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

DazzaD said:
I will ask again.

What do YOU think 'gravity' is then?

This is the source of your confusion my friend.
Click to expand...

I believe that gravity is an 'curvature' of spacetime dictated by the points of mass that makeup spacetime. Perhaps QM will eventually replace GR with some sort of 'force' again, I have no way to predict the future. One thing I do know. I can't jump off the planet. Everytime that I try, gravity acts to "pull" me back to Earth. Whatever "energy" I might require to accelerate away from a mass body, or accelerate mass bodies plural, it's definitely going to take energy to *OVERCOME* the curvature of spacetime.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Baloney. You're still in spin mode sol. For anyone interested, the most common 'mainstream bang' models prior to the 1990's "predicted", not "acceleration", but rather a universal "deceleration" over time. It wasn't until the 1990s that the term "dark energy" was coined in reference to the unexpected observation of acceleration.

http://www.interstellarjourney.com/articles/3594055_article1.pdf
Click to expand...
Baloney.
Just because the term "dark energy" was not coined until the 1990's does not mean that an candidate for dark energy did not exist before then. That candidate is the cosmological constant that has always been in GR (i.e. since 1915).
sol invictus pointed out that de Sitter investigated the consequences of a positive cosmological constant in
  • de Sitter, W. (1917), "On the relativity of inertia: Remarks concerning Einstein's latest hypothesis", Proc. Kon. Ned. Acad. Wet. 19: 1217–1225
  • de Sitter, W. (1917), "On the curvature of space", Proc. Kon. Ned. Acad. Wet. 20: 229–243
and found that the result was an acceleration in the expansion of the universe. We now call whatever causes the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe dark energy.
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

We know by now that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering these questions. But he may shock us and the list is still an interesting summary of his mistakes and misunderstandings.
  1. Do you understand that there is an upper limit on the baryonic mass of 6%?
    First asked 7 January 2010
    Note that baryonic mass includes all the things you have mentioned, e.g. rocks, planets, electron, ions, plasma, black holes, etc.
  2. Do you know that Alfven-Klein cosmology is invalid?
    First asked 8 January 2010
  3. What is wrong with the measurement of negative pressure in Casimir experiments?
    First asked 9 January 2010
  4. Why and how do you get an EM field to cause the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
    First asked 12 January 2010
  5. Why do Casimir experiments not measure a replusive force and so positive pressure?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  6. What are your sources for the observation of massive Birkeland currents in the galaxy?
    First asked 14 January 2010
  7. What are your sources for evidence of relativistic jets linking many galaxies?
    First asked 14 January 2010
Some of Michael Mozina's debating tactics that reveal the depths that he has to descend to because he has no science to backup his claims:
Answered questions:
  1. Can you give a citation to "Birkeland's very first rough calculation..."
    Birkeland made a rough calculation on page 721 of his 1908 book of the average density of matter that is not in stars.
    That calculation was correct at the time given the knowledge of the universe. The calculation is wrong now since we know more about the universe.
  2. A couple of really simple physics questions for Michael Mozina on pressure.
    Is seems that MM cannot answer these simple questions on pressure other than regurgitating his usual Casimir effect is "relative pressure" from atoms. So I answered it for him in as simple a manner as possible. He still cannot understand it.
P.S.
 
What is the source for BBT models prior to 1990's predicted deceleration

Michael Mozina said:
For anyone interested, the most common 'mainstream bang' models prior to the 1990's "predicted", not "acceleration", but rather a universal "deceleration" over time.
Click to expand...
First asked 2 February 2010
Michael Mozina,
What is your source for your assertion that most common mainstream bang models prior to the 1990's predicted a universal deceleration over time?
 
Perpetual Student said:
Look, there is nothing wrong with a healthy scepticism when it comes to prevailing consensus theories in cosmology. There exists a huge dung pile of discarded cosmological theories.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The point here is that your EM cosmological theories contradict known laws of physics and observations.
Click to expand...

I accept that I can't personally 'explain' everything I see in cosmology with EU theories. I also realize that there are many things in astronomy that I can explain with EU theories and I am more interested in those things than I am worried about what I can't explain.

I do not understand nor agree with your statement about EU theory "contradicting known laws of physics". EU theory is based strictly on the laws of known empirical physics, and essentially is nothing more than a combination of MHD theory and GR theory. My primitive redshift example might contradict observation in some ways, but not the laws of nature. The EM field is known to accelerate plasma and it is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity. If there is a known force of nature that might explain the acceleration we see, the EM field is it. I can't necessary explain all the details with GR and MHD theories, but I have "faith" that one day someone will be able to explain these redshift patterns exactly with some combination of EM fields, GR theory (as Einstein taught it) and MHD theory. I trust empirical physics.

I do however tend to "lack belief" in things that fail to show up in the lab, and things that were created in a purely ad hoc way from a single individual's imagination, aka "inflation". I don't believe that "acceleration' has anything to do with "dark energy" because "dark energy" never accelerated a single atom let alone a whole physical universe.

If some force of nature causes this universe to accelerate, IMO the most likely culprit is an expanding EM field and cosmic rays. I don't really worry so much about what cannot be explained via MHD and GR, as what can be explained with these theories, aka EU theory. Sure there are "weaknesses" and there are "problems" with EU/PC theory just like there are problems with all theories. IMO, the problems in EU theory pale in comparison the myriad of staggering metaphysical/empirical problems with Lambda-CMD theory.

Keep in mind that there is some hope that even if I don't personally come up with a working model that exactly matches the redshift observations, someone else may eventually do exactly that. There is hope I could be vindicated over time and that this weakness will become a source of strength for EU theory one day.

Inflation is dead. There is no hope whatsoever that inflation will ever be empirically demonstrated in controlled experimentation so that particular "weakness" in mainstream theory will last forever, or until it's replaced with something else.

For the last 35 years or so I've put my money on empirical science and it's never let me down, not ever. It may be limited. It may need work, and it can even be replaced with newer (empirical) models. I'll take a working model that isn't quite right over a 'made up' math formula based on ad hoc constructs any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
DazzaD said:
Predict? Or model?

Tell the future? Or match the best known observational data?

Tell the "real truth"? Or form the simplest conclusion given the known evidence?

Lie about whats happening? Or give the best damn description that matches known experiments and gives the simplest and "nicest" mathematical interpretation?

In any case... what is "mainstream" may change depending on all the above... so the modern theory, in some key details, is a far cry from what it was 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago....

Theories change and adapt over time.

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology


Your point is?
Click to expand...

I suppose my point is that none of you really know what "dark energy" is, so for all any of you actually know some variation of MHD theory and GR theory will eventually replace that metaphysical bad boy somewhere down the road anyway. You can whine about my skepticism in new forms of energy all your like, and complain about my faith in MHD theory and GR (without metaphysical baggage). I can see that these mathematical constructs from these fields of empirical science apply to real tangible things, things that show up in the lab in real controlled experiments. I trust empirical science will progress, and I trust that your "dark mysteries" will eventually be resolved in my favor. :)

I suppose that's my point. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
For the last 35 years or so I've put my money on empirical science and it's never let me down, not ever. It may be limited. It may need work, and it can even be replaced with newer (empirical) models. I'll take a working model that isn't quite right over a 'made up' math formula based on ad hoc constructs any day of the week.
Click to expand...
For the last 35 years or so you have put your money on your definition of empirical science and it has let you down, e.g.
It has deluded you into thinking that pressure can only be positive when theory, experiment and observation shows that it can be negative (e.g. Casimir effect and dark energy).
​
For the last 300 years or so, scientists have put money on their definition of science and it has not let them down, not ever :D . Of course the actual definition of science includes the fact that scientific theories can be found wrong which is a bit of a let down when it happens.
 
You know....

When you folks toss around the term "cosmological constant", you make it sound like that term is something other than a simple "observation", and act as though it is an "explanation" of expansion and in sol's case even "acceleration" evidently. It's not.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You know....

When you folks toss around the term "cosmological constant", you make it sound like that term is something other than a simply "observation", and act as though it is an "explanation" of expansion and in sol's case even "acceleration" evidently. It's not.
Click to expand...

Its a possible explanation of the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is the simplest explanation anyone has come up with to date. It may be right. It may be wrong.
 
Reality Check said:
For the last 35 years or so you have put your money on your definition of empirical science and it has let you down, e.g.
It has deluded you into thinking that pressure can only be positive when theory, experiment and observation shows that it can be negative (e.g. Casimir effect and dark energy).​
Click to expand...


This statement comes from the guy that can't tell the difference between the "relative pressure" on the sides of various plates, and the absolute "pressure in a vacuum".​
 
Michael Mozina said:
I understand that your mythical invisible thingamabobs never show up in empirical experiments, hence my skepticism.
Click to expand...

A scientific skeptic is someone that likes to evaluate the evidence before drawing conclusions. You have given us ample indication you have no desire to evaluate the evidence and are utterly incapable of doing so. Instead you resort to inventing stupid, juvenile phrases like "mythical invisible thingamabobs" in a futile and pathetic attempt to cover up your complete ineptitude in this department. You are an excellent example of the antithesis of a skeptic.
 
Can you understand that dark energy is observational and not metaphysical

Michael Mozina said:
I suppose my point is that none of you really know what "dark energy" is, so for all any of you actually know some variation of MHD theory and GR theory will eventually replace that metaphysical bad boy somewhere down the road anyway
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is showing still MM.
Dark energy is not a metaphysical bad boy (How do you expect anyone to take you seriously whan you write so childishly).

First asked 2 Februaray 2010
Michael Mozina
Can you understand that dark energy is observational and not metaphysical?

Stated 2 Feburary 2010 but said before.
One more time:
Dark energy is a placeholder term for whatever causes the observed increase in the rate of expansion of the universe.

We do not know what dark energy is. We do have constraints on its nature. These rule out any variation of MHD theory or the EM field idea you thought up.
It does not rule out a variation of GR theory but so far these have not worked out or turned out to be equivalent to quintessence. String theory may also have candidates for dark energy.

The observations place contraints on the properties of dark energy. It is known to be
  • very homogeneous,
  • not very dense,
  • is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity
Independently from its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (i.e. effects, acting repulsively ) in order to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe.
Click to expand...

Of course you do not believe in negative pressure and so dark energy cannot exist an any form at all (thus the astronomers are lying about observing the increase in the expansion of the universe :rolleyes: )!
 
Tubbythin said:
Its a possible explanation of the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is the simplest explanation anyone has come up with to date. It may be right. It may be wrong.
Click to expand...

How does sticking a constant (or function) in there "explain" the physical cause of expansion/acceleration in your opinion?
 
Michael Mozina said:
This statement comes from the guy that can't tell the difference between the "relative pressure" on the sides of various plates, and the absolute "pressure in a vacuum".
Click to expand...
This statement comes from a guy that cannot comprehend the simple fact that pressure can be negative as I answered it for him in as simple a manner as possible.

I can tell the difference:
Relative pressure on the sides of a plate is subtracting a pressure from one side of the plate from another. If you subtract the smaller pressure from the larger pressure you get positive pressure. If you subtract the bigger pressure from the smaller pressure you get a negative pressure. If you pick a consistant way of selecting which side to subtract from another then on some situations you get a positive pressure and others you get a negative pressure.

There is no such thing as absolute "pressure in a vacuum".
In a classical vacuum: the pressure is zero.
In a QM vacuum: there are virtual particles. These can have positive or negative pressures depending on how the energy contained in the vacuum changes with changes in volume (p =-dE/dV).
In a cosmological vacuum: If the cosmological constant is positive then it exerts a negative pressure thus matching what we observe about the universe.
 
Reality Check said:
I can tell the difference:
Relative pressure on the sides of a plate is subtracting a pressure from one side of the plate from another.
Click to expand...

You got that part right at least.

If you subtract the smaller pressure from the larger pressure you get positive pressure.
Click to expand...

No. You get "more pressure" on one side of the plates than the other sides, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the overall "pressure" of the "vacuum". This process works at almost any ambient "pressure" in the "vacuum" that we might chose to work with. Since we cannot ever remove every atom, every EM effect, every neutrino, every bit of kinetic energy inside the vacuum, the overall kinetic energy state will always create "positive pressure" in the vacuum.

Guth chose an entirely incorrect limit of "pressure" in a vacuum. A vacuum "might" achieve a "zero" pressure if we could remove everything passing through the vacuum, every photon, every atom, every neutrinos, ect. The vacuum cannot ever achieve a 'negative' pressure.

If you subtract the bigger pressure from the smaller pressure you get a negative pressure.
Click to expand...

No, you get *LESS PRESSURE* on one side and *MORE PRESSURE* on the other. Hoy!

You're impossible. If this process is related to "negative pressure" in the "vacuum", why does it work at any pressure and why is your negative pressure so picky about the material? I know I should not ask, and this is going to be train wreck to watch, but I just couldn't help myself. :)
 
Last edited:
Just to catch up, can anyone point to the last time in this thread where Michael was right about something and everyone else was wrong?
 
Reality Check said:
Baloney.
Just because the term "dark energy" was not coined until the 1990's does not mean that an candidate for dark energy did not exist before then. That candidate is the cosmological constant that has always been in GR (i.e. since 1915).
Click to expand...

The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset. Any characterization to the contrary is absurd and misleading. Einstein introduced his constant to explain a 'static' (non expanding, non contracting) universe. He needed it to make his model stable. GR (a zero constant) "predicts" a non stable universe. It can expand, or it can contract, but it should do one or the other without any constants. The only reason he needed the constant was to keep it from imploding over time and to "explain" his belief in a "static" universe.

In the sense that Einstein himself opened Pandora's box for anything to be stuffed into that constant, I have some sympathy for sol's position. I don't think however it's doing history any service to attempt to rewrite history and suggest that Einstein believed in 'dark energy". In fact the moment Hubble's work became known, he set the constant back to zero again.

At no time did Einstein ever attempt to characterize the nature of that constant even before setting it back to zero.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom