have had decades of experience beyond Alfven. In part, Alfven made the same mistake Einstein made, deliberately stepping away from advances in modern physics under the erroneous impression that they were wrong. Well, as it turns out both Einstein & Alfven were wrong in their own ways. Those of us who actually engage in an intellectually honest pursuit of science understand that. We don't think we are smarter then Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or Alfven (well, at least I don't). Rather, we have hung around long enough to see how the game has played out. Einstein & Alfven lost. Too bad, but they both get credit for what they did and we move on.

You, however, are firmly glued to the past. You can't see an inch beyond Birkeland & Alfven, long gone figures of the past. You have no idea what modern physics is. You have no idea what science is, nor how it is done. You don't even know what the simplest words mean. So you just make things up as you go along, and so naturally you are wrong far more often than you are right. You are pushing a lost game because you are dead wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is deeply flawed thinking. What part of "the world has moved on" is too complicated for you?

What part of "pseudoscience" is still "pseudoscience" don't your understand Tim? Alfven saw Parker's description of "magnetic reconnection' Tim. He knew MHD theory from *BOTH* the B *AND* E orientations. He was an electrical engineer by trade, and no such individual would ever make the mistake of calling a "current flow change" a "magnetic reconnection" event! It's still pseudoscience Tim, and time will not ever change that fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM:

Theories about dark energy have been developed using known laws of physics to explain an observed phenomenon.

Nope. Dark energy isn't "known" to exist, so its impossible to make that claim. They're creating *MYTHICAL* forms of math with *mythical* physics.

Clearly, alternative explanations, like EM fields for dark energy have been definitely ruled out.

No they have NOT! Only one or two or a few models could ever be "rule out". You can't know in the moment how many other 'unknown' models might exist. All we can say at the moment is that so far no known EM process can *FULLY* explain all the pieces of evidence. You can't rule out the EM field entirely because we do not know what other EM models might eventually surface.

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?

Troublesome in the sense they aren't quite right, and need work, sure. Troublesome in the sense I *MUST* abandon all hope of the EM field ever being able to explain these observations? No. Just because I can't personally do it right now, doesn't mean it will never be done by anyone.

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.

First of all, the 'strength' concept totally ignores the effect on the other 99.6 percent of the universe and how that factors into the movements of stars. It's totally "inconclusive" because it's only *ONE* EU model, his calculations were "gross oversimplifications" of the process.

Do you even bother to read and understand his explanations?

Sure. I've acknowledged the limits of my model too. You seem to think I'm somehow in denial of some fact. That's simply not the case here. I simply accept that a "limited' but empirical model of redshift is still better than "my invisible energy friend did it".

If you cannot do that, we can only conclude that your beliefs are faith-based and have nothing to do with real science.

The only 'faith" I have is that some EM configuration will be found to explain the data. You seem to have "faith" that a whole new form of energy exists in nature? Who's 'faith' is worse, yours or mine?

How does that apply to "inflation"? You'll *NEVER* be able to physically demonstrate that one, not ever. Is that "faith" any better or worse in my faith? The term 'faith' has many meanings and many applications to this argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have agreed that there is an acceleration expanding the size of the universe.

The best way I can phrase this is to say that I believe it is a valid scientific 'interpretation' of the redshift data, yes. It's not the only possible 'interpretation' however, it's just the "best' one at the moment in my subjective opinion. I don't throw out all of Arp's work however like the mainstream.

First, they are showing with their math that the fully understood EM forces

First let's look at your claim that it is 'fully understood' by the mainstream. Some aspects of the EM field are 'understood' because unlike 'dark energy', the EM field isn't a "no show" around the lab. We can in fact compare our mathematical models to real physical experiments. That's how we 'know' what the EM field can and cannot do in various scenarios. Compare that to "dark energy". Where do I get "dark energy"? How do I "control" dark energy in a real science experiment to "understand" what it actually does?

It's also not clear that the mainstream even "understands" the EM field and how it applies to plasma because they still peddle a form of "pseudoscience" according to Alfven, and seem to have no grasp of the E orientation of MHD theory in any way. Their 'guru' in the magnetic reconnection thread seems to be blissfully unaware of the electrons flowing through those "magnetic ropes".

cannot produce the effects that you claim are at work.

How can you "know" that the EM field cannot produce these effects? All you might "know" from Ben's simple calculation is that one specific model has "flaws". You can't know what you don't know.

How can their math then, not be incorrect and why don't you show it?

Ben's math didn't even look at any of the mass not in the stars and what happens to that mass. *IF* you choose to ignore the effects of the EM field on on the mass *NOT* in stars, then maybe that particular calculation has validity. *SINCE* he didn't account for any of the movements of mass outside of stars, his calculations are trivially oversimplified.

I don't personally know how to decide how much mass might be in stars, how much be in 'rocks', how much might be in "flying electrons and flying ions". In short I don't know what the total effect might be. I just know that the EM field is 39 OOM greater than gravity and the EM field is the most likely force of nature to accelerate plasma.

And again, they are using mathematics to describe other forces that they say may be at work.

Where in ben's calculation do you see any mention of the effects of 99.4 percent of the mass of the universe, the mass they claim is *NOT* contained in stars?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just out of curiosity Chucky...

Why aren't you busting their chops over the fact they can't physically demonstrate the existence of 96% of the mythical items in their formulas? That doesn't bother your even a little bit?

 

[ben m]

How can you "know" that the EM field cannot produce these effects? All you might "know" from Ben's simple calculation is that one specific model has "flaws". You can't know what you don't know.

Keep the model coming, MM, and I'll tell you what they can and cannot do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So Alfven invented MHD. Nobody thinks he was a big dummy.

Except you of course who seem to have taken upon yourself to ignore, dismiss and reject the way he applied MHD to space! In fact you personally go out of your way to harass and belittle anyone who continues to apply MHD theory to space in the same way Alfven did and Birkeland did and Bruce did. You reject all their work and all their papers in favor of a form of what Alfven himself labeled "pseudoscience'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Keep the model coming, MM, and I'll tell you what they can and cannot do.

Alright ben, try your calculations again on less simplistic model, and include the effects of something like a Parker spiral in those calculations and include something related to that 99.4% of the mass not contained in stars and see how things come out.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Is Not Pseudoscience

It's still pseudoscience Tim, and time will not ever change that fact.

It's not even close to pseudoscience, and your ignorance will never change that fact. Alfven was dead wrong and so are you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not even close to pseudoscience, and your ignorance will never change that fact. Alfven was dead wrong and so are you.

But of course you can't empirically demonstrate that claim because all those papers you cited contain "current flow" in those "tubes". Pure coincidence, or was the master just right, the E orientation is superior in current carrying plasma?

 

[ben m]

Alright ben, try your calculations again on less simplistic model, and include the effects of something like a Parker spiral in those calculations and include something related to that 99.4% of the mass not contained in stars and see how things come out.

The Parker spiral has no effect on anything; it's a detail of the field in some tenuous plasma near the Sun. I have already treated the case of a Sun embedded in a tenuous plasma and shown you that there's no noteworthy force.

"Something related to the 99.4% of mass ..." What? You've forgotten, perhaps, that "99.4%" is the star budget in a Universe with dark energy, dark matter, AND baryons. You get that number only when fitting the lambda-CDM model to data. In your model---"there's no lambda and no CDM, we observe baryons and move them around with E&M"---you're looking at 20% stars and 80% ICM. If you allow dark matter back in, you're looking at 5% stars, 20% ICM, and 75% dark matter.

 

[ben m]

include the effects of something like a Parker spiral in those calculations

More importantly, I think this illustrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. None of my calculations depended at all on the details of which way B-fields were pointing. If the model is proven to fail with any possible B field, then it's also proven to fail with each of the specific B-fields you can possibly think up. What in the world did you think that a Parker spiral would change in my calculations?

 

[tusenfem]

What part of "pseudoscience" is still "pseudoscience" don't your understand Tim? Alfven saw Parker's description of "magnetic reconnection' Tim. He knew MHD theory from *BOTH* the B *AND* E orientations. He was an electrical engineer by trade, and no such individual would ever make the mistake of calling a "current flow change" a "magnetic reconnection" event! It's still pseudoscience Tim, and time will not ever change that fact.

As reconnection CANNOT occur in MHD, it is no wonder Alfven could not find reconnection in his MHD. It's just that simple. It's like a first year PhD student, studying bwhahammawah, anything (s)he sees, also from co-graduate students, (s)he will want to explain with bwhahammawah. Alfven loved his child MDH to death, and could not step back from it anymore, no longer realizing that it is an approximation of full plasma physics. Actually, it is a wonder his other child double layer survived at all, because it is totally against MHD.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As reconnection CANNOT occur in MHD, it is no wonder Alfven could not find reconnection in his MHD.

A reconnection between two "magnetic ropes" certainly can occur in MHD. He simply described the magnetic rope as part of a "circuit" of energy and he used the E orientation of MHD theory to describe *all* current carrying processes in plasma.

 

[Chucky]

Just out of curiosity Chucky...

Why aren't you busting their chops over the fact they can't physically demonstrate the existence of 96% of the mythical items in their formulas? That doesn't bother your even a little bit?

Well as I've said, they've been using some kind of equations to make their point. I don't believe I've seen you do the same. Rather than linking to something, they post the equations here and go over them. I haven't seen you do that. I see you disregarding entire swaths of the science that has been done without you directly showing the error in the equations. I also disagree with you that the logic they use might not be useful. They appear to be demonstrating through math and theory and observation many things that you say is wrong but again the math should describe it and you never challenge them on their turf. And honestly, while a knowledge of calculus is certain to take you a good part of the way towards understanding, there are other expressions of mathematics that may be needed to truly challenge other observations.

There is gauge symmetry, supersymmetry, gauge electro-dynamics, gauge chromo-dynamics, lie algebra, and other such mathematics that you need to take apart and show errors in before having a good foundation for such a challenge. I believe that all of these are advancements on Maxwell's electrodynamic theory. Many of which your heroes didn't live long enough to consider in their own work. Without knowing that math, how can you know what those proposing inflation, dark matter, etc. are even talking about in the first place?

Frankly while I'm a layman it concurs with what I've read about this stuff. I disagree that they pull this out of thin air. In chapter after chapter the case is steadily built, observations and evidence compiled by those who write about it. And while they may take different approaches to the subject the get the same results. Generally most people who work in these fields agree with GR, with the standard model, and quantum mechanics. Where there are disagreements, they are not usually on whole swaths of these theories but on specifics that have not yet been nailed down.

You appear unwilling to consider much of any of the work done much after the early 20th century and put your theories in the context of that additional knowledge. While there are variations on theme, there is a lot of general consensus on the likely causes of how the universe has come to how we see it. While again, I don't have the math to fully comprehend it the consensus of those who do makes it by far the most likely course. Many, many authors keep saying the same thing, they keep coming to the same conclusions and thus I give them the benefit of a doubt. There is not complete agreement on the standard model though it gives the most good answers. There is not full agreement on how to unify physical law through string theory, quantum gravity theory and others but the people who work with them never the less seem to agree on the parts of a theory that seem to work, on the parts that don't.

And the core of science is that when it is correct, it predicts. Much of what people here are touting is based on predictions that have come true which, you reject. I have seen of the same examples over and over but you won't address any of those example directly. You only rely on how they correspond to your conclusions. Even I, the lowly layman, can see you avoiding that.

Consensus is not always given easily, sometimes grudgingly, but if the math and observation and other empirical evidence keeps pointing in the same direction, then that is usually in the direction that the truth lies. Even when theories are overturned, such as Newton's by Einsteins GR, it does not dismiss all that came before. Much of Newton's work is still used, but where it failed has been replace by something that works. If something is not widely used, or used at all, it is because it doesn't fit in the equation. It's pretty straightforward; either the math adds up or it doesn't. And if it is not accurately describing phenomena it's obvious to those who work in a given field. Because it doesn't describe the physical universe, or not as well as a more complete, simpler equation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well as I've said, they've been using some kind of equations to make their point. I don't believe I've seen you do the same.

I have provided them with paper after paper after paper after paper to make my point mathematically on many topics. They simply ignore the math too.

Rather than linking to something, they post the equations here and go over them.

Why should any theory be judged based on my personal math skills, particularly when better sources are available? What difference does it make if I do them here on command?

I haven't seen you do that.

You probably never will either. No scientific theory should be judged based on the individual math skills of yours truly. I won't play that game with them. My personal math skill are absolutely irrelevant because I have already provided many mathematical references, and they completely and utterly ignore them.

I see you disregarding entire swaths of the science that has been done without you directly showing the error in the equations.

I pointed out where Guth made an error in his equations, specifically by claiming a "vacuum" has "negative pressure". I'm not sure how you expect me to find a "error in equations" that are based upon mythical forms of matter and energy and they created all the "properties" they assigned to these babies in a purely ad hoc (as needed) basis. How does one find the mathematical error in an equations based upon invisible potatoes?

I also disagree with you that the logic they use might not be useful. They appear to be demonstrating through math and theory and observation many things that you say is wrong but again the math should describe it and you never challenge them on their turf.

You need to checkout the magnetic reconnection thread. I've provided ample mathematical support for a "circuit" orientation to MHD theory and they simply ignore it.

In this case I simply have to admit I can't compete with metaphysics, and I have no faith in the interpretation or even much faith in the analysis of WMAP data. Here's one reason why:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

You obviously have a lot more faith in the mainstreams position than I do.

And honestly, while a knowledge of calculus is certain to take you a good part of the way towards understanding, there are other expressions of mathematics that may be needed to truly challenge other observations.

Well, IMO it's not the math I object to, it's attaching math to "invisible make believe friends" I have a problem with, and their lack of an ability to demonstrate that their invisible friends had anything to do with the observation in question in a "controlled experiment".

There is gauge symmetry, supersymmetry, gauge electro-dynamics, gauge chromo-dynamics, lie algebra, and other such mathematics that you need to take apart and show errors in before having a good foundation for such a challenge. I believe that all of these are advancements on Maxwell's electrodynamic theory. Many of which your heroes didn't live long enough to consider in their own work. Without knowing that math, how can you know what those proposing inflation, dark matter, etc. are even talking about in the first place?

For one thing it helps to be no spring chicken. Over time one can study a lot of topics that one was never even exposed to in college. It also helps to have had a "history" to go by, and to have been taught GR before it was kludged with "dark energy".

Frankly while I'm a layman it concurs with what I've read about this stuff. I disagree that they pull this out of thin air.

Who prior to Guth talked about inflation? Not only did he pull it out of his imagination, he killed it before we could ever physically verify it exists.

In chapter after chapter the case is steadily built, observations and evidence compiled by those who write about it. And while they may take different approaches to the subject the get the same results. Generally most people who work in these fields agree with GR, with the standard model, and quantum mechanics.

Well, QM and GR actually "rub each other the wrong way" when it comes to gravity.

Where there are disagreements, they are not usually on whole swaths of these theories but on specifics that have not yet been nailed down.

Ya, you should hear them describe "magnetic reconnection" sometime. It's almost comical how many different descriptions you'll get. Forget "null points"" with this crowd. Evidently it can happen anywhere on the "magnetic rope".

You appear unwilling to consider much of any of the work done much after the early 20th century and put your theories in the context of that additional knowledge.

That's absolutely untrue actually. I consider the satellite evidence to be highly supportive of EU theories, and I would say that modern technologies will eventually bring an end to the 'dark ages" of astronomy that we live in today. I embrace the technologies, but only 'real' technologies. When was the last time you found anything useful at the store that ran on "dark energy" or "dark matter" or "inflation"? 96% of their theory is utterly useless in the real world. I'll stick my money on empirical physics thank you.

While there are variations on theme, there is a lot of general consensus on the likely causes of how the universe has come to how we see it. While again, I don't have the math to fully comprehend it the consensus of those who do makes it by far the most likely course.

You don't need *ANY* math skills to see that they can't produce a single gram of dark matter, a single controlled demonstration of "dark energy" or to see that they have no way to revive their dead inflation deity. It not a problem with their math! It's their lack of empirical verification that stinks to high heaven. They'd love you to believe it's your lack of math skills that prohibits you from noticing they have technical problems in the physics department.

Many, many authors keep saying the same thing, they keep coming to the same conclusions and thus I give them the benefit of a doubt.

So statistically speaking you must also be a "Christian" too I presume? Just because people agree with something, it doesn't make it "gospel".

There is not complete agreement on the standard model though it gives the most good answers.

You're right. Not everyone buys the whole "inflation" thing. Most of them, but not all of them realize that it takes "energy" to generate acceleration.

I'm afraid I gave up that reverence for herd mentality, otherwise known as "consensus" the day I left my church at 15. From then on out it's been "show me the physics". If 70+ of the universe is made of 'dark energy', why doesn't my car run n this stuff, and when might I expect it to do so?

 

[schrodingasdawg]

It also helps to have had a "history" to go by, and to have been taught GR before it was kludged with "dark energy".

Actually, I'd be impressed with anyone who had been taught GR before 1917.