Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skwinty said:
Maybe that is the problem.:D

Anyway,here goes. References are:

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

When I said gravity isn't a field theory, by "gravity" I meant GR. This paper isn't about GR - it's about an attempt to reproduce Newtonian gravity using a spin-2 field in flat space.

Many attempts like that have been made over the years... and none have worked. It's worth trying, if only to see how it fails. I flipped though that particular paper and didn't find an action or even a clear statement of what the equations of motion are, and I'm not going to waste my time reading it carefully to try to figure out what he does.

Anyway one of the selling points for him appears to be that there are no black holes in his theory. Sadly, black holes have been observed.
 
sol invictus said:
Anyway one of the selling points for him appears to be that there are no black holes in his theory. Sadly, black holes have been observed.
Click to expand...

Evidence please.:)

How do you observe a body whose gravity is so high that light cannot escape from it.

The same way that dark matter is directly observed?
 
Last edited:
The equations don't copy and paste but the equations are 37 and 38 page 12.
Would you not ascribe the blackhole issue as one of grammar or the use of the english language.
Perhaps he meant that black holes as described by GR ie. Infinite density in zero volume.​

I don't know, just asking.:confused:​


"It follows from here that there is a natural limit of contraction of a body and it is the condition that the energy of the field should be less than that of the rest-mass energy of the body:"

PS thanks for the links, very interesting:)​
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
Evidence please.:)

How do you observe a body whose gravity is so high that light cannot escape from it.

The same way that dark matter is directly observed?
Click to expand...


You aren't going to start the sophomoric stuff are you? :)

1. Gravity bends light, therefore it is possible to have a gravitational field strong enough to bend light so much it does not leave the local area (a black hole).
2. Mass that large have been observed through motion of bodies near the center of our galaxy. IE there is a mass taht is very, very large at teh center of our galaxy.

Therefore it appears there are bodies which are large enogh to keep light from escaping their local area, now if a way to hold such a large mass in an area without it undergoing gravitational collapse to black hole is found, or a way for light to escaper a gravitational field is found,
then there is not evidence of black holes. Albeit indirectly.
 
Skwinty said:
The equations don't copy and paste but the equations are 37 and 38 page 12.
Click to expand...

Those don't define the theory - they're supposed to be consequences of it. I took another flip through, and I don't see anywhere where he says what the theory actually is (like writing down an action for it). And just about everything in the "astrophysical tests" section is wrong.

Everyone would be ecstatic if there were really such a thing as a field theory for gravity. Life would be much easier and simpler. But there just doesn't seem to be one.

Actually many of the points we've made to MM apply here as well. It's impossible for gravitational potential energy to be positive, for the simple reason that gravitational bound states exist. That is, start with two masses (say the earth and the sun) very far away. The total energy is the sum of the energies of each (mc^2, say). Now put the earth in orbit around the sun. In Newtonian gravity that state has less energy than the state where they were far away (the simplest way to see that is to notice that the KE of the earth in orbit is half what it would have if it fell from far away to the orbit radius). Therefore gravitational energy must be negative.

Notice that including the term for energy in the gravitational field, as he tries to do, makes this even worse. That term is the field strength squared. But the field squared is larger when the masses are close together - so if that's how you want to account for the energy, you must have a negative sign in front of it.
 
Last edited:
temporalillusion said:
????

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

It demonstrates there is *energy* is this physical universe. Hoy. The Lambda theory is evidently *far* worse than I thought. It seems to be band-aided together with bubble gum goofy physics concepts and bailing wire math formulas.

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:
Click to expand...

What's mind boggling is you missing the point willfully or otherwise. There is kinetic energy in this universe. The energy to create it predates whatever "event" you're calling the bang. This is *not* a zero energy universe, or a "net zero" energy universe. It's accelerating boys and girls! You're whole belief system is stupid IMO. I demonstrated to you in my two bomb analogy that it's entirely possible to have a *positive energy* universe from start to finish, prior to, and including them being detonated. To Derek's credit, he actually took a shot at that analogy while the rest of you cower in the corner like children.

I had no idea you folks were this "lost" as it comes to pure physics. I had always assumed it was "bad", but this is utterly pathetic.

The laws of conservation of energy *insist* that the energy that manifests itself in this universe has *never* been created or destroyed. I guess the notion of eternity simply scares the hell out of you, or simply doesn't register, but that is exactly what's going on here. There was *never* a time when energy did not exist. That is what the conservation of energy laws insist.

