Starship Asterisk*

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

The sceintific method was developed over 1000 years ago.

The influence by the status quo has been around ever since MAN evolved.

harry wrote:The influence by the status quo has been around ever since MAN evolved.

Do you mean that it is a hopless task to try to convince folks here that Einstein's gravitation is right and the creationist version of cosmology known as BB wrong?

G'day jimjast

Smile no way, you are on the right track.

You are going to be amazed how many true scientist do not think along the lines of the BBT.

Its just that while that is happening its easier to swim down mainstream.

A bit of a pain to swim up stream.

====================================================================================

I read these papers today. Sometimes I feel that I'm a book worm.

Some parts I do not agree with, but the main theme is very simple and in my opinion close to reality that can be explained by the laws of physics.
If I have posted these papers before, I'm sorry.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404371
In Quest of a True Model of the Universe

Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 20 Apr 2004 (v1), last revised 17 Jan 2005 (this version, v3))

Abstract: While many observations support the validity of Einstein's general relativity as the theory of gravity, there are yet many that suggest the presence of new physics. In order to explain the high-redshift supernovae Ia observations together with the recently made precise observations of the CMB anisotropy by WMAP, the standard cosmology has to invoke some hypothetical matter with unnatural properties which is very speculative. This casts doubts upon the foundations of the standard cosmology and suggests that some theoretical concept may still be missing from the theory.
Such a concept might be the rotation of the astronomical objects, which has not been properly taken care of when we claim that a perfect fluid is a good approximation to the real contents of the universe. A crude estimation of the angular kinetic energy of massive galaxies indicates to a possibility to have $\Omega_{\rm total}\approx 1$ without invoking the hypothetical dark matter or dark energy. This picture also appears consistent with the recent observations of a great abundance of old massive galaxies made by Gemini Deep Deep Survey. However, a proper relativistic theory of the rotating objects is still to be investigated. It is expected that the consequences of incorporating rotation in general relativity, and hence in special relativity, would be profound.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311033
A new paradigm for the universe (preliminary version)

Authors: Colin Rourke
(Submitted on 3 Nov 2003)

Abstract: A new paradigm for the structure of galaxies is proposed. The main hypothesis is that a normal galaxy contains a hypermassive black hole at its centre which generates the spiral arms. The paradigm gives satisfactory explanations for:
* The rotation curve of a galaxy.
* The spherical bulge at the centre of a normal galaxy.
* The spiral structure and long-term stability of a normal galaxy.
* The age and orbits of globular clusters.
* The origin and prevalence of solar systems.
* (Highly speculative) the origin of life.
The paradigm is compatible with direct observations but not with many of the current interpretations of these observations. It is also incompatible with large swathes of current cosmological theory and in particular with the expanding universe and hot big bang theories.
A tentative new explanation for the observed redshift of distant objects is given which is compatible with a static model for the universe.
This paper is being circulated in a very preliminary form in the hope that others will work both on interpreting observational data in the light of the new paradigm and on the obvious gaps in underlying theory.

harry wrote:When the control of information is determined by one party thats when science goes out of balance.

Science wouldn't work if that ever became the case. Fortunately, things don't work that way.

Blogs and online forums, of course, may be controlled by one person. But that poses no risk to science, since these things aren't tools of science, but of education (or more often, miseducation).

not to comment for harry, but

JimJast wrote:Do you mean that it is a hopless task to try to convince folks here that Einstein's (generalized - makc) gravitation is right...

yes, you cant convince anyone with empty blah blah words - your only chance to do that is with carefully done math (which neither you, nor Einstein - as he said so himself - never did)

makc wrote:true, true. the rules, however, do not have this as a valid reason for banning :) I wish we could have phpbb plugin to filter posts from certain users in account settings - then the forum would only have to ban spammers. they would still pop up in quotes on occasion, but much less noise any way...

How about a plugin that compares posts from different forums as the basis for a filter? You could take a look at some of JimJast's posts on the Bad Astronomy forum, for instance. They pretty much ripped him a new one last year. Did you know that he's a Ph.D. student in the Department of Hadrons and Leptons, because the Department of Gravitation and Cosmology is hoping to destroy him?

I'm pretty sure I saw a movie along those lines once on MST3K! <g>

harry wrote:You are going to be amazed how many true scientist do not think along the lines of the BBT.

But they are mostly physicists and so they don't believe in creation of energy from nothing as BB people tell them, that it is the case in Einstein's gravitation, while it is not. That's why all physicists say "we don't understand gravitation", since they think the gravitation works as BB people (experts in "GR", right?) tell them it does.

What I don't understand though is why so many astronomers believe that physics is "really" Newtonian as if there were no Einstein and the time were not coupled to space which produces immediately not only the "gravitational force" but also the illusion of accelerating expansion: If you are looking into deep space and the time over there runs slower than here due to Einsteinian curvature of space you will see necessarily a redshift and might think that the space is expanding while it is only the time running slower over there. Aren't astronomers able to realize such a simple thing? And if they aren't why editors of their journals oppose printing 5 page papers like mine that explain it at elementary level with all the necessary Einsteinian math, which referees can't falsify, and can only say it is not important enough to be printed? Which prompts me to quote Einstein again: "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?"

G'day jimjast

Stay cool under fire.

The aim is not to convince people of what you think.

The aim is to try to learn the little we can.

If you think you know than you have trapped yourself.

I read papers day in day out.

and it seems that the more I read I find myself knowing how little I know.

If you know what I mean.



I posted this paper before, I forgot where, does not matter here it is again.

Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.4140

Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
(Submitted on 26 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The standard LambdaCDM model of cosmology is usually understood to arise from demanding that the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric satisfy the General Relativity dynamics for spacetime metrics. The FLRW data-based dominant parameter values, Omega_Lambda=0.73 and Omega_m=0.27 for the dark energy and dark matter+matter, respectively, are then determined by fitting the supernova red-shift data. However in the pressure-less flat-space case the LambdaCDM model is most easily derived from Newtonian gravity, and which was based on the special case of planetary motion in the solar system. Not surprisingly when extended to galactic rotations and cosmology Newtonian dynamics is found to be wanting, and the fix-up involves introducing dark matter and dark energy, as shown herein. However a different theory of gravity leads to a different account of galactic rotations and cosmology, and does not require dark matter nor dark energy to fit the supernova data. It is shown that fitting the LambdaCDM model to this new model, and so independently of the actual supernova data, requires the LambdaCDM model parameters to be those given above. Hence we conclude that dark energy and dark matter are no more than mathematical artifacts to fix-up limitations of Newtonian gravity. Various other data are also briefly reviewed to illustrate other successful tests of this new theory of gravity.

JimJast wrote:What I don't understand though is why so many astronomers believe that physics is "really" Newtonian as if there were no Einstein and the time were not coupled to space...

Exactly how many times it needs to be pointed out to you that Big Bang theory is based on general relativity theory as one of its components?

JimJast wrote:...why editors of their journals oppose printing 5 page papers like mine that explain it at elementary level with all the necessary Einsteinian math,...

Is there anyone except you yourself who agreed, upon reading your papers, that they contain "all the necessary Einsteinian math"? I was asking you for this necessary math from the moment you joined this forum, but you only told me to gtfo.

JimJast wrote:...which referees can't falsify,...

This is a joke, right?

This is probably the 2nd time when I opened an article linked to by harry

harry wrote:I posted this paper before, I forgot where, does not matter here it is again.

Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.4140

The "The ЛCDM Model from Newtonian Gravity" part is priceless. You know, when I was a kid I had that big physics cheat-book with all possible equations in it. What I used to do was to take every two equations with same variable names and combine them together, then repeat. It felt like I was discovering something that those equations authors somehow missed, but in the end I always had totally meaningless formula. It was disappointing, but the joy of that pioneer feeling caused me to repeat the process again and again... sigh. Those were the times.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Smile


Makc only two papers.

Wow!!!!

Better than one

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote:What I don't understand though is why so many astronomers believe that physics is "really" Newtonian as if there were no Einstein and the time were not coupled to space...

Exactly how many times it needs to be pointed out to you that Big Bang theory is based on general relativity theory as one of its components?

... accoring to wikipedia's editors, none of whom is an astronomer or even a GR professor. However I talk to astronomy professors and GR professors from my university and from other universities, and none of them, except Feynman who unfortunately is dead, acknowledged the fact that the time and space are coupled. And since they are coupled as required by conservation of energy it must produce an illusion of accelerating expansion with Hubble constant as obsreved by real astronomers in the real universe and its acceleration also observed as predicted by Einstein's GR. Since there is only one Einstein's GR and no adjustable parameters in it. The problem is though that it is not taught in high schools, not even in undergraduate courses in universities, despite it being simpler to understand then Newton's gravitation (no spooky action at a distance there). I'm just trying to convince professors in my university to teach it in Physics 1, to avoid the now popular situation that "physicists don't understand gravitation" and don't even know where the gravitational force comes from (do you know how to explain to your grandmother the mechanism of gravitational force? If yes then please do it here so we all see that it is not a hot air).

Your pointing out to wikipedia articles by non scientists who don't know Einstein's GR (since it is not taught in high schools) are appreciated very much but you should provide batter arguments than opinions of wikipedia editors who are just people with high school education (in the best case). They automatically support the mainstram. Besies, it is in wikipedia's rules of operation. You could use your time better, studying Einstein's GR yourself and find out why there is no expansion in the universe, just an illusion of it. It is rather simple if I could find it. Or you may just read my paper where I explain it to high school students (only 5 pages including introduction).

But if everybody agreed with Einstein's coupling of space and time what would all those theorists do? Only to teach that Einstein's physics predicted it all almost a century ago? They may need also some excitment in their lives. That's why we have a creationist theory, insisting that energy can be created from nothing, disguised as science. Because creationist ideas in science almost surely would prompt real scientists to oppose them. At least it might be the idea behind the BB, just not officially stated for obvious reasons. Can you think how you would feel if it turned out to be the purpose of propagating such silly hypothesis (impossible in real, Einstein's physics) as BB?

JimJast wrote:...since they are coupled... it must produce an illusion of accelerating expansion...

I'm sorry I must have missed it last time when you explained the logic behind this statement, could you repeat it here once again?

JimJast wrote:Since there is only one Einstein's GR and no adjustable parameters in it.

If you mean that Einstein modified equation with cosmological constant should not be regarded as part of GR, then a) you should say so explicitly, so people wouldnt have to guess if that's what you are talking about, and b) by same standards, his assymmetric extension of GR (your favorite subject, isnt it) should not be regarded as part of GR, and most of your statements loose their meaning.

JimJast wrote:The problem is though that it is not taught in high schools, not even in undergraduate courses in universities

agreed.

JimJast wrote:despite it being simpler to understand then Newton's gravitation

not agreed.

JimJast wrote:(do you know how to explain to your grandmother the mechanism of gravitational force? If yes then please do it here so we all see that it is not a hot air)

as a matter of fact in my univercity years I was doing flash presentation on subject but never get to finish it... maybe I will some time, maybe I will not, but I still keep those files at my HDD

JimJast wrote:Your pointing out to wikipedia articles by non scientists who don't know Einstein's GR (since it is not taught in high schools) are appreciated very much but you should provide batter arguments than opinions of wikipedia editors

harry could help you here, once upon a time Nereid provided him with a link to excellent paper on LCDM, which is most of following BBT is based upon. wiki is still good reference, since occasionally scientists go there and delete material that doesnt correspond to reality (and, in fact, me posting links to wiki articles here and there only improves chances of someone of them doing so)

JimJast wrote:At least it might be the idea behind the BB, just not officially stated for obvious reasons. Can you think how you would feel if it turned out to be the purpose of propagating such silly hypothesis (impossible in real, Einstein's physics) as BB?

Now, JimJast, I thought you were saying you are not discussing conspiracies, are you now?

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote:...since they are coupled... it must produce an illusion of accelerating expansion...

I'm sorry I must have missed it last time when you explained the logic behind this statement, could you repeat it here once again?

I didn't explain it before since I'm not allowed under the penelty of being banned from this forum, to push my findings about Einstein's theory before they are published in a scientific journal, but if you ask, and you are one of moderators here I'm responding to your request: The calculation of loss of energy of photons to the matter of universe leads in several rather simple steps to an identity (d^2)T/dtdr+1/R=0, where d means "partial", T is proper time at point in deep space, t is coordinate time (of observer), r is radial coordinate (coordinate distance from observer to observed point in deep space), and R is radius of curvatue of space under consideration. As you may see it implies Hubble type time delation in deep space (dT/dt) proportional to the (positive) curvature of space (1/R). And so the Hubble constant of static universe of radius R (a.k.a. "Einstein's radius") at observer is H=c/R. If you want to know the (apparent) acceleration of this (apparent) expansion of space you split Hubble redshift function into Taylor series, take difference to uniform expansion and this acceleration comes out as -H^2/2 as it was observed by Supernova Team in 1998. So one may say that Einstein's theory was able to predict the apparent accelerating expansion of universe over 80 years before it has been observed by astronomers.

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote: Since there is only one Einstein's GR and no adjustable parameters in it.

If you mean that Einstein modified equation with cosmological constant should not be regarded as part of GR, then a) you should say so explicitly, so people wouldnt have to guess if that's what you are talking about, and b) by same standards, his assymmetric extension of GR (your favorite subject, isnt it) should not be regarded as part of GR, and most of your statements loose their meaning.

Of course it is part of GR since without it the field equation has no physical sense since it is not stable. The unstable universe implies the violation of the principle of conservation of energy and so such solution has no physical sense (though it may have mathematical sense and one can even built a whole mathematical theory on it as we have seen in the case of BB but not a physical theory as we have seen in the same case). Furthermore GR evolved from symmetric metric tensor in 1915 through cosmological constant of 1917 to non symmetric metric tensor in 1950. I might have wanted to add also "to the understanding of Hubble redshift in 1985 and realization that the metric tensor is not only non symmetric but also degenerate" but not wanting to be banned for life from one more moderated forum, I wouldn't.

makc wrote:Now, JimJast, I thought you were saying you are not discussing conspiracies, are you now?

I still don't. Someone already advised not to look for conspiracies where stupidity suffices for an explanation. I just recall Feynman quote about 126 dopes at some Conference on Gravitation. They wouldn't be able to conspire even if they wanted to. And so I doubt they did. They were just application mathematicians able to handle equations but not physics. And that's why Feynman was so outraged with their ideas. Which we can see till today in a form of the BB hypothesis, still not a physical hypothesis (since violation of conservation of energy disqualify any hypothesis as physical) but only a mathematical hypothesis, good to be discussed in some society of mutual adoration that Feynman refused to belong to.

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote:despite [GR] being simpler to understand the Newton's gravitation

not agreed.

I just wanted to show you how much simpler GR is for high school kids than the Newtonian mechanics. First of all, the Newtonian mechanics requires an assumption of a mysterious "force of gravitational attraction", acting in a spooky way (the same way as ghosts do, at a distance, through vacuum).

In GR the gravitational force is dealt with, through the (coordinate) speed of light that in GR is changing from c at the center of particle to some smaller value on the side of mass M that curves the spacetime and is easily seen through bending of light ray in accelerating spaceship that most kids may imagine. So we have E=mc^2 at the center of the particle and E(x)<E on the side of mass M. The difference dE=E-E(x) divided by dx turns out to be gravitational force F=-dE/dx, which keeps pushing the particle in direction of mass M. Which to the old timers looked like "gravitational attraction" by mass M. Wile in the real world of GR it is an inertial push due to diminishing energy of the particle, due to diminishing speed of light in direction of mass M. You are welcome to do all the calculations necessary to see that this force is just F=mg and therefore that E=mc^2 is "gravitational energy" of the particle. No more uncertainty where this gravitational energy is located. All thanks to Einstein's GR and Einstein's principle of equivalence of gravity and acceleration.

JimJast wrote:I didn't explain it before since I'm not allowed under the penelty of being banned from this forum

You are quite right, so let me re-phrase my question in another way: what exactly do you mean when you write "the time and space are coupled", mathematically?

JimJast wrote:such solution has no physical sense

A ha, you have shown us the very roots of your antiBBTism, finally So, again, may I ask, how exactly you decide if a theory "has physical sense"? Apparently, what (most of) scientists do is simply checking to see if results received from theory formulas and selected free parameter values fit observational data; what you seem to be doing is, however, checking the theory conceptual structure against some selected beliefs (such as "energy conservation" - regardless of what this actually means to you, remember that this is also just a theory).

JimJast wrote:Furthermore GR evolved from symmetric metric tensor in 1915 through cosmological constant of 1917 to non symmetric metric tensor in 1950.

Thanks for this clarification, now we finally know exactly what you call GR Needless to say that (most of) scientists do not consider 1950 extension to be part of GR, and your using the term in less-then-common sense may be confusing to people. As I said, I personally pretty much like these 1950's E(xtended)GR ideas, but we need someone to do the math without skipping a single step (and you skipped a lot of them )

JimJast wrote:First of all, the Newtonian mechanics requires an assumption of a mysterious "force of gravitational attraction", acting in a spooky way (the same way as ghosts do, at a distance, through vacuum).

Perhaps you should remember yourself as a kid for a moment - these mysterious things are very easily accepted by kids with even smallest imagination. You see Casper walking through some wall just once, and you never ask yourself "how the hell he does that" next time you see this again. The difficulty really lies in formal part (as you should know now, after being asked to complete the gaps in it for so many times )

JimJast wrote:In GR the gravitational force is dealt with, through the (coordinate) speed of light that in GR is changing from c at the center of particle to some smaller value on the side of mass M that curves the spacetime and is easily seen through bending of light ray in accelerating spaceship that most kids may imagine.

Please read this aloud and tell me honestly, do you think kids could imagine anything but "spaceship" in this sentence. I seriously doubt it, in fact, I need to stretch my own imagination to see what a hell do you mean by "changing from c at the center of particle to some smaller value on the side of mass M"... errr... please, make more effort in making more clear statements, would you? Some things on the back of your mind may be obvious to you, but others have little idea what do you mean there.

JimJast wrote:I just wanted to show you how much simpler GR is for high school kids than the Newtonian mechanics. First of all, the Newtonian mechanics requires an assumption of a mysterious "force of gravitational attraction", acting in a spooky way (the same way as ghosts do, at a distance, through vacuum).

I don't see it that way, and I don't teach it that way. Newtonian mechanics makes no assumption at all about the "what" or "why" behind the force. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you have a theory, and you have observations. You can apply the theory, and reliably predict the observations (within the non-relativistic regime, of course). It's a simple as that.

In general, science gets in trouble when it worries too much about physicality. In practice, and very likely in reality, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is only that you have a model (a theory) that can be applied to reliably explain a set of observations. If you achieve that, your work is done. The rest is better left to philosophers <g>.

Chris Peterson wrote:

JimJast wrote:I just wanted to show you how much simpler GR is for high school kids than the Newtonian mechanics. First of all, the Newtonian mechanics requires an assumption of a mysterious "force of gravitational attraction", acting in a spooky way (the same way as ghosts do, at a distance, through vacuum).

I don't see it that way, and I don't teach it that way. Newtonian mechanics makes no assumption at all about the "what" or "why" behind the force. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you have a theory, and you have observations. You can apply the theory, and reliably predict the observations (within the non-relativistic regime, of course). It's a simple as that.

In general, science gets in trouble when it worries too much about physicality. In practice, and very likely in reality, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is only that you have a model (a theory) that can be applied to reliably explain a set of observations. If you achieve that, your work is done. The rest is better left to philosophers <g>.

There are mathematical theories (ones that you are talking about) and physical theories, different in this from mathamatical ones that they may be right always (if they are true and then we have to check only if they are true, no adjustments needed). When your theory is only mathematical one you lose understanding of what's going on and so you aren't able to discover anything new. It is the big difference that Feynman tried to teach folks about. E.g. a mathematical (phenomenological) theory as BB can describe observations in expanding universe, but if the universe is really static, it is bound to fail regedless how good its math is. And fixing its math is not as great as realising that the universe is static and "adjust" the theory accordingly making it physical. Physics is only about what is true and if you don't care about the truth, just the math you are not a physicist but a matematician. It is different science. Needed too of course but orthogonal to the truth. At least according to Feynman.

JimJast wrote:There are mathematical theories (ones that you are talking about) and physical theories, different in this from mathamatical ones that they may be right always (if they are true and then we have to check only if they are true, no adjustments needed). When your theory is only mathematical one you lose understanding of what's going on and so you aren't able to discover anything new. It is the big difference that Feynman tried to teach folks about.

You talk a lot about Feynman. Well, I had physics from Feynman. In the classroom. And IMO you're not representing him accurately at all. He didn't have an issue with the standard cosmology of the time (late 1970s). He didn't make these strange distinctions between different kinds of GR. And he didn't worry about the "physicality" of theories. You should stick with quoting the professors of Hadrons and Leptons at Lower Slobovia University, or wherever it is you are.

makc wrote: ...what exactly do you mean when you write "the time and space are coupled", mathematically?

JimJast wrote:... identity (d^2)T/dtdr+1/R=0, where d means "partial", T is proper time at point in deep space, t is coordinate time (of observer), r is radial coordinate (coordinate distance from observer to observed point in deep space), and R is radius of curvatue of space under consideration ...

... it implies Hubble type time dilation in deep space (d/dr)(dT/dt) proportional to 1/R. And so the Hubble constant of Einstein's universe of radius R (a.k.a. "Einstein's radius") at observer is H=c/R, where c is speed of light.
The above identity "couples time to space" making the intrinsic curvature of spacetime vanish. Feynman: "As you know from special theory of relativity, measurements of space and measurements of time are interrelated. And it would be kind of crazy to have something happening to space, without the time being involved in the same thing." It is involved in the same thing making the space looking like expanding to the "curved spacetime" (BB) folks.

You may of course follow the BB line of thinking saying that space and time are independent as it used to be in Newtonian math that would require to have the curved spacetime ("cosmic time" being flat and space curved). Mathematically it produces the same Hubble constant, however without the acceleration of expansion which has to be patched separately with "dark energy" and besides, another small detail, the BB requires constant creation of energy (parhaps through the divine intervention as page 1218 of MTW "Gravitation" and Leibniz quote at it suggests: "One suffices to create Everything of nothing!" while "intrisincally flat specetime" requires neither expansion nor creation of energy and that's why, not beliving in miracles, I vote for "Einstein's universe". You don't have to of course especially if you believe in divine intervantion suggeted by MTW's about $100 "Bible" (possibly the real reason for BB) and George LeMaitre.

If you need more math it is in Narlikar's papers and so you may further discuss the matter with him and reject his rather exotic physics of increasing mass of particles (as you may see the same math may fit many different theories), but at least you will have the math the same as Einstein's since Narlikar, being a math professor, noticed already also that the spacetime must be intrinsically flat not to "be kind of crazy" (according to Feynman). Narlikar and Arp call "intrinsic redshift" what I call "general time dilation" but the physical reason for it is the same: Inability of nature to create energy (that would be "be kind of crazy" in Feynman words). So, as you may see there is some kind of logic in our crazy ideas. And as I said you don't need to share them especialy if you believe (as BB folks do) that creation of energy is possible.

I'll try to make "more effort" to explain gravitational force in Einstein's gravitation later (if I won't be banned from here till then) but you could look up Landau's texts in his "Theory of fields" where he explains relativistic spacetime. Just differentiate his equation of page 285 and get "gravitational force" since this equation (possibly unknown to Landau himself since I don't see him differentiating it anywhere) expresses the "gravitational energy" of a particle.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Although I do not agree with Neried on some issues. I must thank her for directing me to some reading, which I cannot stop. It's like smoking and that 3 letter word beind doors.

Hello Makc:

Your responses have been great. I must pay attention to them.

Hello Jimjast

This may interest you

New paradigm for the universe search in arXiv
http://aps.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AN ... /0/all/0/1

Sometimes older papers allow us to know how they thought, although limited in observation.

======================================================

I know most people do not read the papers that I post.
Here is an interesting paper

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.3381
Towards A Resolution Of The Vacuum Energy Density Crisis

Authors: R. L. Oldershaw
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The theoretical vacuum energy density estimated on the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics and very general quantum assumptions is 59 to 123 orders of magnitude larger than the measured vacuum energy density for the observable universe which is determined on the basis of the Standard Model of cosmology and empirical data. This enormous disparity between the expectations of two of our most widely accepted theoretical frameworks demands a credible and self-consistent explanation, and yet even after decades of sporadic effort a generally accepted resolution of this crisis has not surfaced. Very recently, however, a discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm based on the fundamental principle of discrete scale invariance has been found to offer a rationale for reducing the vacuum energy density disparity by at least 115 orders of magnitude, and possibly this new paradigm offers a means of eliminating the vacuum energy density crisis entirely.

JimJast wrote:

makc wrote: ...what exactly do you mean when you write "the time and space are coupled", mathematically?

JimJast wrote:... identity (d^2)T/dtdr+1/R=0, where d means "partial", T is proper time at point in deep space, t is coordinate time (of observer), r is radial coordinate (coordinate distance from observer to observed point in deep space), and R is radius of curvatue of space under consideration ...

I thought maybe other readers here would also be interested in another JimJast quote from his derivation of above identity:

JimJast wrote:The calculations that would tell us about what happened... might be a nightmare. Fortunately we can avoid the horror... by noticing that the rate of the time in space is represented exactly by Newtonian gravitational potential and so the Newtonian model can tell us exactly what happened [here be dragons... err... manipulations with newtonian gravity equations]

Jim, can you explain us these double standards against Newtonian gravity?

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

This maybe of interest.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9904036
What are the Hidden Quantum Processes Behind Newton's Laws?

Authors: Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk
(Submitted on 19 Apr 1999)

Abstract: We investigate the hidden quantum processes that are responsible for Newton's laws of motion and Newton's universal law of gravity. We apply Electro-Magnetic Quantum Gravity or EMQG to investigate Newtonian classical physics. EQMG is a quantum gravity theory that is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory, a new paradigm for physical reality. EMQG is also based on a theory of inertia proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff, which we modified and called Quantum Inertia (QI). Quantum Inertia theory states that in Newton's 2nd law of motion (F=MA), inertia is caused by the strictly local electrical force interactions bewteen matter (ultimately composed of electrically charged quantum particles) and the surrounding electrically charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. When an electrically charged particle is accelerated, an electrical force results between the particle and the surrounding electrically charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum appears in a direction to oppose the acceleration. The sum of all the tiny electrical forces originating between each charged particle and the surrounding quantum vacuum, is the source of the total inertial force of a mass which opposes accelerated motion in Newton's F = MA. Quantum Inertia theory resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach's principle by suggesting that the state of acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum with respect to a mass, serves the function of Newton's absolute space for accelerated masses only.

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote:The calculations that would tell us about what happened... might be a nightmare. Fortunately we can avoid the horror... by noticing that the rate of the time in space is represented exactly by Newtonian gravitational potential and so the Newtonian model can tell us exactly what happened...

Jim, can you explain us these double standards against Newtonian gravity?

There is no double standard since Einstein's math is the same as Newton's math when velocities are negligible (v<<c) and so is the curvature of space (r<<R). I used this fortunate feature of Einstein's gravitation to calculate the Hubble constant of Einstein's uiverse on the advice of referee from Phys. Rev. Lett. when he noticed that result will be the same but reached in easier to understand way (easier to gravity physicists and astronomers).

Since you know now that Newtonian math is the same as Einstein's for small r and v I may add also that since Einstein's gravitation happens to be quantum gravitation (which you might not know since this knowledge is not very popular) doing calculations with quantum mechanics may be tough (that's why I mentioned "horror"). I opted for the easiest math possible which is still Newton's "magic" (even if gravitational physics is only Einstein's). So I used "Newtonian potential" since it could be legally applied in this case and the referee liked it better than my original stuff (with no "potential", just with "Eunsteinian gravitational force") that I sent to "Nature" and was completely misunderstood by the editor. Now the same calculations are done with two methods (Newtonian potential in the paper you qoted and gravitational force in my popularization of Einstein's gravitation ) and the results are the same. Does it explain the alleged "double standard"?

As for explaining how Einstein's gravitational force is generated I think that it will be more efficient if you just read from the internet my popular "Gravitation for everyone" ("Explanation for high school students and astrophysicists why thing fall"). Then you will have more details than I'm ever able to present here. It would have an additional advantage that when you criticize my article and you are right I use your critique and the article becomes a better popularization of Einstein's gravitation. Very offten I don't realize what people understand and what they don't. As you have seen yourself.

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:When the control of information is determined by one party thats when science goes out of balance.

Science wouldn't work if that ever became the case. Fortunately, things don't work that way.

Right .. and grants aren't allocated by people who once were in control of burning people at the stake.