Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
Next: * Hates US * Hates the US makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by hating peace and worshipping war criminals Bush and Cheney
From: YKhan on 31 May 2010 03:12 On May 31, 11:18 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > YKhan wrote: > > On May 31, 2:19 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Lot's of words. Let's see if he can craft it into a mathematical theory. > > > Actually, it's already a mathematical theory, it's called Loop Quantum- > > Gravity. The author of the article said in the article that he was > > physically describing the LQG theory as described to him by Lee > > Smolin. > > > Yousuf Khan > > I saw that, but as of yet I have not seen LQG make a testable prediction. Yeah, that's a problem afflicting most other next-gen QG theories also, like Superstring Theory. But that doesn't take away the fact that there is a mathematical framework behind it, as you had requested. It just means that math by itself is not sufficient to complete a theory, you need a physical framework too. These days, theory and observation are at odds with each other. Yousuf Khan
From: Androcles on 31 May 2010 03:27 "YKhan" <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e0598487-eb8e-4994-ad3e-9f21e3d1c45c(a)u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com... On May 31, 11:18 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > YKhan wrote: > > On May 31, 2:19 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Lot's of words. Let's see if he can craft it into a mathematical > >> theory. > > > Actually, it's already a mathematical theory, it's called Loop Quantum- > > Gravity. The author of the article said in the article that he was > > physically describing the LQG theory as described to him by Lee > > Smolin. > > > Yousuf Khan > > I saw that, but as of yet I have not seen LQG make a testable prediction. Yeah, that's a problem afflicting most other next-gen QG theories also, like Superstring Theory. But that doesn't take away the fact that there is a mathematical framework behind it, as you had requested. It just means that math by itself is not sufficient to complete a theory, you need a physical framework too. These days, theory and observation are at odds with each other. Yousuf Khan ============================================== If the theory doesn't fit the observations change the observations.
From: YKhan on 31 May 2010 05:10 On May 31, 1:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "YKhan" <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > These days, theory and observation are at odds with each other. > > Yousuf Khan > ============================================== > If the theory doesn't fit the observations change the observations. Or come up with the most ludicrous theories that sound like dinner party jokes. Yousuf Khan
From: Androcles on 31 May 2010 05:35 "YKhan" <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8943eaff-5f9f-48e1-8b0f-39d76ed521df(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... On May 31, 1:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "YKhan" <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > These days, theory and observation are at odds with each other. > > Yousuf Khan > ============================================== > If the theory doesn't fit the observations change the observations. Or come up with the most ludicrous theories that sound like dinner party jokes. Yousuf Khan ================================================ We've been doing that since Goodricke proposed a double star with a period of 70 hours, 1200 years after Ptolemy designed his epicycles. No matter how ludicrous the theory, the first explanation any crank dreams up is accepted "science". It is more important to go along with rest of the world-renowned and eminent sheep than to apply Ockham's Razor.
From: YKhan on 1 Jun 2010 10:53
On May 31, 8:05 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > So far as I can tell, the predictions are consistent with the results. > > The predictions are actually very close to those of GR, which is > quite remarkable when you consider that this theory is very much > simpler than GR. Okay, now I've read the paper, and I have to admit, I don't understand the math enough to figure out what he's saying. How exactly is what he's saying simpler than GR? Yousuf Khan |