Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion

From: Old Man (nomail_at_nomail.net)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:45:10 -0500

"brodix" <brodix@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:a09976c7.0409120212.3cbc1d5e@posting.google.com...
> Old Man,
> >
> > There's no right or wrong to the cosmological constant. It's an
> > arbitrary constant of integration to be set to any value that observation
> > dictates. Modern observations require a positive value which enhances
> > the expansion rate. In that position, the cosmological constant
> > represents a homogeneous positive energy density that is constant
> > with time. brodix is way out of date and out of time.
> >
> In other words, a fudge factor to be set at what ever current theory
> requires.

A constant of integration isn't a "fudge factor". Strictly required by the
math, like c, h, and G, its value isn't pinned down by theory, but comes
from experiment. It can take the form of an unspecified, but necessary
boundary condition, initial condition, gauge, offset, or calibration constant.

Einstein's "blunder" was in choosing an empirically unrealistic value for the
cosmological constant. The theoretical formalism requires its presence.

> > An "upward bulge" would represent negative space curvature which is
> > an audaciously radical departure from GTR and BBT,
>
> This isn't a refutation. Why can there be positive curvature, but not
> negative curvature? Just supposing there is negative curvature,
> wouldn't the observed redshift potentially be evidence of it?

There's no empirical evidence for "negative mass" or "repulsive gravity".
Note that "negative mass" is distinct in concept from "anti-charge" such
as that of an "anti-electron" (positron) for which there is indisputable
empirical evidence. Anti-particles are observed to have positive mass /
energy, and, according to GTR, positive energy gravitates attractively,
whilst negative energy, such as that due to binding energy (nuclear mass
deficit), gravitates repulsively.

If elementary particles of negative mass existed, there's no logically self-
constant argument against their being observed in high energy particle
physics experiments.

> > The expansion of space is due to a homogeneous distribution of energy,
> > whereby space curvature is zero, and whereof matter, relativistic energy,
> > and dark energy all contribute positively to the expansion rate.
> >
> That doesn't respond to my observation; Which is that if Omega=1, or
> some close approximation thereof, observed expansion is balanced by
> gravity, so the universe as a whole is not expanding, so it seems
> logical to look for a convective process to explain this equilibrium.

On the largest of scales, matter distribution is observed to be homogeneous.
On that scale, space is observed to be homogeneously flat.

> > > As it is, we have a model of the universe which requires; ...
> >
> > ... snip opaque cracked pottery ...
>
> So the fact that there are mature galaxies and enormous galaxy
> structures at the very edge of the visible universe is immaterial, or
> inconvenient?

That some galaxies are independently calculated to be older than
the Universe, is a chronic problem for BBT. The news isn't new or
ignored. One can hope for a better theory, but, at present, there's
no empirically viable alternative that comes close to matching BBT's
comprehensive success.

Hubble was off by more than a factor of ten, but brodix isn't even
wrong.

[Old Man]

> regards,
>
> brodix

Relevant Pages

  • Redshift and energy conservation was Re: Dark Energy
    ... >> The dominant flow of energy, today, is from the Hubble expansion ... Without a cosmological constant ... i.e. the direction of the energy flow would be reversed. ... >>> Imagine the Einstein static universe. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Dark Energy
    ... >> Since the first two terms are proportional to energy density then ... and say that the energy of the cosmological constant "comes ... the expansion of the universe. ... If I understand Harrison's argument it is that pressure and pressure ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion
    ... > There's no right or wrong to the cosmological constant. ... Just supposing there is negative curvature, ... > The expansion of space is due to a homogeneous distribution of energy, ... > and dark energy all contribute positively to the expansion rate. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cosmological Constant
    ... photon/allowed EM mode to the Planck energy, ... The cosmological constant already arises from non-Abelian Yang-Mills ... k is just the dielectric coefficient of the vacuum; ... cosmological constant and vacuum energy to the extra terms arising the ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Count the Galaxies
    ... random composites of both Matter *and* Energy) ... Xty trillion years later - yada yada yada... ... Could be Einstein's 'cosmological constant' (that you'll recall he ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)