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

Michael Mozina said:
But of course the brand of GR that Einstein taught has a zero constant.
Click to expand...

That would be because Einstein died four decades before we had any evidence the constant was anything else. Since Einstein wasn't omniscient he didn't know about these future results. I've already explained that the opinions of scientists with regards to issues occurring after their death are utterly irrelevant. Can you not see this?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Measuring something is only half the problem. Empirically *EXPLAINING* it is still the ultimate goal.
Click to expand...

Right. But we can't explain the value of G or me or hbar. Do you assume they are zero? No. Why not? Because the evidence suggests otherwise. Likewise with the CC.
 
Einstein introduced the cosmological constant in this paper:

Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte, 1917.

It's the first paper he wrote on cosmology.
 
Michael Mozina said:
But of course the brand of GR that Einstein taught has a zero constant.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're wrong. The brand of GR that Einstein taught is a way of finding equations of motions based on energy distributions. Get it? That's gravity, that's General Relativity. Einstein published this in 1915.

Secondly, Einstein tried to figure out what the actual energy distribution in the Universe was. He first published this in 1917 and assumed that the actual energy distribution included a nonzero vacuum energy. (Understand? In 1917 Einstein hypothesized what the energy density was; he plugged it into his 1915 GR equations and got a nominally static Universe.)

In the 1930s, people like Friedmann, Robertson, Walker, Lemaitre, etc. hypothesized various other vacuum (and matter) energy densities, including zero. They plugged these energy densitites into the 1915 GR equations and got varieties of the expanding Universe. Of these possibilities, the zero-vacuum-energy-density hypothesis looked best at the time.

In the late 90s, with vastly improved data, we put a nonzero vacuum energy back into the energy density hypothesis. We plugged this into the 1915 GR equations, and just like Einstein did in 1917 and Lemaitre did in 1927 and every astro undergrad does today and those equations tell you that this Universe will accelerate its expansion.

It's always the same 1915 GR equations. Always has been. They're the same equations that predict Newtonian gravity, lensing, Mercury precession, GPS time dilation, GPB frame dragging, etc.

Once again, MM, you don't seem to know squat about any of this.
 
Last edited:
And by the way, of course a positive CC provides negative pressure - that's precisely why Einstein wanted it to be non-zero. He wanted to find a static solution with matter, and since matter is attractive and the scale factor in GR couples to \rho+3p that's only possible if there's an additional form of energy for which p<-(1/3)\rho (\rho is energy density, p is pressure).
 
The more I read this thread the more I see that MM is quite blind to how modern physics works. It's almost as if he lives in a (touchy-feely) Aristotelian world embedded in the milieu of modern physics terminology.

As a layman, I also fine it difficult to accept the consequences of our highly mathematical cosmological theories. However, there are so many aspects of modern physics that defy our ordinary experiences like QM and GR that I have abandoned relying on intuition in my attempts to understand our universe.

It appears that MM has not crossed that bridge, so he wants the things he knows intuitively like EM fields to account for counter-intuitive astronomical observations.

I must say, I admire those here who keep hammering away trying to help MM see the light.
 
Perpetual Student said:
As a layman, I also fine it difficult to accept the consequences of our highly mathematical cosmological theories. However, there are so many aspects of modern physics that defy our ordinary experiences like QM and GR that I have abandoned relying on intuition in my attempts to understand our universe.
Click to expand...

I like this quote and it seems kind of relevant:
A. Einstein said:
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Click to expand...
 
Perpetual Student said:
The more I read this thread the more I see that MM is quite blind to how modern physics works. It's almost as if he lives in a (touchy-feely) Aristotelian world embedded in the milieu of modern physics terminology.
Click to expand...

Well, from my perspective, you folks seem to be literally living in the 'dark ages' of astronomy, where nothing is actually "explained", and everything is based upon "dark", invisible entities galore, some now long since dead. It's the most repugnant form of "religion" from my perspective, because it's literally a dead deistic religion with no empirical relevancy in today's world. Inflation is dead so "belief in" inflation will forever remain an act of faith, and will forever defy empirical support from a 'controlled experiment'. It's kinda sad IMO.

As a layman, I also fine it difficult to accept the consequences of our highly mathematical cosmological theories.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with *MATH*. I don't mind MHD theory. I might argue about how which is more relevant, the E or B perspective, but we can clearly test our theories in a standard scientific manner. When they start attaching math to invisible, make believe entities, that came straight from a single human being "imagination", then I balk. I'm not balking at the math however, just the lack of empirical physical support, just like any ordinary 'religion'. My invisible friend did this! My invisible friend did that! See, here's the math! Physical support? Oh, my invisible friend is shy around other people. He doesn't show up in empirical experiments.

However, there are so many aspects of modern physics that defy our ordinary experiences like QM and GR that I have abandoned relying on intuition in my attempts to understand our universe.
Click to expand...

Ya, but you can apply these maths to real objects and real things like photons and physical objects. We can "test" our equations in the standard empirical manner and measure their effect on real things.

Where do I get "dark energy"? How might I "control" it as a source of energy? Inflation? Really? I have to believe in a non-existent entity now? How is that not a "legend" rather than science with scientific relevancy today?

It appears that MM has not crossed that bridge, so he wants the things he knows intuitively like EM fields to account for counter-intuitive astronomical observations.
Click to expand...

