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 2 Jun 2010 06:22 On Jun 1, 11:59 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 07:53:36 -0700 (PDT), YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >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? > > Well for comparison, there is a mathematical derivation of frame > dragging here, from formulae that are used in GR.http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time-warped-fields.html > > It seems to me more complicated than the maths used in Cahill's paper. > > Another difference is that in Cahill's theory, space is a physical > substance that flows into matter, so frame dragging can be visualized > as a twisting of the flow, as space flows into a rotating mass. As far as I'm concerned, models comparing space (and time) to fluids are completely right. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, that which we call time and space are not even the real background time and space, it's a flowing substance that we mistake for time and space. We mistake this substance for time and space because we are part of this substance, we're like the molecules of this substance, so we have no independent freedom of movement to explore this. A molecule can only measure itself in relationship to the next molecule. > In GR space isn't supposed to flow, so a picture of what happens would > usually be more abstract. I think when the entire idea of separate frames of reference was introduced in Relativity, we were well on our way towards laying the foundation for the theory of fluidic space. Relativity just didn't go far enough, that's all. > I say "usually" because it is possible with GR to use a metric > consisting of falling frames of reference. Such a metric then > resembles a flow of space. Sure, as I said, we were getting close to the idea of fluidic space with Relativity, it just didn't go far enough towards that idea. Einstein's ideas were derived while living inside a relatively calm, static universe. Pretty much like a perfectly still pond, where the most upsetting things that ever happens might be an occasional droplet falls into the pond and may create a simple wave to disturb the calmness. If our universe were a roiling white-water rapid (like it must've been during the Big Bang), then Relativity might have evolved into a different and more complex theory. Now it's upto later generations to keep probing deeper and further into the workings of space-time. > There is an example of that here, with some diagrams that may convey > the basic idea. > > The river model of black holeshttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060 > > Hope this helps. > Surfer Okay. Yousuf Khan
From: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 15:26
yes, but your "dynamical 3-space" is just a euphemism; others, however, choose to believe in an absolute vacuum -- and that really sucks! > But turbulence is very difficult to analyse mathematically, so > my papers mainly deal with simpler cases of non-turbulent flow. thusNso: the introduction sounded good; I'll read it, later. http://research.physics.illinois.edu/qi/photonics/papers/QuantumCakes... thusNso: ladies & germs, nature abhors a refractive index equal to 1.0000..., and I thank Pascal for his dyscovery of it, and damn Einstein for his damn "photon" reification of Newton's God-am corpuscle -- so, let's get on with it! thusNso: Michelson and Morely did not get no results, as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers, and documented by "surfer" herein. Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space --then, he died-- has been hobbling minds, ever since; it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions (and the language of "vectors" that Hamilton created thereby .-) thusNso: clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is; it's not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage, as many responsible folks do. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com |