Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

I think this is another Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat cycle ...

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be like that if you could empirically demonstrate your claim in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. If you could demonstrate the existence of inflation and it's affect on nature we would not be in this position. Since I'm simply required to have "faith' in something that presumably does not exist anymore, and I don't happen to have faith in the idea, where exactly does that leave us?

(bold added)
AOHDH

Oh, and thanks for the confirmation that this is, indeed, another Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat cycle (LWRRc?).

The demonstrations were made in page 1 of this thread, and in the WMAP team paper I cited (among other places).

Click to expand...

None of these uncontrolled observations were any sort of "demonstration" of concept. Let's look at a real "demonstration". Birkeland believed that electrical currents caused aurora. He didn't just write about the connection and work on paper, he *experimented with them in a lab*. In an empirical way, he demonstrated his idea with real spheres in a real plasma vacuum.

Compare and contrast that now with Guth. He started from a premise and postdicted a math fit and never once lifted a finger to physically demonstrate anything. You did not and could never provide an actual 'demonstration" of the effect on inflation on anything. You simply *asserted* it's temporary influence on the universe somewhere in the distant and murky past, and then postdicted a math fit to make it work. Noting was "demonstrated" empirically.

(bold added)
AOHDH, and yep, another WLRRc

BTW, I'm still looking forward to hearing from you once you've finished reading the TASI Lectures on Inflation ...

Of course, if one applies the MM criterion for acceptability, then it would seem that such "demonstrations" have not, in fact, been made ... at least for inflation (for DE it depends on what you mean; in at least two meanings, they have).

Click to expand...

Inflation is the biggest leap of faith because evidently there is no hope of ever demonstrating it exists in nature because it does not exist in nature.

(bold added)

Thanks!

You may have written something like this before, but this will do.

May I ask how come you are so absolutely certain (about inflation not existing in nature)?

Do you have some kind of crystal ball that enables you to see into the certain future, and can report to us what you saw?

What is the basis for your certainty?

The term DE seems to have a variety of meanings depending on whom you ask and how they personally view the idea.

How about a linguist, or dictionary maker?

Applying the empirical tools of their trade, I'm pretty sure they'd come up with at least two meanings, and without too much trouble could show that at least one person has used the term with both meanings.

So it's important to be clear in one's writing, is it not?

Which of the meanings of DE is it that you put in the same class as inflation?

In my next post, I'll bump a recent post of mine addressed to you that has not been answered yet; your answer may go some way to clarifying the extent to which your criteria are empirical, consistent, and useful.

Click to expand...

I don't really get the impression you're actually looking for answers here. You only seem interested in finding some perceived inconsistency on my part instead of simply demonstrating that Lambda-CMD theory isn't "woo". It is certainly useless "woo". Inflation doesn't exist. It was a creative *imaginary* thing, but it isn't 'physically real', not today, and not ever. Nothing useful in a controlled experiment can be *predicted* based upon inflation, and it has plenty of know "anomalies" even in the only cosmology theory that actually needs or requires it. It's pure woo because it's a mathematical mythos like numerology, and like numerology it has zero predictive value in any controlled experiment.

(bold added)

LWRRc

Now that I noticed it - the absolute certainty - I can see traces of it in other parts of what you have written.

PC/EU theory may in fact be "wrong', but it can't be "woo", because EM fields and gravity exist in nature and can be "demonstrated" to exists in nature.

Whether it's woo or not depends on your criteria for assessing what's scientific and what's not.

A pretty fundamental criterion is internal consistency.

It may be that if (when?) you get around to writing a standard text on "PC/EU theory", its internal consistency will become clear. However, based solely on what you have written in three threads in this forum, "PC/EU theory" clearly lacks internal consistency (and so meets one criterion for being scientific woo).

Inflation and DE are simply fudge factors for human ignorance and Lambda theory is 96% "hypothetical entity" and only 4% actual physics.

LWRRc

DeiRenDopa · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Just so that I don't misunderstand ...

You seem to be saying that it is impossible, under any circumstances whatsoever, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you?

Click to expand...

No.

Wow!

Now that's an answer I was not expecting!

So, you are saying that it is possible, under some circumstances, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you?

To make this concrete: at least one element (helium) was first discovered in the spectrum of the Sun; later - ~a quarter of a century later - it was found in rocks here on Earth. By your criteria for assessing (astrophysics, in this case) scientific woo, helium did not exist until 1895, and all scientific work - by astronomers, chemists, geologists, etc - until then, on helium, should have received no MM-approved funding, as it would have been a clear-cut case of woo.

Did I get it right?

Click to expand...

Not even close and that is a *terrible* example that only hurts your case. Whereas the wavelengths of various photons can be empirically traced to specific elements in controlled experimentation, inflation has no affect on anything. Inflation has no affect today, tomorrow or a million years from now so unlike the photon example you cited, no controlled experiment could even hope to identify the source of inflation. This only hurts your case, it certainly doesn't help it.

(bold added)

First, now I've been sensitised to it, I see this absolutism everywhere!

Second, whoops.

I appreciate that these kinds of historical examples can be difficult to follow, if only because it can be so hard to avoid imposing contemporary understanding onto the minds of the scientists of the time.

"Whereas the wavelengths of various photons can be empirically traced to specific elements in controlled experimentation" - that's certainly a contemporary view (if not entirely accurate), but it was not at all the case in 1868; and for He, it would be another quarter of a century before the 'empirical tracing in controlled experiments' came to be.

What I'm interested in is what an MM clone would have said, if he had applied the MM criteria for determining whether "helium" was scientific woo or not, say in 1870, or 1875, or 1880, or 1885, or 1890. As I understand what you have written, such an MM clone would have been most certain that "helium" was a ... what did you call it? ... ah yes, "a creative *imaginary* thing, but it isn't 'physically real', not today, and not ever. Nothing useful in a controlled experiment can be *predicted* based upon [helium]" and "[Helium] is the biggest leap of faith because evidently there is no hope of ever demonstrating it exists in nature because it does not exist in nature."

It would be only in 1895 that this MM clone's absolute certainty would be shown to be wrong ...

DeiRenDopa · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Okey, dokey, ...

Follow-on question then: do I understand that you are completely and totally convinced that the only possible explanation/accounting of the various "DE" observations is "EM fields" or "electricity" or "electrical discharges" (or some such thing)? That it is utterly impossible for the "DE" observations to turn out to be some subtle combination of selection effects, stellar evolution, misapplication of GR, and downright bad luck (to make up one example)?

Click to expand...

It could turn out to be *anything* that actually exists in nature. It can't be "dark energy' however because that does not exist in nature. If you're convinced however that there is an acceleration process in play in a mostly plasma universe, the obvious "likely candidate" would be an EM field. I don't really care what you stuff into a GR formula as long as you can demonstrate that what you stuff in there has real affect on real things.

(bold added)

Yep, it's everywhere, this absolute certainty.

I think you mean "effect", as in "a real effect".

There've been several posts in this thread, and at least one other that you've participated in MM, that address 'reality' (as in "real effect" and "real things") - several by DD for example - and how contemporary physics (and other branches of science) relate to reality.

There've also been several on how your criteria for determining what's "real", as in both "real effects" and "real things", are idiosyncratic, and applied inconsistently (or inconsistent).

To me at least, it's becoming clear that you, MM, have such a poor understanding of contemporary physics that it's no surprise to read this: "I don't really care what you stuff into a GR formula as long as you can demonstrate that what you stuff in there has real affect on real things." IIRC, si (and others, possibly) has already tried to explain scalar fields, their role in modern physics, and how concepts like inflation and DE may be thought of as nothing more than yet another application of such fields. In this sense, inflation and DE are analogous to neutron stars and black holes: they are extensions of concepts that have been shown to provide exceptionally good explanations for a wide range of observations and experiments (yes, including controlled experiments). So the "real things" - observables (astronomical observations, in this case), whether the CMB, SgrA*, SNe Ias, or Geminga - can be described as the "real effects" of (certain) scalar fields (or squishing lots of ordinary matter together).

Further, that, in the unlikely event that a full appreciation of the nature of DE, obtained by research such as that described in the paper, leads - directly or indirectly - to something really, really, really useful (a way to greatly improve the efficiency of fusion reactors perhaps), you will still declare the research to have been "the most pointless waste of money I can think of"?

Click to expand...

In the "unlikely event" that you or anyone else ever actually "predicts" anything useful in a "controlled experiment" based on their faith in DE theory I'll happily recant my statement. Until then it looks and smells just like the same postdiction process that brought us nonexistent and utterly useless inflation.

Shall I bump my post on the ISW?

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

derekmcd said:
Hi again Michael,

Not sure if you challenged me on Ari B's paper. Honestly, I don't wish to dig through this thread to find it.

We briefly went through it a bit and I think the general consensus was that the primary weakness is based on the fact that there is little if any difference in scattering at different wavelengths. I never did start down DRD's list of "issues" since it's only one of several options I've presented here, including that paper about simple expansion being able to reproduce the same based effect.

I would like to present you with a simple, laboratory experiment that describes negative energy.

Let's use a rubberband. Place this rubberband between your two fingers and stretch it. How much you stretch it is irrelevant. The work you applied to stretching this rubberband is kinetic energy. Now, when you are holding this rubberband, it also has potential energy. The potential energy is the stored energy that wants to snap the rubberband back to its original shape.

I believe we all agree that the kinetic energy applied to the rubberband to make it stretch can be considered 'positive' energy. We applied a force to the rubberband. We have added energy to a closed system.

This is much like PS's note about selecting an arbitrary zero point in a gravity experiment. There is no doubt that we can mathematically do this without a problem within a domain applicability. That does not however take note of any energy contained in the molecules of the rubberband itself. It too contains "energy" that can be released from the rubber band, just by burning it.

The laws of conservation demand that one of the two energy sources be considered negative. If you can explain it a different way, I'd love to hear it.

This part isn't actually in dispute. In other words for various experiments we can select any arbitrary point and assign it a "false zero". Obvious that zero point can even contain vast amounts of potential energy. From a mathematical perspective, we can describe the pendulum at a "zero state" at either the top or bottom of it's cycle. If we assign zero to the top of the swing, it will return to zero on the other side. The problem however is that the zero location in that scenario actually has potential energy that is going to be converted to positive kinetic energy and back to potential energy again. It's still either "potential" or "kinetic' energy. The energy of the universe is contained in moving particles of kinetic energy. It has kinetic energy in the system already. There is no such thing as "negative kinetic energy". That kinetic energy came from somewhere, it is not "gravity".

I think everyone here has ignored that two bomb analogy now. Perhaps since you've not probably read it yet, I'll explain it to you and see how you respond.

Imagine a universe composed of only two hydrogen bombs, and we put them together side by side. Yes, we can play math games with gravity and rubber bands and show how potential energy can be view as "negative" and we can play with the potential energy and kinetic energy and see how it all balances out just fine on paper. You might then think the whole thing has a "zero energy state". This however does *not* take into account the energy contained in the mass itself which we can demonstrate by setting off both bombs and releasing some of that energy. The mass itself contains energy and it can be converted to energy. The "gravity" then of the mass is simply an indicator of how much energy is contained in the mass, but it does not offset that energy when we set off the bombs. Nothing is going to counteract that energy release and bring it all back together again.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

temporalillusion said:
Sure but the kinetic energy isn't what is holding it up there, it's falling.

It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening. No kinetic energy, no stable orbit.

If it wasn't moving it would fall in without any help.

You would have to remove preexisting kinetic energy from the system to do that. Gravity isn't going to do that by itself.

It takes "negative energy" to bring the earth and the sun together (as opposed to positive energy to bring two like charges together).

It would require that we somehow remove the existing kinetic energy from the system. Again, the curvature of gravity isn't going to do that for us.

Based on what? Where did the energy come from?

It came from whatever predated the "bang" presumably. Alfven's "Bang" model is much easier to explain by the way because there's not singularity involved and there's no complicated explanation necessary. The Klein-Alfven version just *assumes* a positive energy universe composed of matter and antimatter that is simply 'cycling' from time to time, much like a pendulum thing, only energy is released in each cycle.

There was never a point were no energy existed or we would simply not be here. Something cannot come from "nothing". That would defy the laws of physics. We have a universe filled with energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so whatever created this universe had energy to start with.

They've supported the net zero energy with GR, you'll have to support surplus kinetic energy with something as comprehensive and well supported.

No, the hydrogen bomb example illustrates the flaw in your logic on this point. All you've done is select an *arbitrary* zero and you have failed to account for all the actual energy in the whole system.

Who claimed that a mass object has zero energy? No one.

Then the universe does not have a zero energy state because it contains mass and kinetic energy. Both the mass itself and the kinetic energy are forms of energy. The existence of mass and kinetic energy is not in doubt, and the laws of physics tell us explicitly that it was never created or destroyed.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

Dancing David said:
Uh, sure , this contradicts something, what is it that you have been talking about, what was it, ... it will come to me in a moment...

conservation of something?

All that is required is that the energy that makes up our universe came from something. There's no contradiction. The only problem you all seem to be having here is the with the basic idea of conservation of energy and what it means to your beloved BB theory.

The fact we experience and enjoy energy today is due to the fact that energy has always existed in some form or another. I know that idea seems to scare you folks, but it's a scientific fact based on known "laws" of physics. The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing", the energy that makes up our universe predated whatever event you're calling the "big bang". It was not "created". I was not "destroyed". It simply changed form from one state to another. The positive energy state that we enjoy today has always existed. It has never been created or destroyed. That is a "law" of physics, and you cannot escape it's implications. The BB event was not a "creation" event where energy was created. It was a "change of form" from one form of energy to another, and it was never zero.

Hellbound · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening. No kinetic energy, no stable orbit.

You would have to remove preexisting kinetic energy from the system to do that. Gravity isn't going to do that by itself.

It would require that we somehow remove the existing kinetic energy from the system. Again, the curvature of gravity isn't going to do that for us.

Um, actually, if you let if fall towards the sun, it would gain kinetic energy as it's speed increased. Matter of fact, you don't have to remove kinetic energy from it; you can just as easily add kinetic energy to change it's direction.

Additionally, gravity is adding energy to it constantly as it moves, and that energy is used to change it's motion (i.e.-accelerate it) so that it orbits rather than flying off straight in one direction.

If you're going to use scientific terms, it helps to use them correctly and understand them, at least to some degree.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

sol invictus said:
You're absolutely right, and Zig was wrong. This isn't freshman physics..... it's primary school physics. And you fail utterly.

Aren't you ashamed?

I'm ashamed for you that I have to explain the meaning of conservation of energy laws to you, and explain to you that you live in a universe filled with energy. If I were you I'd be very ashamed.

You've got a website devoted to the sun. You even have papers about it (published, even - I shudder for the peer review system). And yet you don't know that gravitational potential energy is negative.

You keep ignoring my conversation with PS where I explained you are simply selecting an *arbitrary* zero frame of references and in such a case it does have a limited application to use minus signs in your math formulas. Did you not hear that, or just not comprehend it, or are you just posturing like always?

This physical universe is *filled* with kinetic energy. It came from somewhere. It didn't go "poof" one day in a creation event. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It has *always* (as in eternity boys and girls) existed. Our physical universe could in fact have a 'beginning', but the *energy* in this system does not. It has never been created or destroyed.

Reality Check · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
All that is required is that the energy that makes up our universe came from something. There's no contradiction. The only problem you all seem to be having here is the with the basic idea of conservation of energy and what it means to your beloved BB theory.

The fact we experience and enjoy energy today is due to the fact that energy has always existed in some form or another. I know that idea seems to scare you folks, but it's a scientific fact based on known "laws" of physics. The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing", the energy that makes up our universe predated whatever event you're calling the "big bang". It was not "created". I was not "destroyed". It simply changed form from one state to another. The positive energy state that we enjoy today has always existed. It has never been created or destroyed. That is a "law" of physics, and you cannot escape it's implications. The BB event was not a "creation" event where energy was created. It was a "change of form" from one form of energy to another, and it was never zero.

MM: All I see here are lots and lots of assertions, e.g. "The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing"".
Can you provide your proof that the universe has a positive amount of energy or a "positive energy state" (whatever that is)?

I am sure that everyone would be interested in the proof.
Since it will directly contradict GR, I can see a Nobel Prize in your future!

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

Hellbound said:
Um, actually, if you let if fall towards the sun, it would gain kinetic energy as it's speed increased.

Indeed. Even the distance between objects is itself a form of "stored potential energy".

You are all ignoring a key issue here. The energy was not ever created or destroyed. It has always and eternally existed. It has undoubtedly changed forms and physical layouts countless times, but it was *NEVER* created, and *NEVER* destroyed. It has *always existed*. You all keep acting as though energy was somehow created by something during the BB, when in fact it could not have been created or destroyed in that event, it could *only* have changed forms.

The mainstream problems I encounter are never a failure of their understanding of math, but in the lack of understanding of physics and energy. Energy isn't created or destroyed in "events". It only changes forms in "events" like the BB. There has never been a time when positive energy did not exist.

Ziggurat · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening. No kinetic energy, no stable orbit.

And yet, Mercury has more kinetic energy per mass than the earth does. Kinetic energy is indeed required for an orbit (though it can be arbitrarily small), but you can create kinetic energy during the falling process. No, what distinguishes an orbit from a collision is not the kinetic energy, but the angular momentum. What energy WILL tell you about, though, is whether you've got an orbit or an escape: if the total energy (kinetic + gravitational potential) is negative, you've got a bound state, and if it's positive, the two bodies will escape each other. Freshman physics. Total energy for bound orbits is negative.

You would have to remove preexisting kinetic energy from the system to do that. Gravity isn't going to do that by itself.

Nonsense. Two massive bodies at rest near each other have zero kinetic energy. But gravity will pull them towards each other, they will begin to move towards each other, and gain kinetic energy in the process. So gravity will obviously do exactly what you said it won't do. The gravitational potential energy they had at the start is not kinetic energy. Are you really so confused that you think all energy is kinetic energy? It is not. You've been told this multiple times, you've had it explained to you in detail, and yet you persist in this error. Sol was right: your comprehension failure isn't even at the freshman level, it's at the primary school level.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
MM: All I see here are lots and lots of assertions, e.g. "The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing"".

Why would you even doubt the validity of that particular assertion given the *LAWS* of conservation of energy?

Can you provide your proof that the universe has a positive amount of energy or a "positive energy state" (whatever that is)?

Sure. Stand in the sunshine today and feel the heat on your face. Gravity won't and can't take that away from you. Feel the wind in your face. That's kinetic energy in motion. The whole universe is kinetic energy in motion.

I am sure that everyone would be interested in the proof.
Since it will directly contradict GR,

This is a totally bogus statement. It does not conflict with GR. You guys use and abuse GR for all sorts of stupid nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with GR to begin with.

Energy exists in nature. I has always existed in nature. Period. It may have changed forms during a "bang" at some point, but it has always existed. It didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing" one day.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

DRD.

I am still waiting for you to sit down and provide for us a "cause/effect" set of "explanations" related to what you personally believe happened during the BB as you promised. I'm really getting tired of the legaleeze word games and your avoidance of the actual issues I have raised. Care to provide a few answers of your own for a change?

Reality Check · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm ashamed for you that I have to explain the meaning of conservation of energy laws to you, and explain to you that you live in a universe filled with energy. If I were you I'd be very ashamed.

You keep ignoring my conversation with PS where I explained you are simply selecting an *arbitrary* zero frame of references and in such a case it does have a limited application to use minus signs in your math formulas. Did you not hear that, or just not comprehend it, or are you just posturing like always?

This physical universe is *filled* with kinetic energy. It came from somewhere. It didn't go "poof" one day in a creation event. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It has *always* (as in eternity boys and girls) existed. Our physical universe could in fact have a 'beginning', but the *energy* in this system does not. It has never been created or destroyed.

The universe is actually "filled" with more than kinetic energy. In fact (ASAIK) kinetic energy is the the smallest component of energy in the universe. It is overwhelmed by the non-kinetic energy of the photons iof the CMB. It is overwhelmed by the energy contained in matter (mass/energy equivalence).

As for "*arbitrary* zero frame of references", this is just a matter of convention. We could put the zero of gravitational potential energy at the center of the system instead at infinity. All this would do is make the kinetic energy gained by a falling object negative instead positive (so long as you are Ok with the velocity of the object being imaginary).

This does not even need GR - it is simple Newtonian mechanics as taught to high school students. They know that a falling object gains kinetic energy and loses gravitational potentail energy, i.e. energy is conserved

In addition: As you well know and are obviously ignoring "Lambda-CDM theory" usually known as Big Bang Theory does not apply to the origin of the universe. It starts at a point where the universe already exists. What happened before then is the realm of other theories.

Reality Check · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Why would you even doubt the validity of that particular assertion given the *LAWS* of conservation of energy?

The *LAWS* of conservation of energy also apply to a zero amount of energy. You need to prove that the univser has a POSITIVE amount of energy

Michael Mozina said:
Sure. Stand in the sunshine today and feel the heat on your face. Gravity won't and can't take that away from you. Feel the wind in your face. That's kinetic energy in motion. The whole universe is kinetic energy in motion.

So you are saying the E is not equal to mc². That there is no energy in matter?
Are you saying that there is no energy in the photons of the CMB: E = hc/wavelength?
Are you saying that gravitation potential energy does not exist?

Michael Mozina said:
This is a totally bogus statement. It does not conflict with GR. You guys use and abuse GR for all sorts of stupid nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with GR to begin with.

Energy exists in nature. I has always existed in nature. Period. It may have changed forms during a "bang" at some point, but it has always existed. It didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing" one day.

There is no conflict with GR. Read my post: The kinetic energy of the universe is a small component of the total energy of the universe. There is a reason that GR has an energy-mass tensor.

Energy exists in the universe. No one disputes this. Please give your proof that there is a positive amount of energy in the universe. Perhaps the CMB power spectrum shows this?
Also plug this positive energy into GR and tell us the consequences. sol invictus can probably tell you what the consequences are (my impression is that the universe remains as a singularity).

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

Yep, it's everywhere, this absolute certainty.

I think you mean "effect", as in "a real effect".

Wow, you found a spelling mistake. Notify the press.

There've been several posts in this thread, and at least one other that you've participated in MM, that address 'reality' (as in "real effect" and "real things") - several by DD for example - and how contemporary physics (and other branches of science) relate to reality.

There've also been several on how your criteria for determining what's "real", as in both "real effects" and "real things", are idiosyncratic, and applied inconsistently (or inconsistent).

To me at least, it's becoming clear that you, MM, have such a poor understanding of contemporary physics

There you go blaming me because you can't support your claim via empirical physics and you want me to give you some special exception about not having to empirically demonstrate your claim like any other ordinary branch of empirical physics. Baloney. I know your theory *cannot* be demonstrated in real "physical experiments" because "inflation" is not a part of physics. It's only a part of one theory that you seem to have faith in. The problem here is obvious. Inflation is dead. It's useless to empirical science and it's only place is in mathematical mythos related to one otherwise failed cosmology theory There is not "understanding of physics" that I lack. If you claimed EM fields did it, you could physically demonstrate EM fields have an Effect on nature. The same is true of any known and demonstrated force/curvature of nature. The only reason you can't produce inflation is because it *DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE*.

Go ahead and play more word games and avoid doing what you said you would do, but all that demonstrates to me is that you cannot actually "explain" anything related to the BB. It's all fabricated with ad hoc assertions and dead, non existent entities that don't exist and have never existed.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
The *LAWS* of conservation of energy also apply to a zero amount of energy. You need to prove that the univser has a POSITIVE amount of energy

Stand in the sunshine. Did gravity take away the heat from the sun from you?

So you are saying the E is not equal to mc². That there is no energy in matter?

Do you folks all go to the same strawman creation classes or what? That is evidently *your* claim, not mine.

Energy exists in the universe. No one disputes this.

Then why are you asking me to demonstrate it for you?

Please give your proof that there is a positive amount of energy in the universe.

I've done that for you with the bomb analogy, the sunshine on your face analogy, the wind on your face analogy. How could you ever hope to demonstrate that the universe has "zero" energy? It's patently absurd as my bomb analogy demonstrated and none of your touched with a ten foot pole!

Perhaps the CMB power spectrum shows this?

Evidently it shows an energy release pattern you find interesting, but then you ignore it existence entirely and claim I have to demonstrate the universe has energy? You guys have really conflicted set of ad hoc beliefs.

Also plug this positive energy into GR and tell us the consequences.

It's called a 'bang'

sol invictus · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening.

Utter nonsense. The earth could have precisely the KE it currently has and fall directly into the sun.
[/QUOTE]

Michael Mozina said:
You keep ignoring my conversation with PS where I explained you are simply selecting an *arbitrary* zero frame of references and in such a case it does have a limited application to use minus signs in your math formulas.

Why don't you give us a "frame of reference" (another basic term you plainly don't know the meaning of) in which all gravitational potential energies are positive then, MM?

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Wow!

Now that's an answer I was not expecting!

So, you are saying that it is possible, under some circumstances, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you?

Sure. In the case you mentioned we observed photons from nature. There must be a natural explanation for them. In the case of inflation, we see nothing today, and it has no affect on anything today. That's why it's woo. There's no hope of ever physically demonstrate anything.

"Whereas the wavelengths of various photons can be empirically traced to specific elements in controlled experimentation" - that's certainly a contemporary view (if not entirely accurate), but it was not at all the case in 1868; and for He, it would be another quarter of a century before the 'empirical tracing in controlled experiments' came to be.

Nobody at that time claimed it could *NEVER* be empirically demonstrated *ever*, even if their technology did not yet identify the source. It was an *ongoing* event as well, so whatever the cause, there was a natural cause and it could be identified sooner or later.

In the case of inflation, it evidently is dead and gone, it has no effect on squat anymore, and it will never be empirically demonstrated in a lab. No comparison at all. In fact you're only digging the hole deeper and deeper because you refuse to acknowledge this obvious difference between them.

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

Ziggurat said:
And yet, Mercury has more kinetic energy per mass than the earth does. Kinetic energy is indeed required for an orbit (though it can be arbitrarily small), but you can create kinetic energy during the falling process.

Sure. That is because even "distance" (no relative motion whatsoever) is a form of "stored potential energy". That energy can be converted right back to kinetic energy. All this demonstrates is an ample supply of "stored potential energy" and "kinetic energy already in motion".

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

sol invictus said:
Michael Mozina said:

It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.

It is hopeless to speak to you about actual physics.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And yet, Mercury has more kinetic energy per mass than the earth does. Kinetic energy is indeed required for an orbit (though it can be arbitrarily small), but you can create kinetic energy during the falling process.

One of the two of you doesn't know what they are talking about, and I'll give you a hint, Ziggurat's statements are correct.

sol invictus · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It is hopeless to speak to you about actual physics.

One of the two of you doesn't know what they are talking about, and I'll give you a hint, Ziggurat's statements are correct.

I'm willing to bet you anything you care to venture that Zig will agree completely with what I said. I repeat: "The earth could have precisely the KE it currently has and fall directly into the sun."

Of course according to you, we should take gravitational potential energy to be positive rather than negative. That would make it really hard for them to collide...

soylent · Mar 1, 2009

I considered posting that monty python skit where a fully grown man meets a helpless school girl in the boxing ring with predictable result, but it might be frowned upon by the mods...

derekmcd · Mar 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
We briefly went through it a bit and I think the general consensus was that the primary weakness is based on the fact that there is little if any difference in scattering at different wavelengths. I never did start down DRD's list of "issues" since it's only one of several options I've presented here, including that paper about simple expansion being able to reproduce the same based effect.

I don't recall discussing scattering. I mentioned that Ari was misapplying quantum transitions from one energy state to another.

This is much like PS's note about selecting an arbitrary zero point in a gravity experiment. There is no doubt that we can mathematically do this without a problem within a domain applicability. That does not however take note of any energy contained in the molecules of the rubberband itself. It too contains "energy" that can be released from the rubber band, just by burning it.

The energy released by burning the rubber band was originally bound up by the chemical potential energy.

This part isn't actually in dispute. In other words for various experiments we can select any arbitrary point and assign it a "false zero". Obvious that zero point can even contain vast amounts of potential energy. From a mathematical perspective, we can describe the pendulum at a "zero state" at either the top or bottom of it's cycle. If we assign zero to the top of the swing, it will return to zero on the other side. The problem however is that the zero location in that scenario actually has potential energy that is going to be converted to positive kinetic energy and back to potential energy again. It's still either "potential" or "kinetic' energy. The energy of the universe is contained in moving particles of kinetic energy. It has kinetic energy in the system already. There is no such thing as "negative kinetic energy". That kinetic energy came from somewhere, it is not "gravity".

I think everyone here has ignored that two bomb analogy now. Perhaps since you've not probably read it yet, I'll explain it to you and see how you respond.

Imagine a universe composed of only two hydrogen bombs, and we put them together side by side. Yes, we can play math games with gravity and rubber bands and show how potential energy can be view as "negative" and we can play with the potential energy and kinetic energy and see how it all balances out just fine on paper. You might then think the whole thing has a "zero energy state". This however does *not* take into account the energy contained in the mass itself which we can demonstrate by setting off both bombs and releasing some of that energy. The mass itself contains energy and it can be converted to energy. The "gravity" then of the mass is simply an indicator of how much energy is contained in the mass, but it does not offset that energy when we set off the bombs. Nothing is going to counteract that energy release and bring it all back together again.

First, I can't imagine a universe composed of two hyrdogen bombs. However, prior to any nuclear reaction, the energy is bound within the system before it is released through both fusion and fission. Prior to this energy being released, it is stored as potential energy. More precisely, the energy is bound up by both the strong and weak forces.

ANY bound energy is considered potential energy and is mathematically defined as a negative energy. You can define it any way you wish as long as the result is a net of zero. Anything else is a violation of the conservation of energy. It is impossible to mathematically describe it any other way.

No one is saying that kinetic energy can be negative. Mathematically, it can never be negative. The only term you might be able to consider negative would be velocity. However, since that is squared, it will always be positive.

I don't believe anyone is saying that the universe has NO energy. It might be a play on semantics, but there is a difference between saying NO energy and NET ZERO energy. At least, I can distinguish the difference.

Perpetual Student · Mar 1, 2009

Here's a question about dark energy:
Since the universe is accelerating due to the effects of dark energy, would it not be inevitable that the DE is being expended in causing this acceleration? Would it not follow that the acceleration would cease at some point in time when the DE is exhausted unless the DE is being replenished somehow? At that time, would not the universe continue to expand but with a steady speed and allow the possibility for gravity to cause a contraction?

Michael Mozina · Mar 1, 2009

derekmcd said:
I don't recall discussing scattering. I mentioned that Ari was misapplying quantum transitions from one energy state to another.

Is this objection related to him treating the single photon as both a particle and wave?

The energy released by burning the rubber band was originally bound up by the chemical potential energy.

That's my point. There is additional energy contained in the mass. Same issue with the bombs by the way. It doesn't even matter how we release that additional energy, there is kinetic and other forms of energy to be found in matter itself.

First, I can't imagine a universe composed of two hyrdogen bombs.

Seems like a simple enough analogy from my perspective. We have "stored" energy in the matter of the bombs just like the rubber band had stored energy in it's chemical bonds.

However, prior to any nuclear reaction, the energy is bound within the system before it is released through both fusion and fission. Prior to this energy being released, it is stored as potential energy. More precisely, the energy is bound up by both the strong and weak forces.

100% agreement there.

ANY bound energy is considered potential energy and is mathematically defined as a negative energy.

The concept of "negative" is entirely arbitrary as it relates to the stored kinetic energy inside those two bombs. They will release energy in the form of kinetic energy. Positive "pressure" will be the result of that energy release.

You can define it any way you wish as long as the result is a net of zero.

There is not a "net zero" in this example. By definition my example begins with a *net positive* amount of "pure energy' that can be converted into kinetic energy at any moment. It has no "zero" and no "balance to zero" net energy.

Anything else is a violation of the conservation of energy. It is impossible to mathematically describe it any other way.

In terms of physics and the movement of physical particles it does not matter whether you mathematically describe it a "negative' or a positive". It will emit *kinetic energy* when that energy is released.

No one is saying that kinetic energy can be negative.

You are however attempting to tell me an expanding and accelerating universe has a net zero energy state when that is physically impossible.

Mathematically, it can never be negative.

Right. Mathematically it doesn't matter how you attempt to assign an arbitrary sign to the potential energy inside that matter. It will release itself in a *positive kinetic energy state* each and every time.

I don't believe anyone is saying that the universe has NO energy. It might be a play on semantics, but there is a difference between saying NO energy and NET ZERO energy. At least, I can distinguish the difference.

I can distinguish between the two as well but both statements are entirely and unequivocally false. There is no "net zero"" anything at it relates to the energy state of the physical universe, a kinetic energy exchange between objects in space. If there was, we would not be here at all. Just as in the bomb example, there was always a net positive energy state. No energy was created or destroyed by us setting them off either, the energy simply changed state and was released as kinetic energy. E=MC^2, and E has *always* existed.

Ziggurat · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
One of the two of you doesn't know what they are talking about, and I'll give you a hint, Ziggurat's statements are correct.

Yeah, um... there's no conflict between what I said and what Sol said. You seem to have missed the rather obvious implication in his statement: you can have all the kinetic energy you want, you can still get collisions. Can you guess how? I'll leave that as a gedanken experiment for you.

And you still have yet to demonstrate that you can do any math. Give me an equation for the gravitational potential energy of two point masses at arbitrary distance r which gives a positive potential energy. Can you do it? I bet you can't.

temporalillusion · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Stand in the sunshine. Did gravity take away the heat from the sun from you?

????

I can't even fathom how this is an argument for anything.

Stand in the sunshine. Did the positive energy in gravity add to the heat from the sun to you? No? Then positive energy doesn't exist. <--- This of course doesn't make any kind of sense at all.

:boggled:

DeiRenDopa · Mar 2, 2009

sol invictus said:
I'm willing to bet you anything you care to venture that Zig will agree completely with what I said. I repeat: "The earth could have precisely the KE it currently has and fall directly into the sun."

[jk]
But sol, that is not a *real* experiment! There are no *real* controls!!
[/jk]

Of course according to you, we should take gravitational potential energy to be positive rather than negative. That would make it really hard for them to collide...

[jk]
But sol, you are neglecting the implications of the experiments that Birekland did, with his terela, on tunnelling ... you know, the ones that Chopwoman suppressed and only a sliver of which have subsequently come to be accepted by the likes of Joessefsonne, leading to the development of SQIUDs, etc.
[/jk]

DeiRenDopa · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DRD.

I am still waiting for you to sit down and provide for us a "cause/effect" set of "explanations" related to what you personally believe happened during the BB as you promised.

I'm sorry MM, I don't recall promising that; would you please be kind enough to refer me to the post(s) in which I made such a promise?

If any other reader knows of such a post of mine, please, don't wait for MM to find it ... point it out to me, either openly (here in this thread) or by PM.

I'm really getting tired of the legaleeze word games and your avoidance of the actual issues I have raised. Care to provide a few answers of your own for a change?

Oh dear!

I'm sorry if what I have written comes across to you as "legaleeze word games"; shall we switch to using the language of mathematics from here on then?

Perhaps you could take the lead by answering an old question of mine: which of Einstein's papers (or other material of which he is a/the author) did you use to learn GR?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

There you go blaming me because you can't support your claim via empirical physics and you want me to give you some special exception about not having to empirically demonstrate your claim like any other ordinary branch of empirical physics. Baloney. I know your theory *cannot* be demonstrated in real "physical experiments" because "inflation" is not a part of physics. It's only a part of one theory that you seem to have faith in. The problem here is obvious. Inflation is dead. It's useless to empirical science and it's only place is in mathematical mythos related to one otherwise failed cosmology theory There is not "understanding of physics" that I lack. If you claimed EM fields did it, you could physically demonstrate EM fields have an Effect on nature. The same is true of any known and demonstrated force/curvature of nature. The only reason you can't produce inflation is because it *DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE*.

Go ahead and play more word games and avoid doing what you said you would do, but all that demonstrates to me is that you cannot actually "explain" anything related to the BB. It's all fabricated with ad hoc assertions and dead, non existent entities that don't exist and have never existed.

(bold added)

AOHDH.

Reality Check · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I've done that for you with the bomb analogy, the sunshine on your face analogy, the wind on your face analogy. How could you ever hope to demonstrate that the universe has "zero" energy? It's patently absurd as my bomb analogy demonstrated and none of your touched with a ten foot pole!

There is this stuff that is used a lot in physics called mathematics. So perhaps you can use a little of that in your proof that there is a positive total amount of energy in the universe.
Alternatively you might just prove that the total amount of energy in the universe is non-zero (whether it is positive or negative might not matter).

It is that stuff that allows us to say that the total amount of energy (not "zero energy") in the universe is zero in GR.

Analogies are not that good - How can I feel the "wind" of the CMB in my face?

Reality Check · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
In the case of inflation, we see nothing today, and it has no affect on anything today. That's why it's woo. There's no hope of ever physically demonstrate anything.

This has been pointed out to you many times before. Yes we cannot detect inflation now because the inflationary phase of the universe has ended.
This means that we cannot reasonably expect to ever detect inflation directly.
Unreasonably we may in the next few billion years find a way to travel through time and then send an inflation detector back to the beginning of the universe. Or we may find some way of creating pocket universes in the lab.

But we can "physically demonstrate" the effects of inflation - this is the Lambda-CDM model. This turns it from woo into a scientific hypothesis.

This reminds me: We are still waiting for the dates and citations for the all of the predictions of inflation theory and the observations that you assert make everyone of them postdictions.
Any idea when you will have these available?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 2, 2009

Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina said:

In the case of inflation, we see nothing today, and it has no affect on anything today. That's why it's woo. There's no hope of ever physically demonstrate anything.

Click to expand...

This has been pointed out to you many times before. Yes we cannot detect inflation now because the inflationary phase of the universe has ended.
This means that we cannot reasonably expect to ever detect inflation directly.
Unreasonably we may in the next few billion years find a way to travel through time and then send an inflation detector back to the beginning of the universe. Or we may find some way of creating pocket universes in the lab.

But we can "physically demonstrate" the effects of inflation - this is the Lambda-CDM model. This turns it from woo into a scientific hypothesis.

[...]

There's another aspect of this MM objection that I realised only fairly recently ...

'inflation' is to 'neutron stars' as X is to 'neutrons'; what is X?

You see, MM is on record as saying there is nothing (scientifically) woo about extrapolating/extending *controlled experiment*-based results wrt 'neutrons' to 'neutron stars'. Ditto, re 'gravity' to 'black holes'.

MM has been consistent - one of the rather few areas where such consistency can be empirically demonstrated - in declaring that 'neutrons' and 'gravity' can be demonstrated in '*controlled experiments!*', while 'X' (in the analogue/logic above) has not ... and, further, cannot ever be so demonstrated (by MM fiat?).

But, as many participants in the thread have only recently become starkly aware, MM's grasp of physics, even of the principles of classical physics, is weak^. One corollary of this weak grasp of physics is severe constraints on X.

For example, X cannot possibly be something as abstract as (something to do with) 'scalar fields'; nor can it involve an extension of a similar (or corresponding?) attribute in parts of modern physics (and so don't even let the term 'gauge symmetries', for example, impinge upon your consciousness, for even a nanosecond^^!).

^ and that may be an understatement.
^^ for avoidance of doubt, I do not mean to imply that gauge symmetries play any part in inflation, or that they do; my point is (solely) that these kinds of abstractions and extensions/generalisations are, no doubt, not only rejected by MM, but not understood.

Dancing David · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
All that is required is that the energy that makes up our universe came from something. There's no contradiction. The only problem you all seem to be having here is the with the basic idea of conservation of energy and what it means to your beloved BB theory.

The fact we experience and enjoy energy today is due to the fact that energy has always existed in some form or another. I know that idea seems to scare you folks, but it's a scientific fact based on known "laws" of physics. The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing", the energy that makes up our universe predated whatever event you're calling the "big bang". It was not "created". I was not "destroyed". It simply changed form from one state to another. The positive energy state that we enjoy today has always existed. It has never been created or destroyed. That is a "law" of physics, and you cannot escape it's implications. The BB event was not a "creation" event where energy was created. It was a "change of form" from one form of energy to another, and it was never zero.

Sure, something you can't est or give aan observable difference about, just like which magnetic model to use. (Argue about words about which you can't make a distinction.)

So you put all those words down, do you like straw, as stated before the BBE makes no assumptions about what the BBE is, it is a description of what we can see.

the theory works if we go back to a short time after the BBE, but there are no assumptions about what the BBE is, that is speculative.

I know that just drives some people nuts, like you. Yes we can state that it seems likely the BBe 'came from something', however that is not a testable consequence or one with observational implications.

It could be that the BBe came from something, it might be that it didn't. It might be the Burrito and Coyote.

Since we can't know, it doesn't make any differeence.

So you have philosophical objections to statements about the BBE that the theory does not make.

please continue to argue with yourself. I will wait and see if you address the solar wind theory you presented in the other thread.

Dancing David · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Indeed. Even the distance between objects is itself a form of "stored potential energy".

You are all ignoring a key issue here. The energy was not ever created or destroyed. It has always and eternally existed. It has undoubtedly changed forms and physical layouts countless times, but it was *NEVER* created, and *NEVER* destroyed. It has *always existed*. You all keep acting as though energy was somehow created by something during the BB, when in fact it could not have been created or destroyed in that event, it could *only* have changed forms.

The mainstream problems I encounter are never a failure of their understanding of math, but in the lack of understanding of physics and energy. Energy isn't created or destroyed in "events". It only changes forms in "events" like the BB. There has never been a time when positive energy did not exist.

Hmm, see this is a philospohical arguement, everyone here has said the BBe model applies up to a very short time after the BBE event.

Where have people been saying what the BBe event is, was or will be.

So you argue a point that no one has made and that no one is making.

It could be the univserse is exactly as you say, it could be that the universe ins not as yous ay.

But please by all means, you like to argue about things that you can't test or demonstrate.

Please continue to ignore the fact that the BBe as presented does not say where the universe was or came from prior to t=~10^-36 seconds.

What color shoes do angels wear on the head of a pin?

Dancing David · Mar 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Is this objection related to him treating the single photon as both a particle and wave?

Newsflash MM, photons are energy, they act as waves all the time (just like all particles), the particle/wave duality is another false philosophical construct. At higher energies, partcles in interactions with other wave forms show limited constraints on intersection that we lable as 'partcile' properties.

But they are waveforms the whole time.

Skwinty · Mar 2, 2009

sol invictus said:
Why don't you give us a "frame of reference" (another basic term you plainly don't know the meaning of) in which all gravitational potential energies are positive then, MM?

How about the Field Theory of Gravity. This has gravitional energy pegged as a positive energy. More on this later.

sol invictus · Mar 2, 2009

Skwinty said:
How about the Field Theory of Gravity.

Link?

Gravity is not a field theory, so I'm suspicious already

.

Skwinty · Mar 2, 2009

sol invictus said:
Link?

Gravity is not a field theory, so I'm suspicious already .

Maybe that is the problem.

Anyway,here goes. References are:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003v1

herewith some excerpts plus the authors cv. (so, perhaps the crank profile doesn't apply)

I can only comment on his spelling and grammar, but as he is a russian, I can excuse that.

2.1 Hypotheses of Poincare and Einstein
As early as 1905 Henri Poincare in his work ”On the Dynamics of the Electron” put forward an idea to build relativistic theory for all physical interactions, including gravitation, in flat four-dimensional space . He pointed out that gravitation should propagate with the velocity of light in a retarded way — analogous to electrodynamics, and there should exist interaction mediators — gravitational waves. Several years later in his lecture on ”New conceptions of matter” Poincare wrote about inclusion of
Planck’s discovery of quantum nature of electromagnetic radiation in the framework of future physics. Poincare, thus, could be rightfully regarded as the founder of that direction in theory of gravitation
which now is called the quantum theory of gravitational interaction in flat space-time. This way is analogous to that of all non-gravitational physics and it came to foundations of such basic theories
as quantum electrodynamics, quantum theory of weak interactions, and quantum chromodynamics. Naturally, the quantum gravidynamics or the field theory of gravitation - should take its place in this line.
In 1915 Albert Einstein published his basic equations of general relativity and thus opened another way for gravitational theory. GR treats the gravity as a curvature of the space itself caused by all non-gravitational matter, but not as a kind of material field distributed in space. Wheeler called this approach later as geometrodynamics. According to Einstein, the gravitational interaction stands aside comparing with other physical ones for which space-time is a passive background. The gravitational
force is caused not by material interaction carriers, but by curvature of space, i.e. its deviation from Euclidian geometry. In fact, this means ”the materialization of space”, because the space can be deformed, expand and even spread in the form of gravity waves. Thus, at the beginning of 20th century there formed two alternative ways for the theory of gravitation. The way of Poincare — is the description of gravity as a relativistic quantum field in flat space-time, the unique approach to all physical fields. The way of Einstein — is the reduction of gravity to space-time curvature, i.e. the statement of gravity as an exclusive among others interaction.

2.2 Gravity as a geometry of space
The overwhelming majority of works in gravity theory follow the way opened by Einstein. At the beginning of its development, the geometrical description of gravity was strongly motivated by the
principle of equivalence. However as it was emphasized by Fock, strictly speaking it is not a physical but a ”philosophical” principle. Indeed, there are many variants of its formulation but they cannot be tested experimentally. The real background of geometrical approach is the so called principle of geometrisation, according to which all gravitational phenomena can be described by the metric of the Riemann space gik. Modern achievements of GR are presented in a collection of review articles ”Three hundred years of gravitation” (1987) edited by Hawking and Israel.
It should be noted that GR is a mathematically precise non-linear theory without any inner limitations to its physical applications. Thus the solutions of the Einstein’s equations are considered to be physically valid both inside and outside the gravitational radius Rg = 2GM/c2, end even up to infinite densities in singularity. Moreover geometrical approach yields the infinite gravitational force at the finite radius Rg. The infinite force cannot be balanced by any finite (non-gravitational) force and this leads to body’s collapse to singularity, the so called ”black hole”. GR inevitably comes to existence of such exotic objects (strictly speaking mathematical ones) as black holes with infinite forces, time machines with junction between past and future, expanding universes with continuous creation
of space. The prediction of ”black holes” is believed to be one of the great achievements of GR, while the problem of energy of gravitational field is considered as its ”Achilles heel” for more then 80 years. This problem is a permanent point of discussion in literature since the work of Schr¨odinger in 1918 in which he showed that the energy-momentum complex in GR is not a tensor (i.e. it has no definite physical value). The roots of this problem are connected with backgrounds of geometrical approach. Actually, the flat space guaranties the conservation laws of energy, momentum and angular momentum according to Noether’s theorem. This problems has been under discussion in recent years by Logunov with
collaborators (see his book ”Lectures on relativity theory and gravitation”). Rejection of flat space inevitably leads to fundamental difficulties with energy conservation. The famous statement from the
textbook of Landau and Lifshitz (1971), ch. 11, sec. 96, is that general covariant form of energy conservation Tk i;k = 0 (1) actually ”does not express any conservation law whatever”, and it presents just brilliant form of energy problem in GR. Moreover, the infinite gravitational force acting at the gravitational radius of a ”black hole” require infinite energy of gravitational field (of course if it exists). Among the ”standard solutions” of the energy problem in GR there are such statements as the absence of the ”old” concept of energy of gravitational field, or that the gravitational energy is a non-localizable quantity. If the former takes place, it is unclear why so much efforts are devoted to build gravity wave detectors, the devices just aimed to localize gravitational energy. Non-local energy
cannot be treated in quantum way, and this is a reason why there are no geometrical quantum theory of gravitation. Also this is why there are attempts to construct in the frame of GR the true energy-
momentum tensor of gravity ”field” (see e.g. Babak&Grishchuk,1999). However the geometrical approach (by definition, via the principle of equivalence) excludes both gravity force and localaizable
energy of gravity. Hence the only way to construct the true EMT of gravity field is actually to develop the true field approach as discussed below.
In FTG gravitational field energy is always positive and there are no problems with infinities. These simple physical considerations demonstrate the importance of EMT in gravitational physics and radical change of theory with change of the sign of field energy.

CURRICULUM VITAE
(version September 2000)
Yurij Victorovich Baryshev
Astronomical Institute
of the Saint-Petersburg State University

UNIVERSITY ADDRESS
Astronomical Institute
St.Petersburg State University
Bibliotechnaya pl.2, Stary Peterhof,
St.Petersburg, 198904
RUSSIA
Phone: +7-8...
+7-8...
Fax: +7-812-428 7129
E-mail: yuba@astro.spbu.ru

PERSONAL
Date and place of burth: May 8, 1948 in St.Petersburg (former Leningrad), RUSSIA
Personal address: ul. Kupchinskaya 8,korp.1,kv.453
St.Petersburg, 192281, Russia
Phone: +7-8...
Married
2 children

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Yurij Baryshev has been at the Astronomical Institute of the
St.Petersburg State University for the past twenty years. He is
currently a Senior Reseacher at the Laboratory of Active
Galactic Nuclei. His professional activities at the Astronomical
Institute involve scientific reseach, graduate and undergraduate
special courses. The main field of his research interests is
relativistic astrophysics with emphasis on foundation of physics of
gravitational interaction. He investigates relativistic tensor field
approach to gravity, active galactic nuclei, quasars, gravitational
radiation from astrophysical objects, gravitational lensing by dark
matter. He studies implications for cosmology of the recent
discovery by the Rome University's group of the fractal structure of
the large scale galaxy distribution. He has been developing critical
astrophysical tests for modern cosmological theories.

EDUCATION
1985
Ph.D. Astrophysics
St.Petersburg (former Leningrad) State University
St.Petersburg, RUSSIA

1973
M.S. Radio physics,
St.Petersburg (former Leningrad) Electro-Technical University,
St.Petersburg, RUSSIA

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
1979 -present
Senior Researcher
Astronomical Institute of the St.Petersburg State University
St.Petersburg, RUSSIA
1973 - 1979
Research Assistant,
Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Nyznij Arhyz, RUSSIA

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
International Astronomical Union

AWARD
Medal of St.Petersburg State University, 1999

LANGUAGES
Russian, English

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS - YURIJ V. BARYSHEV
Articles in journals:
1. Field-theoretical approach to gravity.
V.V.Sokolov, Yu.V.Baryshev.
Gravitaziya i teoriya otnositelnosti, vol.17,pp.34-42,1980.
2. Hierarchical structure of Metagalaxy.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astrofizicheskie Issledovaniya: Izvestiya Spetsialnoi
Astrofizicheskoi Observatorii, vol.14, pp.24-43, 1981.
English translation: 1984 by Allerton Press. Inc.
3. Gravitational radiation of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astrofizika, vol.18,pp.93-99, 1982.
English translation : Astrophysics, 18,1982.
4. Kinematical models of powerfull radio galaxies and statistics of
extended components.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astrofizika, vol.19, pp.461-469, 1983.
English translation : Astrophysics, 19, 1983.
5. Precessing jet model for classical double radio sources.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Pisma Astron.Zh., vol.9,pp.591-594, 1983.
English translation : Sov.Astron.Lett.9(5),1983.
6. Relativistic tensor theory of gravitational field in flat
space-time.
Yu.V.Baryshev, V.V.Sokolov.
Trudy Astron.Obs.Len.Univ.,vol.38,pp.36-61, 1983.
7. Some astrophysical consequence of dynamical interpretation of
gravitation.
Yu.V.Baryshev,V.V.Sokolov.
Astrofizika, vol.21, pp.361-366, 1984.
English translation : Astrophysics,21,1984.
8. Equations of motion for test particles in Lorentz-covariant tensor
theory of gravitation.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Vestnik LGU, ser.1, vyp.4, pp.113-118, 1986.
9. Theoretical parameters of the powerful radio galaxies I,
Hydrodynamical Approximation.
Yu.V.Baryshev,V.N.Morozov.
Astrofizika, vol.25, pp.369-381, 1986.
English translation : Astrophysics,25,1986.
10. Theoretical parameters of the powerful radio galaxies II,
Generation of MGD turbulence by collisionless shocks.
Yu.V.Baryshev,V.N.Morozov.
Astrofizika, vol.28, pp.112-121, 1988.
English translation : Astrophysics,28,1988.
11. Theoretical parameters of the powerful radio galaxies III,
Acceleration of particles.
Yu.V.Baryshev,V.N.Morozov.
Astrofizika, vol.28, pp.273-278, 1988.
English translation : Astrophysics,28,1988.
12. A note on characteristic quantities in cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev,A.A.Raikov.
Astrofizika, vol.28, pp.689-691, 1988.
English translation : Astrophysics,28,1988.
13. On the entropy of self-gravitating systems.
Yu.V.Baryshev,A.A.Raikov.
Astrofizika, vol.29, pp.595-601, 1988.
English translation : Astrophysics,29,1989.
14. Conservation laws and equations of motion in the field theory
of gravitation.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Vestnik LGU, ser.1, vyp.2, pp.80-85, 1988.
15. Potential of homogeneous ball in the field theory of gravitation.
Yu.V.Baryshev,M.A.Kovalevskij.
Vestnik LGU, ser.1, vyp.1, pp.86-91, 1990.
16. A new approach to the large cosmological numbers coincidences.
Yu.V.Baryshev, A.A.Raikov,A.G.Sergeev, A.A.Tron.
Astron.Astrophys.Transactions, vol.5, pp.27-29, 1994.
17. On the fractal nature of the large scale structure of the
universe.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astron.Astrophys.Transactions, vol.5, pp.15-23, 1994.
18. Facts and ideas in modern cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev, F.Sylos Labini, M.Montuori, L.Pietronero.
Vistas in Astronomy, v.38, part 4, pp.419-500, 1994 .

19. Kinematical models of double radio sources and the unified scheme.
Yu.V.Baryshev, P.Teerikorpi.
Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.295, pp.11-26, 1995
20. Energy of field and energy of interaction in relativistic
gravidynamics.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Gravitatsiya, vol.1,vyp.1, pp.13-26, 1995.
English translation : Gravitation,1,1995.
21. Microwave background radiation and cosmological large numbers.
Yu.V.Baryshev, A.A.Raikov, A.A.Tron.
Astron.Astrophys.Transactions, vol.10,pp.135-138,1996.
22. On a possibility of experimental detection of the frequence
dependent gravitational bending of light.
Yu.V.Baryshev, A.G.Gubanov, A.A.Raikov.
Gravitatsiya, vol.2,vyp.1, pp.72-76, 1996.
English translation : Gravitation,2,1996.
23. Field theory of gravitation: desire and reality.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Gravitatsiya, vol.2, vyp.2, pp.5-20, 1996.
English translation : Gravitation,2,1996.
24. Antigravitation in gravidynamics.
Yu.V.Baryshev,V.V.Sokolov.
Hyperfine Interactions, vol.109, pp.95-103, 1997.
25. Events observed by Amaldi-Weber antennas from SN1987A as a
possible detection of scalar gravitational waves.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astrofizika, vol.40, pp.377-389, 1997.
English translation : Astrophysics, 40, 1997.
26. Gravitational mesolensing by King objects and quasar-galaxy
associations.
Yu.V.Baryshev, Yu.L.Ezova.
Astron.Zhurnal, vol.74, pp.497-508, 1997.
English translation : Astronomy Reports, 41, N4, pp.436-446, 1997.
27. The radial space distribution of KLUN galaxies up to 200 Mpc:
incompleteness or evidence for the behaviour predicted by
fractal dimension 2?
P.Teerikorpi, M.Hanski, G.Theureau, Yu.Baryshev, G.Paturel,
L.Bottinelli, L.Gougenheim.
Astron.Astrophys., 334, pp.395-403, 1998.
28. On the fractal structure of galaxy distribution and its
implications for cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev, F.Sylos Labini, M.Montuori, L.Pietronero,
P.Teerikorpi.
Fractals, v.6, N.3, pp.231-243, 1998.
29. BVRI light curves of GRB970508 optical remnant and colours
of underlying host galaxy.
S.V.Zharikov, V.V.Sokolov, Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astron.Astrophys., 337, pp.356-362, 1998.
30. Quasar-galaxy associations as lensing by middle-mass objects.
A.V.Yushcenko, Yu.Baryshev, A.A.Raikov.
Astron.Astrophys.Transactions, v.17, pp.9-13, 1998.
31. Properties of the host galaxy of the gamma-ray burst 970508
and local star-forming galaxies.
V.V.Sokolov, S.V.Zharikov, Yu.V.Baryshev, M.O.Hanski,
K.Nilsson, P.Teerikorpi, L.Nicastro, E.Palazzi.
Astron.Astrophys., 344, pp.43-50, 1999.
32. Optical morphology of distant RATAN-600 radio galaxies from
subarcsecond resolution NOT images.
T.Pursimo, K.Nilsson, P.Teerikorpi, A.Kopylov, N.Soboleva,
Yu.Parijskij, Yu.Baryshev, O.Verhodanov, A.Temirova,
O.Zhelenkova, W.Goss, A.Sillanpaa, L.O.Takalo.
Astron.Astrophys.Suppl., 134,pp.505-521, 1999.
33. Conceptual problems of fractal cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Astron.Astrophys.Transactions, 2000

Contributions to conferences:

1. Post-Newtonian hydrostatic equlibrium in the field theory of
gravitation.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Proc. of the conf. "Relativistic astrophysics and cosmology",
held in Niznij Archyz, SAO, 19-24 September,1988.
Soobshzeniya SAO, vyp.64, pp.12-15, 1990.
2. Relativistic effects on emission of optically violently variable
extragalactic objects.
M.K.Babadzhanyants, Yu.V.Baryshev, E.T.Belokon.
Proc. of the conf. "Relativistic astrophysics and cosmology",
held in Niznij Archyz, SAO, 19-24 September,1988.
Soobshzeniya SAO, vyp.64, pp.47-54, 1990.
3. An upper limit on hidden mass of fractals of galaxies.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Proc. of the conf. "Relativistic astrophysics and cosmology",
held in Niznij Archyz, SAO, 19-24 September,1988.
Soobshzeniya SAO, vyp.64, pp.86-88, 1990.
4. Stability of supermassive stars in the field gravitation
theory.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Proc.of the XIII workshop "Problems on high energy physics and
field theory, held in Protvino, 9-13 July,1990.
Moscow, Nauka, 1991, pp.61-66.
5. Pulsation of supermassive star in the tensor field gravitation
theory.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Proc. of the conf. "Variability of Blazars", held in Turku,
January 6-10, 1991.
Cambridge Univ.Press,1992, pp.52-54.
6. Optically violently variable active galactic nuclei as
supermassive binary systems.
M.K.Babadzhanyants, Yu.V.Baryshev, E.T.Belokon.
Proc. of the conf. "Variability of Blazars", held in Turku,
January 6-10, 1991.
Cambridge Univ.Press,1992, pp.45-51.
7. Quasar-galaxy associations as a result of gravitational lensing
by objects of medium masses.
Yu.V.Baryshev, A.A.Raikov, A.V.Yushcenko.
Proc. of the conf. "Gravitational lenses in the Universe",
held in Liege, Belgique, June 21-25, 1993.
Liege, 1993, pp.307-310.
8. Gravitational lensing inside fractal structure.
Yu.V.Baryshev, A.A.Raikov, A.A.Tron.
Proc. of the conf. "Gravitational lenses in the Universe",
held in Liege, Belgique, June 21-25, 1993.
Liege, 1993, pp.365-368.
9. A quantum limitation on the gravitational interaction.
Yu.V.Baryshev, A.A.Raikov.
Proc.of the XVII workshop "Problems on high energy physics and
field theory", held in Protvino, June 27 - July 1, 1994.
Protvino, 1995, pp.166-168.
10. On a possibility of scalar gravitational wave detection from the
binary pulsar PSR 1913+16.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Proc. of the first Amaldi conf. "Gravitational wave experiment",
held in Frascati, 14-17 June, 1993.
World Sci.Publ., 1995, pp.251-260.
11. Hubble-de Vaucouleurs paradox in the fractal Universe.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
Proc. of the conf. "Modern problems in extragalactic astrophysics",
held in Puschino (Moscow), 8-13 May, 1997.
12. Evidance for dark matter in different scales from the KLUN
galaxy sample.
M.O.Hanski, P.Teerikorpi, T.Ekholm, G.Theureau,
Yu.Baryshev, G.Paturel, P.Lanoix
Proc. of IAU Colloc.174, "Small Galaxy Groups", held in Turku,
Finland, June 1999.
13. Conceptual problems of fractal cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev
Proc. of Gamow Memorial Conference, St.Petersburg,
Russia, August 1999.

Contributions to books:
1. Modern state of observational cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev.
in "Gravitation and cosmology".
Itogi Nauki i Tehniki, ser. Classicheskaya teoriya polya i
gravitatziya, tom 4, Moskva VINITI ,1992, pp.89-135.
2. Fundamental questions of practical cosmology.
Yu.V.Baryshev, P.Teerikorpi.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, (in preparation).

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Merchant of Doom

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Muse

Student

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Technical Admin

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher