It's true, however, that you don't understand the math. If you understood the math, you wouldn't have to pack so much nonsense into your posts:
In the case of "pseudoscience" those were Alfven's words on the subject his entire career. As for the rest of it, well, it's all true, it's just that you don't like it when I point out the flaws in your faith based religion. When have you seen 'dark energy" cause acceleration of material objects on Earth? When do you expect to see it demonstrated? One year? Ten years? Your lifetime?
You're talking about Newtonian gravity. Tubbythin was talking about general relativity.
I'm talking about the "real" and "tangible" and "empical' gravity that I experience personally every single day. You're talking about math formulas. When was the last time gravity allowed you to accelerate off the planet?
It's a fact that differences between general relativity and Newtonian gravity don't matter very much at the distances, speeds, and densities we encounter on earth. General relativity has been demonstrated on earth by a few extremely precise experiments, but the difference between GR and Newtonian gravity seldom if ever matters for the consumer products that rule your cockamamie notion of science.
Which ever math formula you use is fine by me because I can experience gravity here and now and compare you math to real physical experiments and real control mechanisms. Compare and contrast that to the dead inflation concept. It's not only gone, it's long gone.
As has been explained to you in several recent posts, most of us do not believe black holes possess infinite density.
Then you do not believe in a "singularity" or a "point" because you can't achieve such a thing without achieving infinite density as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You, Michael Mozina, are the person who's been promoting the idea of infinite density.
Oh no, not me.
Your promotion of that straw man looks dishonest, but I'm willing to believe you are truly incapable of understanding the mathematical fact that the singularities of general relativity lie outside the spacetime manifold.
Nothing inside our physical universe lies "outside" of the spacetime manifold, it continues to have a direct and measurable effect on the spacetime manifold. There is no such thing as a "singularity" because to achieve that you would need to achieve infinite density of matter. It's never going to happen.
It's an attachment to empiricism, not an emotional attachment.
No, it's a "scientific" attachment. I'm emotionally attached to things like love and less tangible stuff.
The best estimates for the age of the universe have changed during the 40 years I've been paying attention. We don't throw a fit every time the estimate is improved by new empirical evidence.
No, you throw a metaphysical birthday party and give birth to another metaphysical creation, in this case "dark energy". Essentially anything you guys don't really understand and can't explain is "dark". The term seems to relate more to our human ignorance and less to any actual "property" of the energy or matter in question.
You're wrong about that. Neither general relativity nor cosmology involves objects with infinite density.
I agree, which is why I don't believe in "singularities". Enough compacted mass might create something like an event horizon, but I don't believe anything achieves infinite density, the "point" of a singularity, or resides *outside* of the manifold.
Actually, Einstein set that constant to zero before he set it to nonzero. Einstein eventually set that constant back to zero, although he knew that a zero value for that constant, when combined with empirical evidence he accepted, implies a big bang.
Actually it simply implies expansion (for the moment). The concept of a "bang" presumes an unchanging process over time.
The bottom line Mr. Spock is that GR is not now and never has been dependent upon "dark energy", "inflation" or "exotic matter". If and when you can demonstrate an empirical link, here an now, between the movements of matter and your mythical forms of matter and energy, *THEN* I'll be happy to let you stuff them into a GR formula. Until you can show an empirical cause/effect relationship between GR and those mythical entities, I can only assume you "made them up" and they have about as much material "realness" as magic. You might make magic "fit" inside a GR formula, but waving at the sky with such a formula is utterly pointless. IMO that is also the case with your hypothetical forms of matter and energy.
!
