Dark Matter.

[Justatruthseeker]

I am happy you like it. Also the first part is called Everything. I can find the link if you want. Another great documentary of his is about mathematics. This person is so interesting to hear.

The link is here. I'll let you know what I think tomorrow after I finish it.

Everything & Nothing [1/2] - Video Dailymotion

 

[Michael]

Michael, you never told me what you thought of the video about Nothing. Any comments? Even if you disagree with the contents at the least what do you think of Jim Al Khalili as a presenter compared to Tyson?

I'd have to admit it's a better presentation of the facts (without the constant bashing on religion), and he's a good presenter as well. I can't say I was anymore thrilled with the "half a picture" he put forth about Hubble. He never even *mentioned* for instance that Hubble offered *two* potential solutions to the problem of redshift, including one he called 'tired light' which we would now equate with inelastic scattering.

Overall, it was in fact quite a bit more enjoyable than getting my buttons pushed by the evangelizing against religion on Cosmos thus far. I like the fact it simply presents the facts, if only *some* of them.

 

[mzungu]

I'd have to admit it's a better presentation of the facts (without the constant bashing on religion), and he's a good presenter as well. I can't say I was anymore thrilled with the "half a picture" he put forth about Hubble. He never even *mentioned* for instance that Hubble offered *two* potential solutions to the problem of redshift, including one he called 'tired light' which we would now equate with inelastic scattering.

Overall, it was in fact quite a bit more enjoyable than getting my buttons pushed by the evangelizing against religion on Cosmos thus far. I like the fact it simply presents the facts, if only *some* of them.

 

[Michael]

Well, before you get too carried away, let me point out that "everything" turned out to be better than "nothing" in terms of some "scientific flaws".

In the "nothing" episode, they began with Aristotle's comment about nature abhorring a vacuum, which was in my opinion a *wonderful* place to begin. I was rather disappointed however that never once did they bother to mention the fact that *since* all those experiments related to fluctuations in a *near (not perfect) vacuum*, we've discovered that neutrinos flow through the best vacuums by the billions, they have some amount of mass/energy, and they oscillate between the various flavors over time. Aristotle was absolutely correct. Not only does nature abhor a vacuum, it absolutely prevents any vacuum from being 'without energy'. There is no such thing as a *pure* (as in zero energy) vacuum. All vacuums contain *positive* kinetic energy, and therefore *positive* pressure. The omission of neutrino research was the only thing that allowed that particular episode to *not* fall flat on it's face. Aristotle was correct.

The second *major* problem was their use of Dirac and his electron/positron prediction. Yes indeed, Dirac was correct about the existence of antimatter, and he was also correct about them annihilating and releasing their energy as gamma ray light.

They then suggested that matter and antimatter particles come popping out of "nothing" (full of moving particles of neutrino mass), and annihilate, yet somehow they miraculously release no energy in the annihilation process. I'd call that a rather major "blow it" moment in the show. Not a particularly convincing argument for either the existence of a real vacuum that is contrary to Aristotle's prediction, or that electrons and positrons come popping themselves into existence, touch each other, release no gamma rays and magically live happily ever after in the "vacuum". Sorry, that was a *major* disappointment in terms of selling me on their belief system.

It was worth watching however in seeing how much "excitement" they feel about one part of their dogma in particular. They seem to *really* want there to be a creation event, but more importantly they *really* want there to be some kind of relationship between tiny fluctuations in QM and the layout of galaxies in space. That 'need for cosmic seeds' and to find some correlation between them obviously drives their entire dogma package from start to finish. Not only do they need to find a creation event, with a mythical surface of last scattering, there has to be *proof* that the shadows on the walls of that mythical surface have some meaning in the realm of QM. It's all driven by some strong emotional desire for there to be a A) creation event, that B) has QM influences that can be traced to mythical surface of last scattering.

At least I got a better handle on where the "excitement" factor comes in, and I see now why they avoided the neutrino mass issue entirely. It would have blow their whole claim about a empty vacuum right out of the water, and they'd end up right back at Aristotle again.

I also could not fathom why the mainstream has such a fascination with Obler's paradox. It's obvious now how much they *underestimated* the amount of *plasma* in the universe, and how much they *assumed* the presence of "nothing" to scatter light or absorb light.

I'm sorry, but your snow globe universe didn't really come off any better when they said it, and that matter/antimatter *non annihilation* process complete *without* gamma rays, was simply hysterical from my perspective. You'd have thought even an editor somewhere would have asked them why gamma rays weren't being constantly emitted from the vacuum with all those virtual matter/antimatter interactions happening?

That whole show seems to depend upon *not* acknowledging anything we've learned about neutrinos and the way they flow through our best "vacuums" on Earth.

 

[Michael]

Have you even sat down and read some of Guth's ridiculous claims for yourself:

Was Cosmic Inflation the 'Bang' of the Big Bang? - A. Guth

In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 1024cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton. The expansion takes place while the false vacuum maintains a nearly constant energy density, which means that the total energy increases by the cube of the linear expansion factor, or at least a factor of 1075. Although this sounds like a blatant violation of energy conservation, it is in fact consistent with physics as we know it.

What a load of horse pucky. It *is* a very gross violation of the conservation of energy laws, not by a little, but by 10^75th power! What a snow job and a half.

He then goes on to try to justify his nonsense with this line:

The resolution to the energy paradox lies in the subtle behavior of gravity. Although it has not been widely appreciated, Newtonian physics unambiguously implies that the energy of a gravitational field is always negative a fact which holds also in general relativity.

What? In GR, gravity is not a *geometric curvature* of spacetime that is *caused by* the presence of mass energy. It doesn't "offset" mass energy, it's simply a *geometric feature" of spacetime. Gravity is not an *energy* at all in GR, it's a *curvature* of spacetime!

The mixing and matching of pseudoscience and horse pucky is unmistakable in Guth's "free lunch" nonsense. He can't even keep his stories straight himself. Any "energy" that was "added to" his couple of ounces of "primordial" matter came from his inflaton field, not GR, not "negative energy" associated with GR since GR has no such construct!

Gutheology is definitely the weirdest supernatural religion on the planet.

 

[Michael]

Oh ya.....

Anytime you try to create and separate a couple hundred billion galaxies, you've added *net energy* to the system. Even *if* gravity was an "energy" not just a geometric feature, it could *not* explain the energy use over time that goes on everywhere in spacetime. It simply *ignores* the use of energy/time aspect of physics *entirely*. The concept of a "net zero" energy universe is simply preposterous.

 

[mzungu]

Well, before you get too carried away, let me point out that "everything" turned out to be better than "nothing" in terms of some "scientific flaws".

In the "nothing" episode, they began with Aristotle's comment about nature abhorring a vacuum, which was in my opinion a *wonderful* place to begin. I was rather disappointed however that never once did they bother to mention the fact that *since* all those experiments related to fluctuations in a *near (not perfect) vacuum*, we've discovered that neutrinos flow through the best vacuums by the billions, they have some amount of mass/energy, and they oscillate between the various flavors over time. Aristotle was absolutely correct. Not only does nature abhor a vacuum, it absolutely prevents any vacuum from being 'without energy'. There is no such thing as a *pure* (as in zero energy) vacuum. All vacuums contain *positive* kinetic energy, and therefore *positive* pressure. The omission of neutrino research was the only thing that allowed that particular episode to *not* fall flat on it's face. Aristotle was correct.

The second *major* problem was their use of Dirac and his electron/positron prediction. Yes indeed, Dirac was correct about the existence of antimatter, and he was also correct about them annihilating and releasing their energy as gamma ray light.

They then suggested that matter and antimatter particles come popping out of "nothing" (full of moving particles of neutrino mass), and annihilate, yet somehow they miraculously release no energy in the annihilation process. I'd call that a rather major "blow it" moment in the show. Not a particularly convincing argument for either the existence of a real vacuum that is contrary to Aristotle's prediction, or that electrons and positrons come popping themselves into existence, touch each other, release no gamma rays and magically live happily ever after in the "vacuum". Sorry, that was a *major* disappointment in terms of selling me on their belief system.

It was worth watching however in seeing how much "excitement" they feel about one part of their dogma in particular. They seem to *really* want there to be a creation event, but more importantly they *really* want there to be some kind of relationship between tiny fluctuations in QM and the layout of galaxies in space. That 'need for cosmic seeds' and to find some correlation between them obviously drives their entire dogma package from start to finish. Not only do they need to find a creation event, with a mythical surface of last scattering, there has to be *proof* that the shadows on the walls of that mythical surface have some meaning in the realm of QM. It's all driven by some strong emotional desire for there to be a A) creation event, that B) has QM influences that can be traced to mythical surface of last scattering.

At least I got a better handle on where the "excitement" factor comes in, and I see now why they avoided the neutrino mass issue entirely. It would have blow their whole claim about a empty vacuum right out of the water, and they'd end up right back at Aristotle again.

I also could not fathom why the mainstream has such a fascination with Obler's paradox. It's obvious now how much they *underestimated* the amount of *plasma* in the universe, and how much they *assumed* the presence of "nothing" to scatter light or absorb light.

I'm sorry, but your snow globe universe didn't really come off any better when they said it, and that matter/antimatter *non annihilation* process complete *without* gamma rays, was simply hysterical from my perspective. You'd have thought even an editor somewhere would have asked them why gamma rays weren't being constantly emitted from the vacuum with all those virtual matter/antimatter interactions happening?

That whole show seems to depend upon *not* acknowledging anything we've learned about neutrinos and the way they flow through our best "vacuums" on Earth.

Basically from your posts; I have come to understand that you believe the universe to have always existed. This obviously comes into direct conflict with your religion (Christianity). But nevertheless, like I have stated before; we shall wait and see. If EU has any merit then eventually it will refute the mainstream model. After all your claim that all the mainstream scientists have a conspiracy agenda is not the sort of thing one would expect from any scientist.

In the past; scientists had to toil to have their theories accepted. You on the other hand seem to just release your pent up frustrations in a layman's forum. If you believe so much in your EU hypothesis then try to debate it in the many physics forums where people can actually argue with you with data. We are not qualified here.

Should you join forums like Physorg or physics forum, etc. then let me know and I will very much like to see you come up against people who know their stuff.

I am basically through with this and any other EU threads as it is getting us nowhere.

 

[lesliedellow]

Should you join forums like Physorg or physics forum, etc. then let me know and I will very much like to see you come up against people who know their stuff.

I know for a fact that he belonged to one. They even have a section for crank theories, but apparently he was too much for them, so he came here.

A bit like publishing papers about cosmology on a website for electrical engineers really.

 

[mzungu]

I know for a fact that he belonged to one. They even have a section for crank theories, but apparently he was too much for them, so he came here.

A bit like publishing papers about cosmology on a website for electrical engineers really.

hehe! I know! When he has to debate with people who know their stuff, he cannot get away with it!

 

[Michael]

Basically from your posts; I have come to understand that you believe the universe to have always existed.

The laws of physics only insist that *energy* has always existed in some form or another. I have no reason to believe there was ever a time when spacetime did not exist.

This obviously comes into direct conflict with your religion (Christianity).

1) Even if that were true, so what? Should my religious view take priority over science?

2) How would it conflict with *my* religious views?

But nevertheless, like I have stated before; we shall wait and see. If EU has any merit then eventually it will refute the mainstream model.

Birkeland was dead before he had confirmation that his beliefs were correct and Chapman's beliefs were false. How long did you intend to wait exactly?

After all your claim that all the mainstream scientists have a conspiracy agenda is not the sort of thing one would expect from any scientist.

I've said many times that I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all. If it is, it's the worst one of all time. It wasn't like *I* ran those tests at LHC, or LUX, AMS-02 or those electron roundness tests. It wasn't like *I* was the one to report those negative results either. I'm not the one that blew the lid off their galaxy mass estimation technique problems either. What "conspiracy"? Apparently it's a conspiracy to destroy CDM claims.

In the past; scientists had to toil to have their theories accepted. You on the other hand seem to just release your pent up frustrations in a layman's forum.

I've done it on *lots* of forums, including this one. It's not like I get "better" answers anywhere else.

If you believe so much in your EU hypothesis then try to debate it in the many physics forums where people can actually argue with you with data. We are not qualified here.

Apparently you're not alone in being unable to answer some simple questions about CDM and "dark energy" (like where they even come from/their exact energy states).

Should you join forums like Physorg or physics forum, etc. then let me know and I will very much like to see you come up against people who know their stuff.

I pretty sure I've posted on both sites over the past 9 years. They didn't/don't know where dark energy comes from either, let alone can explain a way to control it, or make it do anything in real lab experiment.

I am basically through with this and any other EU threads as it is getting us nowhere.

It's only getting us nowhere because there's no tangible connection between your claims and the behaviors of photons in any controlled test. If there were, I wouldn't be complaining, and you wouldn't be defending. Since there isn't any such evidence, it doesn't matter if I debate you, or Guth himself along with all his minions. The outcome isn't going to change one iota.

 

[Michael]

I know for a fact that he belonged to one. They even have a section for crank theories, but apparently he was too much for them, so he came here.

Apparently I'm "too much' for a lot of astronomy hangouts. They don't handle criticism very well, hence the draconian rule systems, and propensity toward virtual violence against all heretics.

A bit like publishing papers about cosmology on a website for electrical engineers really.

What a lame attitude. The reason EU/PC theory is attractive in the first place is because it's *not* it's own 'made up' branch of physics. It overlaps with electrical engineering, QM, MHD theory, and other branches of *empirical* physics. You don't need a "special degree" in exotic matter theory, or to understand claims about exotic matter to understand EU/PC theory. It's an *empirical* branch of physics, just like electrical engineering.

From my experiences on the internet, it's pretty darn obvious that as it relates to circuit theory, and applications of MHD theory to objects in space, that the mainstream is entirely *clueless*. They hardly understand the B orientation of plasma physics, and almost none of them have a clue about the particle/circuit/E orientation of plasma physics. Handing them a paper on such topics would be like handing them a paper written in ancient Sumerian text. They wouldn't even have the ability to translate it into a language they even relate to. They'd keep scratching their head and asking the author: "How does this stuff relate to our dark energy/matter gods"?

 

[Michael]

hehe! I know! When he has to debate with people who know their stuff, he cannot get away with it!

Certainly not without being virtually executed for my heresy.

 

[lesliedellow]

Apparently I'm "too much' for a lot of astronomy hangouts. They don't handle criticism very well, hence the draconian rule systems, and propensity toward virtual violence against all heretics.

What a lame attitude. The reason EU/PC theory is attractive in the first place is because it's *not* it's own 'made up' branch of physics. It overlaps with electrical engineering

No it doesn't. The only thing they have in common is the word electricity.

If I wanted to win applause and adulation for successfully merging General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory, I wouldn't publish the relevant paper on a website for computer hardware engineers.

 

[Michael]

No it doesn't. The only thing they have in common is the word electricity.

Oh boloney. Alfven used ordinary circuit theory to explain pretty much every high energy release in plasma. He was an electrician by trade, and he explained such high energy events in very ordinary scientific language.

If I wanted to win applause and adulation for successfully merging General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory, I wouldn't publish the relevant paper on a website for computer hardware engineers.

You're still overlooking the fact that the IEEE publications are a natural fit for any theory that is based entirely upon electrical engineering principles. A lot of Bruce's work was also published in IEEE journals because they too were directly related to the topic of electrical engineering.

 

[lesliedellow]

You're still overlooking the fact that the IEEE publications are a natural fit for any theory that is based entirely upon electrical engineering principles. A lot of Bruce's work was also published in IEEE journals because they too were directly related to the topic of electrical engineering.

So a theory merging General Relativity with Quantum Theory is a "natural fit" on any engineering website where quantum physics plays a part in their work - as it does in semiconductor design.

Of course, some people might think that a more sensible place to publish it would be in a peer reviewed journal, read by astrophysicists.

 

[Michael]

So a theory merging General Relativity with Quantum Theory is a "natural fit" on any engineering website where quantum physics plays a part in their work - as it does in semiconductor design.

Of course, some people might think that a more sensible place to publish it would be in a peer reviewed journal, read by astrophysicists.

You're still basically complaining because the mainstream controls the mainstream astronomy publications. Furthermore they have no great scientific expertize on topics that are directly related to EU/PC theory, whereas electrical engineers do have such expertize. This is no a great mystery mind you since EU/PC theory was *written by an electrical engineer*.

Alfven did publish plenty of papers in relevant journals including that paper on solar flares that I've posted to several threads now.

 

[lesliedellow]

Furthermore they have no great scientific expertize on topics that are directly related to EU/PC theory

They do have expertise in cosmology. And as I pointed out to your colleague, it is an astronomer who teaches electromagnetism to first year undergraduates at MIT - or at least it was until he retired.

whereas electrical engineers do have such expertize.

I doubt if many electrical engineers have any interest in trying to do cosmologists job for them.

 

[Michael]

They do have expertise in cosmology.

How? They claim the universe is mostly composed of dark energy, but they cannot collectively even name a single source of the stuff. They also claim exotic matter makes up most of the rest of their theory, and yet they keep falsifying their own claims about CDM on a regular basis.

And as I pointed out to your colleague, it is an astronomer who teaches electromagnetism to first year undergraduates at MIT - or at least it was until he retired.

I'm not suggesting there are no exceptions to the rule, but by and large I'm not impressed much with their grasp of basic MHD theory. That 'reconnection in a vacuum' discussion at JREF was *highly* enlightening IMO. Over a period of *months* not one of them noted the fact that plasma is not 'optional' in the "reconnection" process! What they don't know about plasma physics could fill *volumes*. They don't even have a good handle on the B orientation of plasma physics. Almost none of them know how to apply circuit theory to plasma. Maybe less than a handful might put both the B and E orientations together at the point of "reconnection". Electrical engineers do this kind of stuff in their sleep and they already know that magnetic lines form as a full *continuum*, without begging or end, not in stupid little lines that disconnect and reconnect to each other. Sheesh. Astronomers are clueless about plasma physics, and they don't even have a good grasp of basic EM field theory IMO.

I doubt if many electrical engineers have any interest in trying to do cosmologists job for them.

You missed the point. The point was to show them that their engineering and math skills also have value as it relates to understanding various topics related to astronomy.

 

[lesliedellow]

How? They claim the universe is mostly composed of dark energy, but they cannot collectively even name a single source of the stuff.

They don't need a source if it is a property of space itself. And don't say that space is nothingness. It has three dimensions, in case you hadn't noticed, and "nothing" doesn't have that, or any other, properties.

They also claim exotic matter makes up most of the rest of their theory, and yet they keep falsifying their own claims about CDM on a regular basis.

They don't falsify anything; they just prove that a particular guess was wrong.

You missed the point. The point was to show them that their engineering and math skills also have value as it relates to understanding various topics related to astronomy.

Even if they took your paper completely at face value, I doubt if they could really care less. They are not astronomers.

 

[Michael]

Michael, you never told me what you thought of the video about Nothing. Any comments? Even if you disagree with the contents at the least what do you think of Jim Al Khalili as a presenter compared to Tyson?

Ok, I'm willing to admit for the record that you were right about one thing.

After watching two hours worth of the everything/nothing series that you suggested, I'd be inclined to agree with you that the EU produces much higher quality shows on the topic of 'science' than I've seen out of Cosmos thus far.

I'd say that I like Al Khalili and Tyson pretty equally as presenters, but your scripts have been a lot better mainly because they stuck to the topic and didn't waste their time on unrelated nonsense. At least all the 'wincing' I did in the series you suggested was actually related to the actual scientific commentary, not at the script. That alone was a major improvement IMO.