I simply had a series of epiphanies over the years related to solar satellite images. That process led me to study EU theory from the likes of Birkeland and Bruce (whom these folks avoid like the plague by the way) and Alfven (you know that guy with the Nobel Prize for MHD theory that applied it to space). I don't find events in space to be "counter-intuitive" anymore. I find them to be quite logical, quite 'normal', and actually quite "predictable" as Birkeland demonstrated over 100 years ago.

I must say, I admire those here who keep hammering away trying to help MM see the light.
Click to expand...

Someday you'll appreciate my efforts as well. :)
 
One more thing PS...

You constantly use the term "layman", which is "understandable" and all, but sometimes I wonder if you don't use that word like a "crutch" the way a church member might try to defer to the pastors "understanding" of the subject. Be careful you aren't just letting the "consensus" convince you it's not necessary to have a empirical demonstration. Empirical physics is always relevant, and potentially relevant in the present moment. These inflation based beliefs are pure "legend' and "myth" with pretty mathematical lipstick. Unlike that math related to QM and GR, inflation has no relevancy here and now. Whatever the "cause" of "acceleration", it has nothing to do with "dark energy' because "dark energy' has never accelerated a single atom, let alone a whole physical universe.

Mark my words PS, these will literally be known as the "dark ages" of astronomy in another 50 years.
 
Perpetual Student said:
The more I read this thread the more I see that MM is quite blind to how modern physics works. It's almost as if he lives in a (touchy-feely) Aristotelian world embedded in the milieu of modern physics terminology.

As a layman, I also fine it difficult to accept the consequences of our highly mathematical cosmological theories. However, there are so many aspects of modern physics that defy our ordinary experiences like QM and GR that I have abandoned relying on intuition in my attempts to understand our universe.

It appears that MM has not crossed that bridge, so he wants the things he knows intuitively like EM fields to account for counter-intuitive astronomical observations.

I must say, I admire those here who keep hammering away trying to help MM see the light.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have developed an intuitive feel for SR and I have hopes for GR, but I think QM is beyond my intuitive capabilities.
 
Tubbythin said:
That would be because Einstein died four decades before we had any evidence the constant was anything else.
Click to expand...

I just *LOVE* how you and ben and sol all "spin" these changes in a different way. It's almost comical were it not so 'vindictive' at times. Thank you for at least acknowledging the "changes" that have occurred over time. It's hard to have an adult conversation when the horsepucky get's this deep. :)

Now that you know it's "something else', what makes you think it has anything at all to do with "dark energy" or "invisible energy"' or "Michael's magic energy"?
 
Perpetual Student said:
Actually, I have developed an intuitive feel for SR and I have hopes for GR, but I think QM is beyond my intuitive capabilities.
Click to expand...

The math may "beyond" everyone but sol for all I know, but a lot of "knowledge" has nothing to do with "understanding the math". I can "understand" that a "discharge' is dangerous to my health without understanding anything at all about Maxwell's equations. It's silly to believe that knowledge begins and ends with 'math'. They can't understand the cause of solar wind, not due to their mathematical limitations, but because of their conceptual limitations, all of which are now "personal choices" on their part. They refuse to accept the one "demonstrated" way to accelerate both positive and negative charges from a sphere because they *REFUSE* to accept the importance and relevance of "electrical currents" in space.

I really urge you to think about those cosmic rays for awhile and their 'effect" on slower moving forms of matter and energy, very little of which is contained in "stars".
 
This really has been kind of a surreal two pages. MM is trying to argue that there's something epistemologically wrong with GR and/or Lambda-CDM based on its history. First of all, that would be an invalid argument under any circumstances. But it's really amusing that MM would support this argument by supplying a fictional version of the history.

Anyway, now that we're done with that we're back to where we were 50 posts ago:

a) MM cannot find any substantial theory/experiment disagreement in the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology.

b) MM has never, in his entire plasma-cosmology "career", seen an actual calculated example of an E&M phenomenon which can accelerate a star or galaxy at 10^-11 m/s^2. When pressed to state such a hypothesis, his reply was That seems like a better bet to me than hoping some new form of energy exists in nature. . So: when arguing with him in the future, don't expect him to explain how he thinks EU works. "EU works" is just a bet; worse, it's a bet on a horse he's never seen, and which may not be racing at all. He's betting based on a tip he saw in a 40 year old book about a different sport altogether.

c) MM is utterly incapable of evaluating EM hypotheses for himself. Keep this in mind when he floats the idea of "winds", "cosmic rays", "filaments"---don't give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows anything about these things, that he's run any numbers on them, or even that they push things in the directions he claims they push. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but MM has no way of knowing before he makes the claim. He's just drawing a picture in his head and describing the picture to you.

This is basically the same place we were 500 posts ago, with (I think) one exception: I think we've finally gotten through on the "stars have a low q/m so the Perratt model fails" point. Not bad for two years' work! :hb:
 
ben m said:
a) MM cannot find any substantial theory/experiment disagreement in the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology.
Click to expand...

jaw-dropping.gif


That's a riot! How might I create a controlled "experiment" with inflation to see it move matter? Where do I get some invisible, er "dark" energy so I can see it accelerate something in an "experiment" here on Earth? How does find experimental disagreement with a formula based on invisible magic elves? :)

I can't "experiment" with 96% of your invisible friends ben, so of course I can't find an "experimental disagreement". :) You totally pegged the irony meter on that one.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I want to see a reference to any theory by Einstein that "predicted" an "acceleration" process that increases over time. Quote him.
Click to expand...

Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte, 1917.

"That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a quasi-static distribution of matter, as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars."

If you understand GR this means that the cosmological constant was an acceleration term of equal and opposite sign to the ordinary mass-like deceleration term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom