Re: Mark Issak - Shot Dead


carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> island5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> [...]
> > As Phillip Helbig, (physicst/moderator), noted concerning the flatness
> > of the universe in Einstein's model, any perterbation sends the
> > universe so far away from your wildest dreams for life that it will
> > make your head swim:
>
> > http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html
>
> > Mathematically, it is an "unstable fixed point".
>
> Your termninology is misleading (I will assume this is not intentional).
> "Einstein's model" here refers to a particular, static cosmological
> model, proposed and then rejected by Einstein, in which gravitational
> attraction is exactly canceled by a cosmological constant.


I think that everybody knows that this is the model that I am using,
and the whole point of the article was that we still live there if in
1917 Dr. Einstein tells Friedmann, DeSitter and "company" that his
finite expanding model is NOT unstable, because, like Hoyle's flawed
steady-state model, Einsteins universe expands due to continuous
particle creation, except that Einstein actually has a built-in
mechanism for this.

It requires no knowledge of the quantum vacuum for Einstein to note
that constant matter generation causes expansion because G=0 when there
is no matter and in order to get rho>0 out of Einstein's matter-less
model, you have to condense the matter density from the existing
structure, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily
becomes less than zero, P<0.

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, and it is therefore not up to me to prove
that Einstein is wrong.


> This model
> has nothing at all to do with modern cosmology, and the fact that its
> static configuration is an unstable fixed point says absolutely nothing
> at all about the observed spatial flatness of the universe we live in.
>
> Steve Carlip


Modern cosmology has some remedial homework to do, before they can make
that claim.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont like the truth? Lie.
    ... the Albert Einstein Professor in Science ... on cosmology entitled Endless Universe. ... We are probably the last generation to have been taught that gravity ... Visible matter comes nowhere close to closing the Universe. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... >>It is necessary, IMV, to do like Einstein, and think ... of this existence would have to be time Dependant. ... about where it exist more or less as seen from the rest of the universe. ... the same in one place whether there is matter present or not. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Sasieni 4-Dot
    ... Try an older one, a Family era, many turn up on ebay, they are excellent ... pipes....I would rather have an older Sasieni that a newer Dunhill anyday ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
    ... The equation means that matter IS energy, ... There is no dispute between Einstein ... I can now describe the evolution of the universe FROM energy to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
    ... The equation means that matter IS energy, ... There is no dispute between Einstein ... I can now describe the evolution of the universe FROM energy to ...
    (sci.astro)