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

[sol invictus]

The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset.

Wrong.

Any characterization to the contrary is absurd and misleading.

Wrong.

Einstein introduced his constant to explain a 'static' (non expanding, non contracting) universe.

"Explain", no. Allow, yes.

He needed it to make his model stable.

Wrong. With the CC >0 , the static universe solution exists but is unstable. With CC <= 0, it simply doesn't exist.

At no time did Einstein ever attempt to characterize the nature of that constant even before setting it back to zero.

Nonsense, of course he characterized it. He wrote papers about it. He knew approximately what its value needed to be if the universe was static. He knew it was a vacuum energy, and he knew it led to accelerating solutions.

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?

I'd settle for just the first part, but.... no.

 

[Pythonic]

The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset.

<MM mode>
Constants can't cause acceleration. They're just numbers on a page! You can't show me a single time in the lab where a number jumped off its page and caused acceleration. Furthermore, constants don't change. So, how can they accelerate when by definition acceleration is a rate of *change*? You and your magical god-constants are just fantasies because you can't explain why something accelerates. Well, it's not numbers because they're just symbols on a page. They can't push anything!
</MM mode>

 

[Reality Check]

If you subtract the smaller pressure from the larger pressure you get positive pressure.

No....

Relative pressure is overall pressure.
Simple arithmetic MM: Subtract a big number from a smaller number and you get a negative number. Pressure is a number. The pressure on each side of a plate is 2 numbers.

Guth chose an entirely incorrect limit of "pressure" in a vacuum.

No he did not. He used the same limit of pressure in a vacuum that all scientist use.

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

Yes, 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.

You're ignorant.
I do not mention any "process" but maybe you mean the Casimir effect that has has negative pressure between metallic plates in theory and experiment. This does work at any pressure and depends on the material.

I know I should not answer, and this is going to be train wreck to watch, but I just couldn't help myself. MM's ignorance is such an easy target

 

[Reality Check]

The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset. ....

All that needs to be said is: Wrong, MM !

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? III

Be careful you aren't just letting the "consensus" convince you it's not necessary to have a empirical demonstration.

Precisely define "empirical demonstration".

Any 'controlled experiment' where your invisible friends show up and do something will do.

Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​

Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?

Empirical physics is always relevant, and potentially relevant in the present moment.

Precisely define "empirical physics".

Everything you see in the store is a product that makes good use of 'empirical physics'.

Questions:
Which part of the word "precisely" was too complicated for you? Why do you refuse to define the words you use? How is anybody supposed to know what you are trying to say if you use words with altered definitions, or just plain refuse to define your words at all?

 

[Prometheus]

<snip>
How is anybody supposed to know what you are trying to say if you use words with altered definitions, or just plain refuse to define your words at all?

Perhaps they'll need to learn Dark Grammar.

 

[ben m]

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.

Sure it did; this was pointed out by Einstein himself, by Lemaitre, by de Sitter, Eddington, etc.. The original sources have been cited repeatedly, it's abundantly documented in all literature both specialist and generalist, and the equations themselves are standard issue in undergrad astro classes; thousands of 19- and 20-year-olds rediscover these solutions year in and year out.

But you think we're lying about which equation gives which solution? What the heck would be the point? Oh, wait, I think I know what the point is.

In particular, Frankfurt distinguishes *&$#&*$#ing from lying: while the liar deliberately makes false claims, the *&$#&*$#er is simply uninterested in the truth. *&$#&*$#@ers aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, *&$#&*$#@ers, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "#$&#$%& is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_$#%&$#@)

That about sums it up.

(Apologies for pushing the Forum rules, but that's a direct quote.)

 

[Tubbythin]

If this process is related to "negative pressure" in the "vacuum", why does it work at any pressure

Because the vacuum energy is the energy present in the absence of anything else. It doesn't just go away if you put something in the vacuum. If it did (apart from quite probably violating the first law of thermodynamics) it would mean spontaneous emission could never occur.

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.

I've explained this several times. Which bit do you not understand? The type of material changes the boundary conditions for the modes of the vacuum. For example, for a perfect conductor the allowed modes must have 0 on the surface of the plates (can you see why?). That is why the diagram on the wikipedia page is wrong. For an insulator this is not the case (do you understand why?).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, the same authors preprinted two earlier versions of their work, (see http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0905.0075 for one) and these versions did attract mainstream comments. The conclusion seems to be that Li and Liu are simply mistaken.


http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2009/07/is_cosmology_about_to_become_b.php

Well, it's certainly not the only paper on this topic, nor the only team to find data anomalies in the data. I guess I'll have to wait and read the official responses.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0148

 

[Michael Mozina]

So please explain to me how you got from the "static universe" theory Einstein was trying to explain, to a constantly (and increasingly) accelerating universe?

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

The idea of a static universe or "Einstein's universe" is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein once proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse.

 

[sol invictus]

So please explain to me how you got from the "static universe" theory Einstein was trying to explain, to a constantly (and increasingly) accelerating universe?

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

Here's the equation Einstein obtained:

[latex]$({\dot a \over a})^2 = {8 \pi G \over 3} (\rho_m + \rho_\Lambda) - {1 \over a^2}$[/latex],

where a(t) is the scale factor, G is Newton's constant, \rho_m is the matter density and scales as a^{-3}, and \rho_\Lambda is the energy density due to the cosmological constant, which doesn't scale with a.

Go ahead and solve the equation and you'll see why all the solutions accelerate, with the exception of an unstable static solution and a class of solutions that expand, turn around, and then recollapse to a crunch.

Hint: think of the left hand side as the kinetic energy of a particle at position a(t), and the right-hand side as -potential energy plus total energy. Then you can see very easily what the solutions look like.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Einstein's proposal was a universe characterized by the dust solution of Einstein's field equation for a value of the cosmological constant equal to ΛE = 4πGρ / c2, where G is Newtonian gravitational constant, ρ is the energy density of the matter in the universe and c is the speed of light. Value ΛE is called Einstein's cosmological constant or, alternatively, the cosmological constant of Einstein's universe.

The radius of curvature of space of Einstein's universe, called "Einstein's radius", is equal to

R_E = \Lambda_E^{-1/2} = {c \over \sqrt{4\pi G\rho}}.

"Einstein's universe" is one of Friedmann's solutions of Einstein's field equation, for the value of cosmological constant ΛE. This is the only stationary solution of all Friedmann's solutions, and because it is stationary, it is thought to be non physical by majority of astronomers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That about sums it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frankfurt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

The idea of a static universe or "Einstein's universe" is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein once proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. This led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".[1]

Oh the irony. So what does this tell us about Wiki (or you)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?

Nothing. Notice the word *controlled* however. That seems to be the one thing your folks seem to ignore in all your "experiments". What you folks tend to call an experiment has no control mechanism. Whereas Birkeland's experiments with electricity and magnetism had all sorts of real, honest to goodness control mechanisms, you folks ignore the need for them entirely as it relates to determining cause/effect relationships. Where do I get a quantity of dark energy or inflation? How do I "control" that source in a real science experiment here on Earth?

 

[ben m]

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

Yes, that's exactly what Sol and I and everyone have been telling you over and over. I am curious as to what you think the difference is. Do you still not get that Einstein's "static" came about from including both a (CC) acceleration and a (mass) deceleration and making them cancel? Do you get "expanding" confused with "accelerating"? Have you simply not read anything anyone has said?

 

[Chucky]

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.


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.

Ah, so you do have a way of predicting an event for us.

Perhaps someone think of measurable, re-occurring events that happen on a time scale reasonable enough to log a few events using what you cited. Particularly Michael, if they are in your comfort zone? Where enough results could be gathered into a common data base on how the prediction fares as empirical experimentation.

If your understanding is correct you can settle this once and for all Michael. Sooner or later you know that you must, because without providing a working model that holds up to replicated results, a theory ain't a theory.

 

[sol invictus]

That wiki agrees with nearly everything with what we've been telling you, Michael. Where it didn't, it was wrong.

Now: have you solved the equation yet? Why not do so and see for yourself what the solutions look like, instead of relying on anonymous sources on the internet?

 

[sol invictus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frankfurt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe



Oh the irony. So what does this tell us about Wiki (or you)?

 

[GeeMack]

If your understanding is correct you can settle this once and for all Michael. Sooner or later you know that you must, because without providing a working model that holds up to replicated results, a theory ain't a theory.

Sooner or later? Actually a person can go on apparently forever without settling anything or providing a working model that holds up to replicated results. As an example, if you review the list of links I provided up-thread to Michael's posting history on other forums, you'll notice very clearly that he has made many unsupported claims over many years, and not once has he been able to settle anything once and for all with an actual theory, replicated results, or a quantitative analysis of any data.

You are correct, however, that without the predictions, working model, and replicated results, a theory isn't a theory. But for some people, whether an actual theory is involved, or for that matter, whether legitimate science is involved at all isn't an issue. For some people it's about talking all sciency and not about actually better explaining the workings of the universe in any legitimate, testable, quantitative way.

 

[Chucky]

Sooner or later? Actually a person can go on apparently forever without settling anything or providing a working model that holds up to replicated results. As an example, if you review the list of links I provided up-thread to Michael's posting history on other forums, you'll notice very clearly that he has made many unsupported claims over many years, and not once has he been able to settle anything once and for all with an actual theory, replicated results, or a quantitative analysis of any data.

You are correct, however, that without the predictions, working model, and replicated results, a theory isn't a theory. But for some people, whether an actual theory is involved, or for that matter, whether legitimate science is involved at all isn't an issue. For some people it's about talking all sciency and not about actually better explaining the workings of the universe in any legitimate, testable, quantitative way.

I'm also interested in hearing how Michael will apply his theory to an expanding universe. I don't yet understand how he would provide his empiricism to astronomical scenarios. I didn't feel that he explained that earlier in a way I can understand. Why aren't all observations that take place off the planet unusable as they are not replicable in a laboratory?