It's going to be a busy day at work for me, so my responses will likely be sporadic today. I can see it's not really much of a problem however since you folks are *so* lost, this part of the conversation is obviously going to take days all by itself. Hoy.

There is not now, and never has been a "zero" energy universe. There is not now, and never has been a time when energy did not exist. The energy has changed form and layout perhaps an infinite number of times now, but there is a *net positive* energy in this universe as demonstrated by your "acceleration/DE" fudge factor.
 
Dancing David said:
Newsflash MM, photons are energy,
Click to expand...

PFFT. Newsflash, the universe is full of them. It's not a "net zero" place we live in. It's full of kinetic energy and it is even *accelerating* in Lambda-ThisHasToBeTheDumbestTheoryEver theory.

Let's ignore the rest of this for a second and just tell me how the hell you figure the universe is accelerating and still has *zero net* energy? That part alone is enough to blow your whole show.

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.
Click to expand...

That was my point by the way.
 
Dancing David said:
You aren't going to start the sophomoric stuff are you? :)
Click to expand...

Sounds better than Soph**ing Moronic, thanks DD:)

Dancing David said:
1. Gravity bends light, therefore it is possible to have a gravitational field strong enough to bend light so much it does not leave the local area (a black hole).
2. Mass that large have been observed through motion of bodies near the center of our galaxy. IE there is a mass taht is very, very large at teh center of our galaxy.

Therefore it appears there are bodies which are large enogh to keep light from escaping their local area, now if a way to hold such a large mass in an area without it undergoing gravitational collapse to black hole is found, or a way for light to escaper a gravitational field is found,
then there is not evidence of black holes. Albeit indirectly.
Click to expand...


Can one assert that these blackholes, that have been indirectly observed, exceed the natural limit of contraction, as asserted by Baryshev.


Sol:

Could you be a bit more specific about the erroneous nature of "Astrophysical tests of FTG"

I cant comment on the math, but does the math in the paper not bear witness to his theory.

Once again, I ask the question, if you are right about his capacity to theorise on these matters, how come he gets to participate in these conferences and publish his work.

Please point me in the direction of reliable papers.

IMO, GR may well suffer the same fate as Newtonian Physics, not that my opinion is of relevance here.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It demonstrates there is *energy* is this physical universe. Hoy. The Lambda theory is evidently *far* worse than I thought. It seems to be band-aided together with bubble gum goofy physics concepts and bailing wire math formulas.



What's mind boggling is you missing the point willfully or otherwise. There is kinetic energy in this universe. The energy to create it predates whatever "event" you're calling the bang. This is *not* a zero energy universe, or a "net zero" energy universe. It's accelerating boys and girls! You're whole belief system is stupid IMO. I demonstrated to you in my two bomb analogy that it's entirely possible to have a *positive energy* universe from start to finish, prior to, and including them being detonated. To Derek's credit, he actually took a shot at that analogy while the rest of you cower in the corner like children.

I had no idea you folks were this "lost" as it comes to pure physics. I had always assumed it was "bad", but this is utterly pathetic.

The laws of conservation of energy *insist* that the energy that manifests itself in this universe has *never* been created or destroyed. I guess the notion of eternity simply scares the hell out of you, or simply doesn't register, but that is exactly what's going on here. There was *never* a time when energy did not exist. That is what the conservation of energy laws insist.

It's going to be a busy day at work for me, so my responses will likely be sporadic today. I can see it's not really much of a problem however since you folks are *so* lost, this part of the conversation is obviously going to take days all by itself. Hoy.

There is not now, and never has been a "zero" energy universe. There is not now, and never has been a time when energy did not exist. The energy has changed form and layout perhaps an infinite number of times now, but there is a *net positive* energy in this universe as demonstrated by your "acceleration/DE" fudge factor.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

I too had not appreciated just how deep and wide the gulf is between your ideas MM and the bases of modern physics*.

With the existence of such a yawning chasm demonstrated to exist, empirically, it's no wonder much of this thread is so confused and confusing! :p

Perhaps you should take a break from this thread MM, and start a new one, on what you see as the differences between your views of key parts of classical physics and those found in high school textbooks on that topic?

* actually, it seems much (most? all??) of classical physics, never mind all the 20th century stuff
 
Last edited:
Evidence

sol invictus said:
Anyway one of the selling points for him appears to be that there are no black holes in his theory. Sadly, black holes have been observed.
Click to expand...
Skwinty said:
Evidence please.:) ...
Click to expand...
Easy. The key thing to realize here is that every manner of massive compact objects known or proposed (including the elusive MECO) has a hard surface, except for black holes. Matter falling onto anything except a black hole will encounter that hard surface and react accordingly. But in the case of the black hole, anything falling in simply falls through the event horizon and disappears. So the presence or absence of an event horizon can be distinguished observationally by examining the flare behavior of massive objects. Such observations have been carried out now for many years and the evidence for the presence of event horizons is now quite strong.

Here are a few references. These papers and the citations thereto should give you enough to chew on for a while. I have not checked to see if any of them are duplicates of those already mentioned by Sol Invictus.
Another way to observationally distinguish a black hole is to observe its "shadow" as predicted by general relativity. But that requires higher resolution observations than we can currently do, though it may be doable in the foreseeable future, for the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (Falcke, et al., 2001).
 
Thanks Tim,
More late night reading for me.
Please comment on what can be asserted about the actual density/volume of blackholes and what Baryshev asserts about "Natural limits of contraction" vis a vis his math.:boggled:.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Easy. The key thing to realize here is that every manner of massive compact objects known or proposed (including the elusive MECO) has a hard surface, except for black holes. Matter falling onto anything except a black hole will encounter that hard surface and react accordingly. But in the case of the black hole, anything falling in simply falls through the event horizon and disappears. So the presence or absence of an event horizon can be distinguished observationally by examining the flare behavior of massive objects. Such observations have been carried out now for many years and the evidence for the presence of event horizons is now quite strong.
Click to expand...

I think the resistance to the idea is notion of *infinite* density at a *point*. I don't have a problem with the idea of a massive object with an event horizon, but I have to admit to being skeptical about the notion of infinite density.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

I too had not appreciated just how deep and wide the gulf is between your ideas MM and the bases of modern physics*.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but modern *physics* outside of the inflation faerie cult seems to accept that the universe has *energy* in it. Only your one cosmology theory requires the idea of *zero net* energy in the universe.

With the existence of such a yawning chasm demonstrated to exist, empirically, it's no wonder much of this thread is so confused and confusing! :p
Click to expand...

That is entirely your fault, not mine. If you could empirically demonstrate your claim like I can show EM fields are not a figment of my imagination then there would be no chasm at all. Since you seem to be incapable of doing so, you expect me to now have faith in the following irrational beliefs:

A) Inflation did it and it's gone and can never been observed directly. "Just have faith".
B) An accelerating universe has 'zero net' energy!
C) Dark evil energy somehow continues to accelerate the universe, but evidently it also has zero net energy somehow.
D) Dark evil invisible matter controls the movements of our galaxy and universe, it's at least 5 times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, and yet you can't produce a gram of the stuff in a controlled experiment.

Did I miss anything else that is particularly hard to swallow and defies actual "physics"? E=MC^2, and E has *always* existed. That's what *physics* says on this topic DRD. Your math mythos has *nothing* (well, 4%) to do with actual physics, and is a completely ad hoc religion based on entirely irrational ideas and gross violations of the *laws* of physics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
PFFT. Newsflash, the universe is full of them. It's not a "net zero" place we live in. It's full of kinetic energy and it is even *accelerating* in Lambda-ThisHasToBeTheDumbestTheoryEver theory.

Let's ignore the rest of this for a second and just tell me how the hell you figure the universe is accelerating and still has *zero net* energy? That part alone is enough to blow your whole show.
Click to expand...
Why don't you face facts, there are questions without answers. the universe may be positive, it may be neutral, in terms of energy balance. But please keep asserting that you know teh answers.
That was my point by the way.
Click to expand...


The statement I made as opposed to your straw man is that the universe may be positive in energy, it may be neutral to energy, these are things that can not be determined (at this time).

But please continue wrestling with yourself, I await your answers in the Plasma Comsology thread. Which I think you are smart enough that you will just avoid them.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think the resistance to the idea is notion of *infinite* density at a *point*. I don't have a problem with the idea of a massive object with an event horizon, but I have to admit to being skeptical about the notion of infinite density.
Click to expand...

Considering that the rules we think we can model break down at the point of a black hole, it would be really hard to say what a black hole it, we know it is smaller than the Plank length and has very high denisty but anything beyond that awaits the unification theory.

Why doesn't it contract to the Plank length?
 
Dancing David said:
Considering that the rules we think we can model break down at the point of a black hole, it would be really hard to say what a black hole it, we know it is smaller than the Plank length and has very high denisty but anything beyond that awaits the unification theory.

Why doesn't it contract to the Plank length?
Click to expand...

Well, since I can't observe inside the event horizon, I don't know what the energy arrangement might look like inside that event horizon. It could be a flowing mass of Higgs particles for all I know. It could be that some "structure" is able to resist compression. I don't really know. I just have a hard time believing that there isn't a *physical* process involved that has a larger than zero diameter.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Why don't you face facts, there are questions without answers.
Click to expand...

Sure, but this isn't one of them.

the universe may be positive, it may be neutral, in terms of energy balance. But please keep asserting that you know teh answers.
Click to expand...

The term "neutral" is a bit vague. Even a net "neutral" (in terms of math) universe would not accelerate.

The statement I made as opposed to your straw man is that the universe may be positive in energy, it may be neutral to energy, these are things that can not be determined (at this time).
Click to expand...

How many things that cannot be demonstrated must I have faith in to believe in your theory?

A) inflation
B) net zero energy
C) expanding space
D) dark energy
E) non baryonic "dark matter"

Are there anymore skeletons in that closed that I should know about?

But please continue wrestling with yourself, I await your answers in the Plasma Comsology thread. Which I think you are smart enough that you will just avoid them.
Click to expand...

I'm not avoiding anything, unlike you and sol and DRD and others that have never once touched my two bomb "bang" analogy. To his credit at least Derek took a shot (that's why I like him by the way). You folks are just plain cowards IMO. When you can't handle something you turn your back and start running while hurling personal insults as you go. Step up to the plate and address my point now. We can begin with a *positive energy* scenario and create a *bang* from preexisting energy. It's easy to envision and it's easy to even demonstrate in a lab.

Please now tell me how I might create a "bang" out of "zero net energy"? I don't suppose you can do that in lab?
 
"Dark radiation as a signature of dark energy"

A recent arXiv preprint (should be a fun read! :)):

Dark radiation as a signature of dark energy (link is to the arXiv preprint):

Dutt et al. (abstract) said:
We propose a simple dark energy model with the following properties: the model predicts a late-time dark radiation component that is not ruled out by current observational data, but which produces a distinctive time-dependent equation of state $w(z)$ for $z < 3$. The dark energy field can be coupled strongly enough to Standard Model particles to be detected in colliders, and the model requires only modest additional particle content and little or no fine-tuning other than a new energy scale of order milli-electron volts.
Click to expand...
 
Skwinty said:
Could you be a bit more specific about the erroneous nature of "Astrophysical tests of FTG"
Click to expand...

The middle paragraph is vague enough to verge on correct, but take a look at the references I posted above. The last paragraph is flat-out wrong - the matter distribution in galaxies is not fractal, nor does it violate the homogeneity approximation used in FRW cosmology.

I cant comment on the math, but does the math in the paper not bear witness to his theory.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I can't find the theory written down anywhere in the paper.

Once again, I ask the question, if you are right about his capacity to theorise on these matters, how come he gets to participate in these conferences and publish his work.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he's a crackpot or an idiot - just that he's wrong. There are many, many wrong papers out there, published and not. The reasons for that are going to take us way off topic for this thread. But one clue you might have noticed is that this paper was written in 1999. I find 9 papers that reference it, of which three are his own. Of the other six, at least one is about problems with this class of models. If he were right - or even close to right - it would be a revolution, and correct revolutionary ideas get snapped up and explored with incredible rapidity (Einstein's early work is a prime example).

Please point me in the direction of reliable papers.
Click to expand...

On what topic? If you mean on energy in GR, I gave two very good references above.

IMO, GR may well suffer the same fate as Newtonian Physics, not that my opinion is of relevance here.
Click to expand...

Actually I share your view. But it took a very long time for Newtonian physics to be overturned, so don't hold your breath.
 
Last edited:
Thank's Sol,
Your comments have been most helpful.
Back to reading for me.
Perhaps I should enrol in math night classes to help me sort the wheat from the chaff.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm not avoiding anything, unlike you and sol and DRD and others that have never once touched my two bomb "bang" analogy. To his credit at least Derek took a shot (that's why I like him by the way). You folks are just plain cowards IMO.
Click to expand...

You mean this?

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you want us to say about it.

The last sentence is very odd - why would anything need to "bring it all back together again"? The stuff about not taking into account the energy in the mass is total nonsense, obviously. We're talking about gravity - of course it takes into account the energy in mass; total energy (including that in mass) is what gravitates. As for setting off the bombs, it's irrelevant. No one is saying there isn't (positive) energy in mass, which for example can be converted to kinetic energy of bomb fragments.

It just illustrates that you haven't understood the basics of this discussion, and so it's kind of hard to respond to. It's a non-sequitor.
 
Skwinty said:
Thank's Sol,
Your comments have been most helpful.
Back to reading for me.
Perhaps I should enrol in math night classes to help me sort the wheat from the chaff.
Click to expand...

It's very, very hard for a layperson to distinguish good cutting-edge science from crackpot or wrong stuff at the time it's produced. That's why there are so many stories in the media about revolutionary breakthroughs that you read about... and then never hear of again

If you don't have a few years to wait, about the only way to distinguish is to ask an expert. Or read papers/books by scientists with real accomplishments - Nobel winners, profs at the major universities, etc. Even then be cautious (Linus Pauling comes to mind).

Actually relative youth is also a good sign - sometimes good scientists turn crankier as they age and lose touch with the field more and more. But it's very rare to find a young crackpot with an academic position - the competition is too fierce.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
You mean this?
I'm not sure what you want us to say about it.
Click to expand...

I want you to notice that your math has limits when it comes to the energy contained inside matter. I want you to recognize that energy is neither created or destroyed. I want you to recognize that whatever *caused* the bang, it was due to "positive kinetic energy". That much would be a good start.

The last sentence is very odd - why would anything need to "bring it all back together again"?
Click to expand...

It means that the energy will remain in motion eternally and kinetic energy will exist in a positive state eternally from that point forward in time, and there was *never* a net 'zero' energy state.

The stuff about not taking into account the energy in the mass is total nonsense, obviously.
Click to expand...

No, it seems to be the point you missed entirely. Gravity is simply a "pointer to" what can only be called "stable kinetic energy". All you math seems to utterly ignore all the energy inside the matter that makes up the universe.

How do you folks even explain a two (unexploded) bomb "acceleration" in a net zero energy universe? There are two *giant* holes in your conceptual understanding of energy and the kinetic energy inside matter specifically.

Your statements are utterly and completely false. We live inside a 'positive energy density universe". That energy was neither created nor destroyed. These two "facts" preclude your "zero net" energy baloney from having any merit whatsoever.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, it seems to be the point you missed entirely. Gravity is simply a "pointer to" what can only be called "stable kinetic energy".
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Kinetic energy means energy associated with motion. That's why it's called kinetic energy. Gravitational potential is based upon position, not motion. That's why everyone else except you doesn't call it kinetic energy: it isn't kinetic energy.

How do you folks even explain a two (unexploded) bomb "acceleration" in a net zero energy universe?
Click to expand...

Easy: you can still convert energy from one form to another. Nuclear potential energy can decrease for a nuclear bomb, and when it does, it increases kinetic energy. Thing go boom. The total energy never even enters into the question, only the difference, but you can get positive differences when working with positive or negative numbers.

There are two *giant* holes in your conceptual understanding of energy and the kinetic energy inside matter specifically.
Click to expand...

Said the man who can't distinguish between kinetic energy and potential energy.

Tell me: suppose I have a potential between two bodies of the form U(r)=1/r. What's the force F(r) between them? What about if I have a potential of the form U(r)=-1/r, what then is F(r)? Can you figure it out? The math is quite simple, and if you manage to do it correctly, you'll see that the sign has rather obvious physical consequences. But I don't think you can do even simple differentiation. Can you prove me wrong?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I want you to notice that your math has limits when it comes to the energy contained inside matter.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong - as I told you. Not only is that energy included, it could be the entire source of the gravitational field

I want you to recognize that energy is neither created or destroyed.
Click to expand...

That's true, and I've said so repeatedly.

I want you to recognize that whatever *caused* the bang, it was due to "positive kinetic energy". That much would be a good start.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

It means that the energy will remain in motion eternally and kinetic energy will exist in a positive state eternally from that point forward in time, and there was *never* a net 'zero' energy state.
Click to expand...

It means that if you ignore the gravitational contribution, yes.

No, it seems to be the point you missed entirely. Gravity is simply a "pointer to" what can only be called "stable kinetic energy".
Click to expand...

Gibberish.

How do you folks even explain a two (unexploded) bomb "acceleration" in a net zero energy universe?
Click to expand...

No idea what you're trying to ask. If you mean, how can a state with zero total energy explode - read the last 50 posts. The total energy is completely irrelevant (except in GR).

There are two *giant* holes in your conceptual understanding of energy and the kinetic energy inside matter specifically.
Click to expand...

No, you just have no clue what these terms even mean.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Well, since I can't observe inside the event horizon, I don't know what the energy arrangement might look like inside that event horizon. It could be a flowing mass of Higgs particles for all I know. It could be that some "structure" is able to resist compression. I don't really know. I just have a hard time believing that there isn't a *physical* process involved that has a larger than zero diameter.
Click to expand...

The Plank length is greater than zero.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sure, but this isn't one of them.



The term "neutral" is a bit vague. Even a net "neutral" (in terms of math) universe would not accelerate.
Click to expand...
I don't know.
How many things that cannot be demonstrated must I have faith in to believe in your theory?

A) inflation
B) net zero energy
C) expanding space
D) dark energy
E) non baryonic "dark matter"

Are there anymore skeletons in that closed that I should know about?
Click to expand...
yes, i am a witch and a nihilist.
I'm not avoiding anything, unlike you and sol and DRD and others that have never once touched my two bomb "bang" analogy. To his credit at least Derek took a shot (that's why I like him by the way). You folks are just plain cowards IMO. When you can't handle something you turn your back and start running while hurling personal insults as you go. Step up to the plate and address my point now. We can begin with a *positive energy* scenario and create a *bang* from preexisting energy. It's easy to envision and it's easy to even demonstrate in a lab.
Click to expand...
You are still avoiding what i said, until we can look past the universe it will be hard to answer.
Please now tell me how I might create a "bang" out of "zero net energy"? I don't suppose you can do that in lab?
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you have a clue.

The bang is what Hoyle called it, and it stuck. I suppose he should explain it to you.

I have stated that it is what it is, a theory that explain what happened since ~10-36, I would say that we have seen what appears to be the result of an expansion since that time, but as to a 'bang', more speculation and semantics, no way to currently look at the universe when it is before that point.

Could be positive, could be neutral, could be Burrito and Coyote.

So really, you can make a Universe in the lab?

Please do tell.

Please by all means start up with the name calling, it just makes you look silly.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It demonstrates there is *energy* is this physical universe.
Click to expand...

No one has said there isn't energy in the universe, no wonder you get frustrated, arguing with points no one is making.


Michael Mozina said:
What's mind boggling is you missing the point willfully or otherwise.
Click to expand...

You didn't respond do my rewording of your argument, you just carried on as if I'd said nothing.

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

So in your mind, what you think people are saying here is that because gravity is negative energy, it should take away the heat of the sun somehow.

So in your mind negative energy from gravity will somehow take heat away from the sun. Which means in your mind, positive energy from gravity will ADD heat to the sun.

And that's nonsense, which is why I said your statement doesn't make any sense.
 
Singularity

Michael Mozina said:
I think the resistance to the idea is notion of *infinite* density at a *point*. I don't have a problem with the idea of a massive object with an event horizon, but I have to admit to being skeptical about the notion of infinite density.
Click to expand...
The notion of infinite density at a point comes from "popular" level expositions and is certainly not a proper interpretation of general relativity, so you have little to fear there. There is a big difference between ...

(A) The limit of 1/x as x approaches zero is infinity

and

(B) The value of 1/0 is infinity

The former is correct, the latter is not. The singularity is one of those 1/0 places, and that quantity is not infinity, it is undefined, which means that general relativity has nothing at all to say about what happens at that point. That's why I have said before that general relativity fails at the singularity. A quantum theory of gravity, or a quantized version of general relativity, is needed to get rid of the singularity and determine what really happens at the singular point.
 
Tim Thompson said:
A quantum theory of gravity, or a quantized version of general relativity, is needed to get rid of the singularity and determine what really happens at the singular point.
Click to expand...

Is Quantum Theory of Gravity considered to be a field theory. Wiki gives that impression, but lacks citations.

Also, as I asked before, please comment on what can be asserted about the actual density/volume of blackholes and what Baryshev asserts about "Natural limits of contraction" vis a vis his math.

In my laymans understanding, they both seem to say the same thing.

Thanks
 
Skwinty said:
Is Quantum Theory of Gravity considered to be a field theory. Wiki gives that impression, but lacks citations.

Also, as I asked before, please comment on what can be asserted about the actual density/volume of blackholes and what Baryshev asserts about "Natural limits of contraction" vis a vis his math.

In my laymans understanding, they both seem to say the same thing.

Thanks
Click to expand...
I think that I can answer this: They are not the same thing.
Baryshev asserts that black holes do not exist and so they have no "actual density/volume". He does state a maximum radius for any massive body so you can work out the density for yourself.
His math is correct - but his theory is not really stated (see sol invictus's previous posting).

GR asserts and observations confirm that black holes exist. The actual density/volume of the mass in a black hole is classically infinite, i.e. a singularity. There is no known force that can prevent the singularity from forming but scientists suspect that there may be new physics at the Planck length. This might prevent an actual singularity from forming but just makes the density enormous, e.g. Sag A* would be 4.3 million solar masses in a volume of radius 1.6 × 10-33 centimeters.
 
Reality Check said:
His math is correct - but his theory is not really stated (see sol invictus's previous posting).
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read Sol's post. On re-reading the paper, the abstract starts with "A retrospective analysis of the field theory of gravitation, describing the gravitational field in the same way as other fields of matter in the flat space-time is done". So, is this really a "Baryshev theory" and should he have included the math for the entire theory?

Reality Check said:
GR asserts and observations confirm that black holes exist. The actual density/volume of the mass in a black hole is classically infinite, i.e. a singularity. ......, e.g. Sag A* would be 4.3 million solar masses in a volume of radius 1.6 × 10-33 centimeters.
Click to expand...

Tim Thompson said this in a previous post
"The singularity is one of those 1/0 places, and that quantity is not infinity, it is undefined, which means that general relativity has nothing at all to say about what happens at that point. That's why I have said before that general relativity fails at the singularity. A quantum theory of gravity, or a quantized version of general relativity, is needed to get rid of the singularity and determine what really happens at the singular point. "

Now, I dont dispute the existence of black holes, but the notion of infinite density in essentially zero volume is a deal breaker.

Now, in the quantum theory of gravity, the carrier is the hypothetical graviton. How does this not fall into a field theory of gravitation, given that quantum field theory describes all known physical interactions.

Thanks for your input, perhaps you can clarify my aging thought processes.

ETA> I also interpret the fact that the field theory of gravity specifically omits blackholes to get rid of the infinities and complex math.
Just a thought, I can't say for sure.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
Yes, I did read Sol's post. On re-reading the paper, the abstract starts with "A retrospective analysis of the field theory of gravitation, describing the gravitational field in the same way as other fields of matter in the flat space-time is done". So, is this really a "Baryshev theory" and should he have included the math for the entire theory?
Click to expand...

Yes, as far as I can tell. But I didn't have time to read the whole thing carefully - maybe it's in there somewhere.

Now, I dont dispute the existence of black holes, but the notion of infinite density in essentially zero volume is a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

To amplify Tim's point, GR breaks down at the singularity. And in truth it breaks down before you get there, because everything we know about the world tells us there are corrections to GR that become much more important than GR itself when the density is very high. So really we can only trust GR down to some short distance from the would-be singularity, and not beyond. It's a lot like the big bang that way.

Now, in the quantum theory of gravity, the carrier is the hypothetical graviton. How does this not fall into a field theory of gravitation, given that quantum field theory describes all known physical interactions.
Click to expand...

"How can A not be B given that A is B?"

QFT does not describe all known physical interactions - it does not describe gravity.

As I said, many, many attempts have been made to find a QFT for GR, and all have failed. That doesn't prove it's impossible, I suppose. But the evidence is pretty strong - and then there is string theory, which is not a field theory in any remotely conventional sense, but is a theory of quantized GR.
 
sol invictus;4481835 QFT does [I said:
not[/I] describe all known physical interactions - it does not describe gravity..
Click to expand...

Thanks Sol, I should have said that QFT is a theoretical background for describing physical interactions (not all). Gravity should be described with the other interactions and perhaps that is the objective of such a theory.
 
Dancing David said:
I don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you intend to explain acceleration with zero net energy. Even in an arbitrary zero setting exercise, acceleration requires energy.

yes, i am a witch and a nihilist.
Click to expand...

You're funny. At least I know you have some redeeming qualities. :)

You are still avoiding what i said, until we can look past the universe it will be hard to answer.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm not really into the "prophetic" method of cosmology. We can however demonstrate a "bang' today with a *positive energy density* from start to finish.

Could be positive, could be neutral, could be Burrito and Coyote.
Click to expand...

The term "neutral" doesn't mean anything. There is a positive amount of available energy in the universe today. I have no evidence that there has ever been a time when that was not true.

So really, you can make a Universe in the lab?
Click to expand...

I can simulate a "bang" in lab using "positive" energy. How would you simulate a "bang" with "zero net" or "neutral" energy? How would you explain acceleration on top of that 'Bang" using zero net energy? Even the "bang" part is going to be impossible to simulate with 'zero net' energy, let alone the acceleration component. Even in you mathematical examples, it takes energy to separate two objects and make them accelerate.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't know how you intend to explain acceleration with zero net energy. Even in an arbitrary zero setting exercise, acceleration requires energy.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't! How many times do you need this explained to you? Two objects will accelerate towards each other under the influence of gravity because their gravitational potential energy becomes more and more negative as they approach each other.

Acceleration requires a change in energy - it depends on the gradient of the potential. In Newtonian dynamics it makes no difference whatsoever what the value of the total energy is - in fact that number is completely meaningless and unmeasurable.

This is literally high school physics - it's in every high school physics textbook.

You've ignored all the physical explanations given to you. You've ignored all the math we've shown you. You've failed utterly to answer any of the questions we've asked you that clarify your confusion. You've ignored all the references and links you've been given that show gravitational potential energy is negative. What's wrong with you? Just admit you were wrong and learn something.
 
temporalillusion said:
No one has said there isn't energy in the universe, no wonder you get frustrated, arguing with points no one is making.
Click to expand...

Well, you're making an argument that is equally false. There is no "net zero" involved in a "positive energy density universe". Whereas a simple "bang" is easy enough to simulate using positive net energy, how did you folks intend to simulate a zero net energy "bang" exactly? How did you intend to explain an *acceleration* component with zero net energy?

You didn't respond do my rewording of your argument, you just carried on as if I'd said nothing.

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

So in your mind, what you think people are saying here is that because gravity is negative energy, it should take away the heat of the sun somehow.
Click to expand...

What does "gravity is negative energy" mean to you? In my two bomb analogy, yes, gravity would tend to make them attractive to one another, but in no way does it indicated the entire energy state of the whole thing is "net zero". Where and how did you cancel out the energy from the sun?

So in your mind negative energy from gravity will somehow take heat away from the sun. Which means in your mind, positive energy from gravity will ADD heat to the sun.

And that's nonsense, which is why I said your statement doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Your statement that gravity is "negative energy" is what makes no sense. Yes, you can use a minus sign in a gravity oriented equation, but in no way does that make gravity a form of 'negative energy'. Even the distance between two objects would not make the energy state more "negative". Suppose I put space between the two bombs as a "given condition"? All that would do is add *potential energy* to the system as a function of their gravitational attraction to one another. It would in no way lessen the amount of total energy. In fact mere distance would result in *more total energy* in the system. Gravity is not "negative energy". It could be seen as a form of "potential energy". It all depends on your frame of reference.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't know how you intend to explain acceleration with zero net energy. Even in an arbitrary zero setting exercise, acceleration requires energy.



You're funny. At least I know you have some redeeming qualities. :)



That's why I'm not really into the "prophetic" method of cosmology. We can however demonstrate a "bang' today with a *positive energy density* from start to finish.
Click to expand...
Sure but what has that got to do with starting a universe.?

There are somethings where our current models break down.

The 'Big Bang' is a label applied by Hoyle in derision and it has stuck.

For many reasons it could have a better name, but that is the one that stuck.

The label 'the expanding space time universe' just does not stick.

So how are you modeling the expanding space time with an explosion?
The term "neutral" doesn't mean anything. There is a positive amount of available energy in the universe today. I have no evidence that there has ever been a time when that was not true.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there is something different about gravity. And really, you can show that the universe is positive with energy. Okay.
I can simulate a "bang" in lab using "positive" energy. How would you simulate a "bang" with "zero net" or "neutral" energy? How would you explain acceleration on top of that 'Bang" using zero net energy? Even the "bang" part is going to be impossible to simulate with 'zero net' energy, let alone the acceleration component. Even in you mathematical examples, it takes energy to separate two objects and make them accelerate.
Click to expand...

Again, I think that a 'bang' is a label that does not explain much, catchy though it may be.

It sure looks as though space time is expanding.

Maybe is , maybe isn't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom