Re: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it

On Mon, 31 May 2010 05:23:52 -0700, eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Surfer wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:19:03 -0700, eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Surfer wrote:

Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm
Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)


Why do you shill for him so hard on USENET? If his ideas had half the
merit you think they do, you wouldn't be the practically the only one
citing him.

Acceptance or non-acceptance of a new theory doesn't provide any
evidence as to its merit.

Copernicus published his heliocentric model of the solar system in
1543. But in spite of its merits over the Ptolemaic model, it wasn't
until about 1700, that astronomers started to accept the Copernican

The reason I cited Cahill just now is that his theory provides a
simple and natural model of the expansion of the universe.

In contrast, GR has problems in this regard.

I note that no reference to experiment was made by you, just vague notions
of being 'simple and natural'.

Well, the original post in this thread didn't concern experiments.

But the theory used in the above paper was also used to make
predictions for Gravity Probe B.

"Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect"

The results of that experiment are available here:

So far as I can tell, the predictions are consistent with the results.

The predictions are actually very close to those of GR, which is
quite remarkable when you consider that this theory is very much
simpler than GR.