Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

Michael Mozina said:
The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Any characterization to the contrary is absurd and misleading.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Einstein introduced his constant to explain a 'static' (non expanding, non contracting) universe.
Click to expand...

"Explain", no. Allow, yes.

He needed it to make his model stable.
Click to expand...

Wrong. With the CC >0 , the static universe solution exists but is unstable. With CC <= 0, it simply doesn't exist.

At no time did Einstein ever attempt to characterize the nature of that constant even before setting it back to zero.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, of course he characterized it. He wrote papers about it. He knew approximately what its value needed to be if the universe was static. He knew it was a vacuum energy, and he knew it led to accelerating solutions.

GeeMack said:
Just to catch up, can anyone point to the last time in this thread where Michael was right about something and everyone else was wrong?
Click to expand...

I'd settle for just the first part, but.... no.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset.
Click to expand...

<MM mode>
Constants can't cause acceleration. They're just numbers on a page! You can't show me a single time in the lab where a number jumped off its page and caused acceleration. Furthermore, constants don't change. So, how can they accelerate when by definition acceleration is a rate of *change*? You and your magical god-constants are just fantasies because you can't explain why something accelerates. Well, it's not numbers because they're just symbols on a page. They can't push anything!
</MM mode>
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you subtract the smaller pressure from the larger pressure you get positive pressure.
Click to expand...
No....
Click to expand...
Relative pressure is overall pressure.
Simple arithmetic MM: Subtract a big number from a smaller number and you get a negative number. Pressure is a number. The pressure on each side of a plate is 2 numbers.

Michael Mozina said:
Guth chose an entirely incorrect limit of "pressure" in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
No he did not. He used the same limit of pressure in a vacuum that all scientist use.

Michael Mozina said:
No, you get *LESS PRESSURE* on one side and *MORE PRESSURE* on the other. Hoy!
Click to expand...
Yes, you get *LESS PRESSURE* on one side and *MORE PRESSURE* on the other. Hoy!

Michael Mozina said:
You're impossible. If this process is related to "negative pressure" in the "vacuum", why does it work at any pressure and why is your negative pressure so picky about the material? I know I should not ask, and this is going to be train wreck to watch, but I just couldn't help myself. :)
Click to expand...
You're ignorant.
I do not mention any "process" but maybe you mean the Casimir effect that has has negative pressure between metallic plates in theory and experiment. This does work at any pressure and depends on the material.

I know I should not answer, and this is going to be train wreck to watch, but I just couldn't help myself. MM's ignorance is such an easy target :)
 
What is "Empirical" Science? III

Michael Mozina said:
Be careful you aren't just letting the "consensus" convince you it's not necessary to have a empirical demonstration.
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
Precisely define "empirical demonstration".
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Any 'controlled experiment' where your invisible friends show up and do something will do.
Click to expand...
Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?

Michael Mozina said:
Empirical physics is always relevant, and potentially relevant in the present moment.
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
Precisely define "empirical physics".
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Everything you see in the store is a product that makes good use of 'empirical physics'.
Click to expand...
Questions:
Which part of the word "precisely" was too complicated for you? Why do you refuse to define the words you use? How is anybody supposed to know what you are trying to say if you use words with altered definitions, or just plain refuse to define your words at all?
 
Michael Mozina said:
The "constant" Einstein introduced did *NOT*, I repeat *DID NOT* cause the universe to go accelerating away into the sunset. Any characterization to the contrary is absurd and misleading.
Click to expand...

Sure it did; this was pointed out by Einstein himself, by Lemaitre, by de Sitter, Eddington, etc.. The original sources have been cited repeatedly, it's abundantly documented in all literature both specialist and generalist, and the equations themselves are standard issue in undergrad astro classes; thousands of 19- and 20-year-olds rediscover these solutions year in and year out.

But you think we're lying about which equation gives which solution? What the heck would be the point? Oh, wait, I think I know what the point is.

wikipedia said:
In particular, Frankfurt distinguishes *&$#&*$#ing from lying: while the liar deliberately makes false claims, the *&$#&*$#er is simply uninterested in the truth. *&$#&*$#@ers aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, *&$#&*$#@ers, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "#$&#$%& is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_$#%&$#@)
Click to expand...

That about sums it up.

(Apologies for pushing the Forum rules, but that's a direct quote.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If this process is related to "negative pressure" in the "vacuum", why does it work at any pressure
Click to expand...
Because the vacuum energy is the energy present in the absence of anything else. It doesn't just go away if you put something in the vacuum. If it did (apart from quite probably violating the first law of thermodynamics) it would mean spontaneous emission could never occur.

and why is your negative pressure so picky about the material? I know I should not ask, and this is going to be train wreck to watch, but I just couldn't help myself. :)
Click to expand...
I've explained this several times. Which bit do you not understand? The type of material changes the boundary conditions for the modes of the vacuum. For example, for a perfect conductor the allowed modes must have 0 on the surface of the plates (can you see why?). That is why the diagram on the wikipedia page is wrong. For an insulator this is not the case (do you understand why?).
 
ben m said:
Actually, the same authors preprinted two earlier versions of their work, (see http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0905.0075 for one) and these versions did attract mainstream comments. The conclusion seems to be that Li and Liu are simply mistaken.


http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2009/07/is_cosmology_about_to_become_b.php
Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly not the only paper on this topic, nor the only team to find data anomalies in the data. I guess I'll have to wait and read the official responses.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0148
 
So please explain to me how you got from the "static universe" theory Einstein was trying to explain, to a constantly (and increasingly) accelerating universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

The idea of a static universe or "Einstein's universe" is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein once proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
So please explain to me how you got from the "static universe" theory Einstein was trying to explain, to a constantly (and increasingly) accelerating universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
Click to expand...

Here's the equation Einstein obtained:

[latex]$({\dot a \over a})^2 = {8 \pi G \over 3} (\rho_m + \rho_\Lambda) - {1 \over a^2}$[/latex],

where a(t) is the scale factor, G is Newton's constant, \rho_m is the matter density and scales as a^{-3}, and \rho_\Lambda is the energy density due to the cosmological constant, which doesn't scale with a.

Go ahead and solve the equation and you'll see why all the solutions accelerate, with the exception of an unstable static solution and a class of solutions that expand, turn around, and then recollapse to a crunch.

Hint: think of the left hand side as the kinetic energy of a particle at position a(t), and the right-hand side as -potential energy plus total energy. Then you can see very easily what the solutions look like.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

Einstein's proposal was a universe characterized by the dust solution of Einstein's field equation for a value of the cosmological constant equal to ΛE = 4πGρ / c2, where G is Newtonian gravitational constant, ρ is the energy density of the matter in the universe and c is the speed of light. Value ΛE is called Einstein's cosmological constant or, alternatively, the cosmological constant of Einstein's universe.

The radius of curvature of space of Einstein's universe, called "Einstein's radius", is equal to

R_E = \Lambda_E^{-1/2} = {c \over \sqrt{4\pi G\rho}}.

"Einstein's universe" is one of Friedmann's solutions of Einstein's field equation, for the value of cosmological constant ΛE. This is the only stationary solution of all Friedmann's solutions, and because it is stationary, it is thought to be non physical by majority of astronomers.
Click to expand...
 
ben m said:
That about sums it up.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frankfurt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

The idea of a static universe or "Einstein's universe" is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein once proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. This led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".[1]
Click to expand...

Oh the irony. So what does this tell us about Wiki (or you)?
 
Tim Thompson said:
Question 1
Why did you put 'controlled experiment' in quotation marks? what is the difference between a 'controlled experiment' and a controlled experiment?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Notice the word *controlled* however. That seems to be the one thing your folks seem to ignore in all your "experiments". What you folks tend to call an experiment has no control mechanism. Whereas Birkeland's experiments with electricity and magnetism had all sorts of real, honest to goodness control mechanisms, you folks ignore the need for them entirely as it relates to determining cause/effect relationships. Where do I get a quantity of dark energy or inflation? How do I "control" that source in a real science experiment here on Earth?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what Sol and I and everyone have been telling you over and over. I am curious as to what you think the difference is. Do you still not get that Einstein's "static" came about from including both a (CC) acceleration and a (mass) deceleration and making them cancel? Do you get "expanding" confused with "accelerating"? Have you simply not read anything anyone has said?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, but you can apply these maths to real objects and real things like photons and physical objects. We can "test" our equations in the standard empirical manner and measure their effect on real things.


I simply had a series of epiphanies over the years related to solar satellite images. That process led me to study EU theory from the likes of Birkeland and Bruce (whom these folks avoid like the plague by the way) and Alfven (you know that guy with the Nobel Prize for MHD theory that applied it to space). I don't find events in space to be "counter-intuitive" anymore. I find them to be quite logical, quite 'normal', and actually quite "predictable" as Birkeland demonstrated over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you do have a way of predicting an event for us.

Perhaps someone think of measurable, re-occurring events that happen on a time scale reasonable enough to log a few events using what you cited. Particularly Michael, if they are in your comfort zone? Where enough results could be gathered into a common data base on how the prediction fares as empirical experimentation.

If your understanding is correct you can settle this once and for all Michael. Sooner or later you know that you must, because without providing a working model that holds up to replicated results, a theory ain't a theory.
 
That wiki agrees with nearly everything with what we've been telling you, Michael. Where it didn't, it was wrong.

Now: have you solved the equation yet? Why not do so and see for yourself what the solutions look like, instead of relying on anonymous sources on the internet?
 
Chucky said:
If your understanding is correct you can settle this once and for all Michael. Sooner or later you know that you must, because without providing a working model that holds up to replicated results, a theory ain't a theory.
Click to expand...


Sooner or later? Actually a person can go on apparently forever without settling anything or providing a working model that holds up to replicated results. As an example, if you review the list of links I provided up-thread to Michael's posting history on other forums, you'll notice very clearly that he has made many unsupported claims over many years, and not once has he been able to settle anything once and for all with an actual theory, replicated results, or a quantitative analysis of any data.

You are correct, however, that without the predictions, working model, and replicated results, a theory isn't a theory. But for some people, whether an actual theory is involved, or for that matter, whether legitimate science is involved at all isn't an issue. For some people it's about talking all sciency and not about actually better explaining the workings of the universe in any legitimate, testable, quantitative way.
 
GeeMack said:
Sooner or later? Actually a person can go on apparently forever without settling anything or providing a working model that holds up to replicated results. As an example, if you review the list of links I provided up-thread to Michael's posting history on other forums, you'll notice very clearly that he has made many unsupported claims over many years, and not once has he been able to settle anything once and for all with an actual theory, replicated results, or a quantitative analysis of any data.

You are correct, however, that without the predictions, working model, and replicated results, a theory isn't a theory. But for some people, whether an actual theory is involved, or for that matter, whether legitimate science is involved at all isn't an issue. For some people it's about talking all sciency and not about actually better explaining the workings of the universe in any legitimate, testable, quantitative way.
Click to expand...

I'm also interested in hearing how Michael will apply his theory to an expanding universe. I don't yet understand how he would provide his empiricism to astronomical scenarios. I didn't feel that he explained that earlier in a way I can understand. Why aren't all observations that take place off the planet unusable as they are not replicable in a laboratory?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Nothing. Notice the word *controlled* however. That seems to be the one thing your folks seem to ignore in all your "experiments". What you folks tend to call an experiment has no control mechanism.
Click to expand...
Wrong again MM.
No scientist calls an uncontrolled experiment an experiment. That is your ignorance of science speaking or persional delusion.
They call it an observation.

Observations of the universe lead to:
  • The theory that stars such as the Sun exist. A large number of "uncontrolled experiments" over a very long period is strong evidence for this theory. I guess that since they were uncontrolled you would say that stars do not exist :rolleyes:.
  • The theory of evolution.
  • Inflation
  • Dark energy
  • Dark matter
  • etc.
 
sol invictus said:
That wiki agrees with nearly everything with what we've been telling you, Michael.
Click to expand...

No. That wiki page talks about Einstein creating a "static" universe with that constant sol. It clearly notes the fact that Einstein set his constant back to zero after seeing the Hubble data, and it disagrees with everything you're claiming.

In fact I'm seeing a definite pattern emerging here. Every time that I cite a Wiki reference to help settle our dispute, it is always in direct disagreement with the "mob" position around here. Those "pressure diagrams" were supposedly "all screwed up" according to you guys, and so is that entire WIKI page devoted to a static universe. Is the problem really WIKI, or is there just a problem with herd mentality around here?
 
Chucky said:
I'm also interested in hearing how Michael will apply his theory to an expanding universe.
Click to expand...

I would have absolutely no trouble at all with sticking anything 'real/empirical' into that constant/function related to GR. In other words, I'd have no trouble at all allowing someone to put MHD equations into that constant. Anything that is actually "real" and "exists" is a reasonable way to attempt to explain the expansion. Simply stuffing our ignorance with magic energies isn't an "empirical solution", it's a "make believe" solution that evidently defies empirical testing in a lab on Earth or anywhere humans can travel.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In fact I'm seeing a definite pattern emerging here. Every time that I cite a Wiki reference to help settle our dispute, it is always in direct disagreement with the "mob" position around here. Those "pressure diagrams" were supposedly "all screwed up" according to you guys, and so is that entire WIKI page devoted to a static universe. Is the problem really WIKI, or is there just a problem with herd mentality around here?
Click to expand...

The Casimir page is in complete disagreement with everything you have said. So is that page. There's certainly a pattern.
 
Tubbythin said:
Because the vacuum energy is the energy present in the absence of anything else.
Click to expand...

True enough, but it has nothing to do with the overall 'pressure" inside the chamber, but rather relative pressures from the EM field inside the chamber. Nothing produces 'negative pressure" in the chamber!

I've explained this several times. Which bit do you not understand?
Click to expand...

I don't understand how any of this relates to the 'pressure' of a "vacuum" in absolute terms. Guth needs 'negative pressure" out of a "vacuum" and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Casimir effect. The EM field exerts pressure is on all sides of all plates, just more on some sides and less on others. In fact it's a geometrically driven process because it can repulse not simply attract.
 
Tubbythin said:
The Casimir page is in complete disagreement with everything you have said. So is that page. There's certainly a pattern.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is part of that herd mentality that Michael mentioned? Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that since not one single professional physicist on Earth agrees with Michael's position, they're all part of the herd mentality, too.
 
Tubbythin said:
The Casimir page is in complete disagreement with everything you have said. So is that page. There's certainly a pattern.
Click to expand...

300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png


Relative to the sides of the plates, which way are the little blue arrows pointing, and why are there bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates and smaller blue arrows on the insides? Where in the diagram do you see blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. That wiki page talks about Einstein creating a "static" universe with that constant sol. It clearly notes the fact that Einstein set his constant back to zero after seeing the Hubble data, and it disagrees with everything you're claiming.
Click to expand...

Why was his Universe static, MM? You know that the matter term causes deceleration. Fill in the blank: deceleration + ______ = constant velocity. What did Einstein fill that blank with in 1917?

I have a guess at what you're misunderstanding: the Hubble data was expanding but not accelerating. The Hubble data was consistent with an large but decreasing expansion velocity, i.e. deceleration, which is what you get from a matter term without a CC term. Perhaps you're mentally filling in "expanding universe=acceleration" and "static universe=no acceleration" and getting everything wrong for that reason. (Among others.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Casimir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png[/qimg]

Relative to the sides of the plates, which way are the little blue arrows pointing, and why are there bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates and smaller blue arrows on the insides? Where in the diagram do you see blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates?
Click to expand...

A diagram from wikipedia (which is wrong for the reason I explained a few posts ago). With little explanation of what anything in it means. Is that ALL you have? You intend to overthrow the whole of modern cosmology using only a diagram from wikipedia. Absolutely amazing.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. That wiki page talks about Einstein creating a "static" universe with that constant sol. It clearly notes the fact that Einstein set his constant back to zero after seeing the Hubble data,
Click to expand...

That's more or less correct (except the word "creating", which is just bizarre).

and it disagrees with everything you're claiming.
Click to expand...

What?!? Quote me, Michael. Go ahead. Find one thing I said that disagrees with that.

In fact I'm seeing a definite pattern emerging here. Every time that I cite a Wiki reference to help settle our dispute, it is always in direct disagreement with the "mob" position around here. Those "pressure diagrams" were supposedly "all screwed up" according to you guys, and so is that entire WIKI page devoted to a static universe. Is the problem really WIKI, or is there just a problem with herd mentality around here?
Click to expand...

There were a few problems with the static universe wiki, but it was more or less correct. It certainly wasn't "all screwed up".

Now, have you solved that equation yet? If not, why not? All you have to do is solve it and you'll see precisely how and why a positive CC leads to acceleration, and why the static solution is unstable.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
A diagram from wikipedia (which is wrong for the reason I explained a few posts ago).
Click to expand...

So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong". Notice a pattern emerging here?
 
Perpetual Student said:
:v:
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a philosophical question PS. What scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills? Why would it be necessary for me personally to do anything other than provide the relevant scientific papers and sources on various scientific topics? When debating young earth creationists, I don't make it a point to go out and dig up various fossils myself and carbon date them personally in my garage. I don't try to explain every mathematical formula in a carbon dating paper to a "disbeliever". Even *if* I had a personal inability to explain the math to the ''disbeliever", the validity of the science and the math would not rise or fall on my personal math skills.

What difference does it make if I personally bark math on command around here? What would be the point of doing that when everyone knows that they're simply looking for some flaw to criticize my personal math skills. It would detract from the topic, and it would do nothing to resolve the basic debate. What's the point of me barking math when Einstein did that already in GR, Alfven did that in MHD theory and far better mathematicians have done that for every scientific topic under the sun?

Let's turn the tables here and suppose I was defending the validity of carbon dating techniques to a bunch of young earth creationists. Would you still think my personal math skills were relevant in some way?
 
It's not a "trivial" issue because without that magic negative pressure that Guth/Einstein stuffed into his mythical vacuum, his mass object can't be 'sucked apart'.

Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...

How about this little gem sol? When did Einstein claim that a 'vacuum' had "negative pressure"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...simir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png

Relative to the sides of the plates, which way are the little blue arrows pointing, and why are there bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates and smaller blue arrows on the insides? Where in the diagram do you see blue arrows pointing away from any sides of any plates?
Click to expand...
Since MM has not been able to understand the simple concept of negative pressure explained many times in this thread (and in the many other threads and forums that he has participated in), it is obviously futile to explain this again.

But miracles happen so:


MM's obsession with pretty pictures has lead him to be deluded that this diagram is significant in some way. This is wrong:
  1. The diagram is wrong as already noted (the waves should be zero at the plates).
  2. The diagram has nothing to do with the calculation of the pressure exerted by the Casimir effect. That calculation results in values of pressure that are negative. Scientists call this negative pressure.
  3. The diagram has nothing to do with the measurement of the pressure exerted by the Casimir effect in experiments. Those measurement measure negative pressure.
There are bigger blue arrows on the outside of the plates because the author of the diagram wanted to illustrate that the force (not the pressure MM) exerted on the plate by vacuum flutuations (the wavy green lines) is greater on the outside of the plates than the force (not the pressure MM) exerted on the plate by vacuum flutuations on the inside of the plates.

MM: A high school physics assignment for you:
First asked 3 February 2010
Calculate the pressure caused by the big blue arrows on the left hand plate. Assume that the force is F1.
Calculate the pressure caused by the small blue arrows on the left hand plate. Assume that the force is F2.
Calculate the pressure caused by the big blue arrows on the right hand plate. Assume that the force is F1.
Calculate the pressure caused by the small blue arrows on the right hand plate. Assume that the force is F2.

Remember that a force that points in the opposite direction to another has an opposite magnitude, e.g. if the first force has a positive value then the second force has a negative value. So you will have to set a convention about how to determine this, e.g. forces pointing to the right are positive.
N.B. Apply the same convention to both plates.
​
High school students know that when you have 2 forces acting on an object then you can always replace them with their sum to get the force on that object. Do that with the diagram and you get "blue arrows", i.e. forces (not the pressures MM), pointing away from the plates.

A really simple explanation suitable for high school students for negative pressure has already been presented to MM.

Here it is again:
Using the definiton of pressure as equal to the magnitude of the force (F)normal to that surface divided by the area of the surface:
  • A force F1 pushes on a surface of area A. The pressure p = F1/A.
    This is positive (e.g. atmospheric pressure).
  • A force F2 pulls on a surface of area A. The pressure p = -F2/A.
    This is negative (e.g. the Casimir effect).
(F is the force vector, F is the magnitude of F)

Why is the force that pulls have a negative magnitude?
Consider if both forces were present and equal, e.g. the Casimir effect in a low pressure environment. Then the forces add up to zero. That means that the magnitude of one force must be the negative of the other force. It is convenient to have a pushing force positive so that the pressure is positive and we do not have to deal with negative signs in everyday situations, e.g. weather maps.

There are no surfaces when we are talking about cosmology as in this thread. In that case we have to use the more technical definition of pressure as p as a change of energy per volume (p=-dE/dV if I remember correctly).
 
Do you know what this makes you look like, Michael?

Michael Mozina said:
So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong". Notice a pattern emerging here?
Click to expand...

ben m said:
Yes, that's exactly what Sol and I and everyone have been telling you over and over. I am curious as to what you think the difference is.
Click to expand...

sol invictus said:
That wiki agrees with nearly everything with what we've been telling you, Michael.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to lie when your lie isn't easy to check. It's another to lie when the record is sitting right there on the same page in black and white. So to answer my own question, it makes you look like a fool.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
How about this little gem sol? When did Einstein claim that a 'vacuum' had "negative pressure"?
Click to expand...

For the love of God MM---what other pressure would it have? The CC is in there as a constant energy density (LOOK AT THE EQUATION YOURSELF) with dE/dV > 0 (TAKE THE DERIVATIVE YOURSELF). That's the beginning, the middle, and the end of what we mean by "negative pressure", as we've been saying since day one. You don't need to look for tea leaves in the literature to figure it out.

Any other meaning you give to the word "pressure"---"momentum transfer from particles hitting a wall" etc.---is utterly irrelevant in the context of gravity.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So Wiki's diagrams are all wrong. It's description of Einstein's (they actually associate him personally with the idea and everything) "static" universe is all "wrong". Notice a pattern emerging here?
Click to expand...
That is idiotic Michael Mozina.
Tubbythin is stating that this specific diagram (that you are obssessed with) in Wikipedia is drawn incorrectly.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How about this little gem sol? When did Einstein claim that a 'vacuum' had "negative pressure"?
Click to expand...

In the 1917 paper where he introduced the cosmological constant.

How's that equation coming, Michael? By the way, why haven't you just checked for yourelf what the sign of the pressure is? Just compute [latex]$T_{\mu \nu}$[/latex] for a cosmological constant and look at it. It's trivial (it really is trivial, it takes one line).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom