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

ben m said:
"That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a quasi-static distribution of matter, as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars."
Click to expand...

Er, where did he say anything about an accelerating universe that accelerates faster over time? How did you jump from a static universe application to a scenario where acceleration *INCREASES* over time?

Spin, spin, lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Precisely define "empirical demonstration".
Click to expand...

Any 'controlled experiment' where your invisible friends show up and do something will do. If I told you Godflation did it, what would you want me to demonstrate Tim?

Precisely define "empirical physics".
Click to expand...

Everything you see in the store is a product that makes good use of 'empirical physics'. Where do I get some "dark energy"?
 
"That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a quasi-static distribution of matter, as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars."
Click to expand...

In other words, GR works great with no constants so long as the universe is contracting or expanding. The "only" reason he even considered adding a constant was because he could not otherwise explain a *STATIC* universe. Once he understood the universe was expanding, he abandoned the idea and called it his greatest blunder. It is absolutely unnecessary to add a non zero constant in either an expanding or contracting universe.

You have no idea what causes acceleration ben, and no logical reason to believe it has anything to do with "gravity" in the first place. Gravity doesn't do repulsive tricks or we'd all fly off the planet.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, where did he say anything about an accelerating universe that accelerates faster over time? How did you jump from a static universe application to a scenario where acceleration *INCREASES* over time?

Spin, spin, lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether he said it in that paper, nor am I going to waste my time digging up an English translation to see. He wasn't interested in those solutions, he was interested in the static one (which actually is unstable precisely because of the acceleration, so that's something he might have wanted to avoid emphasizing).

Regardless of whether he said it, it follows from the equations of general relativity he wrote in that paper. You (or at least I and others) can simply solve those equations, and, apart from the static solution, ALL of the solutions accelerate. Some recollapse and some accelerate out forever (more or less as the universe appears to be doing today), depending on the relative values of the matter, dark energy, and spatial curvature terms.

Sadly, you're almost certainly unable to verify what I'm saying because your mathematical abilities appear to fall short of balancing a checkbook. I suppose you'll take that as an excuse to go on lying about whether or not Einstein introduced dark energy, and whether or not it was Guth that first noticed that a positive CC leads to acceleration?
 
Last edited:
By the way, here are two papers from 1917 that certainly pointed out the acceleration due to a positive cosmological constant:

de Sitter, W. (1917), "On the relativity of inertia: Remarks concerning Einstein's latest hypothesis", Proc. Kon. Ned. Acad. Wet. 19: 1217–1225
de Sitter, W. (1917), "On the curvature of space", Proc. Kon. Ned. Acad. Wet. 20: 229–243

Einstein was in contact with de Sitter that year, so it's impossible he didn't know about it even if he had somehow managed to miss it in his equations (which I very much doubt).
 
sol invictus said:
I don't know whether he said it in that paper, nor am I going to waste my time digging up an English translation to see.
Click to expand...

In other words, he never predicted an accelerating universe that accelerates faster over time. "Dark energy" didn't get stuffed into GR until about 15 years ago sol. Give it up.

A constant isn't even necessary or desirable in either an expanding or a contracting universe, so he abandoned the concept the moment he realized the universe was expanding. Of course everyone expected the universe to slow down over time, hence the 'big surprise' and the need for "dark energy" about 15 years ago.

You can't win that debate sol.
 
Michael Mozina said:
One more thing PS...

You constantly use the term "layman", which is "understandable" and all, but sometimes I wonder if you don't use that word like a "crutch" the way a church member might try to defer to the pastors "understanding" of the subject. Be careful you aren't just letting the "consensus" convince you it's not necessary to have a empirical demonstration. Empirical physics is always relevant, and potentially relevant in the present moment. These inflation based beliefs are pure "legend' and "myth" with pretty mathematical lipstick. Unlike that math related to QM and GR, inflation has no relevancy here and now. Whatever the "cause" of "acceleration", it has nothing to do with "dark energy' because "dark energy' has never accelerated a single atom, let alone a whole physical universe.

Mark my words PS, these will literally be known as the "dark ages" of astronomy in another 50 years.
Click to expand...

When I say "layman" I am referring to my knowledge of physics. I have a fair grasp of the mathematics of modern physics, but that does not always lead to having an intuitive feel for the physical nature of the stuff the math describes.
Can one really visualize curved space? I can't -- my brain is quite Euclidean! But, that does not lead to my rejecting it as not "empirical" -- whatever it is you mean by that.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
When I say "layman" I am referring to my knowledge of physics. I have a fair grasp of the mathematics of modern physics, but that does not always lead to having an intuitive feel for the physical nature of the stuff the math describes.
Can one really visualize curved space? I can't -- my brain is quite Euclidean! But, that does not lead to my rejecting it as not "empirical" -- whatever it is you mean by that.
Click to expand...

IMO you don't give yourself enough credit, and you give them way too much credit. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
"Dark energy" didn't get stuffed into GR until about 15 years ago sol. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Nonsense - that's a flat-out lie. I just gave you the reference to a 1917 paper, Einstein's first on cosmology, where he included a positive CC.

There is obviously no point in continuing, so this conversation is over.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gravity will act to slow everything down over time with Einstein's zero constant definition of "gravity". When you stuff "dark energy" in there, you aren't describing "gravity" because "gravity" doesn't do repulsive tricks. Let's see you jump off the planet and speed away based with nothing but "gravity".
Click to expand...

Gravity (Newtonian)

or

General Relativity?

This is important and perhaps the real cause of your misunderstanding.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In other words, he never predicted an accelerating universe that accelerates faster over time. "Dark energy" didn't get stuffed into GR until about 15 years ago sol. Give it up.

A constant isn't even necessary or desirable in either an expanding or a contracting universe, so he abandoned the concept the moment he realized the universe was expanding. Of course everyone expected the universe to slow down over time, hence the 'big surprise' and the need for "dark energy" about 15 years ago.

You can't win that debate sol.
Click to expand...

Are you perhaps hinting that experimental observations have driven what models we may choose to represent the universe?

and that if new data is found we may have to adjust our models?

I think thats called science

NB I am not arguing that is the case here, it just seems to me that that is what you are saying.
 
DazzaD said:
Gravity (Newtonian)

or

General Relativity?

This is important and perhaps the real cause of your misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Gravity is simply gravity. I have no evidence that gravity does repulsive tricks, so stuffing an acceleration component into GR theory is just "fudging the numbers". That is exactly why Einstein took it out of there in the first place. Once he realized the universe was expanding he immediately realized GR needed nothing else to explain "gravity" theory. You have no physical evidence that gravity does repulsive tricks based on any experiment on Earth, so what makes you think it has anything at all to do with the cause of expansion or acceleration?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Baloney. You're still in spin mode sol. For anyone interested, the most common 'mainstream bang' models prior to the 1990's "predicted", not "acceleration", but rather a universal "deceleration" over time. It wasn't until the 1990s that the term "dark energy" was coined in reference to the unexpected observation of acceleration.

http://www.interstellarjourney.com/articles/3594055_article1.pdf
Click to expand...

Predict? Or model?

Tell the future? Or match the best known observational data?

Tell the "real truth"? Or form the simplest conclusion given the known evidence?

Lie about whats happening? Or give the best damn description that matches known experiments and gives the simplest and "nicest" mathematical interpretation?

In any case... what is "mainstream" may change depending on all the above... so the modern theory, in some key details, is a far cry from what it was 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago....

Theories change and adapt over time.

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/

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


Your point is?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gravity is simply gravity. I have no evidence that gravity does repulsive tricks, so stuffing an acceleration component into GR theory is just "fudging the numbers". That is exactly why Einstein took it out of there in the first place. Once he realized the universe was expanding he immediately realized GR needed nothing else to explain "gravity" theory. You have no physical evidence that gravity does repulsive tricks based on any experiment on Earth, so what makes you think it has anything at all to do with the cause of expansion or acceleration?
Click to expand...

I will ask again.

What do YOU think 'gravity' is then?

This is the source of your confusion my friend.


I cannot debate about physical evidence about repulsive tricks unless I am sure what YOU mean by gravity.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I just *LOVE* how you and ben and sol all "spin" these changes in a different way. It's almost comical were it not so 'vindictive' at times. Thank you for at least acknowledging the "changes" that have occurred over time.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about:confused:
Of course observations change. That's called scientific progress. Einstein's field equations haven't, just what we think the constants in them are. I would imagine that goes for G as well. The accuracy of the measurement of G has improved as recently as 2007. The value of G is different to the one Einstein used originally. Are we rejecting GR? Err... no. The CC is no different.

It's hard to have an adult conversation when the horsepucky get's this deep. :)
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp The irony coming from the person who just loves to talk about "Godflation", "mythical dark matter" and "dark energies" or...

Now that you know it's "something else', what makes you think it has anything at all to do with "dark energy" or "invisible energy"' or "Michael's magic energy"?
Click to expand...
Oh there we go again. For everybody to see. Excellent illustration. Thanks.
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO you don't give yourself enough credit, and you give them way too much credit. :)
Click to expand...

Look, there is nothing wrong with a healthy scepticism when it comes to prevailing consensus theories in cosmology. There exists a huge dung pile of discarded cosmological theories. The point here is that your EM cosmological theories contradict known laws of physics and observations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom