Re: Mark Issak - Shot Dead


David Ewan Kahana wrote:
> island5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > island5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > wade wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > >> If humans have used various apparatuses to create an environment
> > > >> where particles were created from vacuum energy, how is this
> > > >> distinct from humans mixing acids and bases to create water and
> > > >> salts?
> > >
> > > > It causes vacuum expansion by increasing negative pressure, while
> > > > increasing gravity proportionally.
> > >
> > > According to conventional quantum field theory and conventional
> > > general relativity, this is clearly wrong -- creation of particles
> > > from the vacuum does *not* "increase negative pressure" or "increase
> > > gravity proportionally." It is *possible* that the creation of
> > > certain, very particular types of particles affects the cosmological
> > > constant -- see, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408080 --
> > > but this claim is controversial, and if correct, it only holds for a
> > > very limited class of particles. Furthermore, the effect is probably
> > > to *decrease* the magnitude of negative pressure.
> > >
> > > Your claim may be true in some speculative new theory of your own
> > > invention (one in which you are not yet able to actually *compute*
> > > anything, as far as I can tell). If this is what you mean, you
> > > ought to say so.
> > >
> > > Steve Carlip
> >
> >
> > No, I claim that Einstein was NEVER wrong and that you owe him this
> > much consideration!!!
> >
>
> Einstein did make at least two famous `wrong' predictions. In his
> 1905 paper on special relativity he predicted a rate difference
> between a clock at the equator and one at the pole. He didn't
> make any mistake, given the theory that he had at the time, but
> general relativity is required to get the right result in this
> case.
>
> Similarly, he initially estimated a number for the bending of
> light around the sun which was wrong by a factor 2, before he
> had constructed the general theory. This was corrected by the
> time that the actual measurements were made, by which time
> Einstein had the full theory.
>
> Einstein certainly would never have made the claim for himself
> that you are making for him here. One thing he's known to have
> said is:
>
> `Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything
> new.'
>
> > http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html
>
> I'll quote from your description here:
>
> The most obvious way to create new matter in Einstein's model, (the
> most compatible with the spirit of general relativity), also holds it
> flat and stable, so any other conclusions that have been made since
> Einstein abandoned his notion without this knowledge, are therefore
> subject to suspect review!
>
> This is incorrect as it stands. Einstein's static universe was
> _closed_, contained only dust (having c_s = 0) and a cosmological
> constant. It was not flat to begin with, and it is at best an
> unstable fixed point.
>
> Einstein abandoned his model, correctly, in the face of solid evidence
> that the universe was _not_ static.
>
> David


You missed that the reason that it isn't static also holds it in its
near-flat or quasi-euclidean state, so Einstein had no reason to
abandon it when he found out that it was expanding, since matter
creation in his CLOSED finite model necessarily increases negative
pressure, thereby causing expansion via vacuum rarefaction.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Position Without Space
    ... a single new fundamental breakthrough in physics for over a century. ... Louis, the poor guy, reminds me of being a mullah in Jerusalem ... like "particles" in his theory did not go over too well. ... Let's face it, Newton, Einstein and Savain, all are describing, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Looking for answers.
    ... >> have no education in mathematics or physics. ... or is my assumption, that particles ... > collection of dust all at rest, gravity would pull them all together. ... >> einstein did, without any mathematical understanding of the ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Einsteins thoughts on particle nature of light
    ... > I think Einstein understood quite well the troubles of explaining ... > the interference in the language of particles. ... > the idea of photons, because it was the only plausible explanation of ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... >>the nonsensical explanation that particles have frequencies. ... Einstein was not a principal investigator. ... You yourself said particles are necessary to explain the photoelectric ... space which move with out dividing." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Entanglement says space is illusion, what maintains the illusions?
    ... space being an illusion. ... "The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote ... fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by ... The inside of each proton is constantly being actively evacuated to form huge numbers of mini- black holes which conglomerate into mini suns and planets and spiral away from their centers. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading