Any Explanation Yet for Apparent Increasing Rate of Expansion of Universe? [Archive]

BretCahill

Nov7-04, 04:06 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Here is something really basic that hasn\'t generated any plausible theories.\nIt is kind of like having an elephant in the room and no one wants to discuss\nit.\n\nSlap together ANYTHING and if it\'s wrong maybe it will lead somewhere. I\npromise you probably won\'t be prosecuted to the full extent of the criminal\ncode.\n\n\nBret Cahill\n\n\n"Convictions are a greater enemy of the Truth than lies."\n\n-- Nietzsche\n\n"Well they certainly are a greater enemy of criminals than lies."\n\n-- Bret Cahill\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Here is something really basic that hasn't generated any plausible theories.
It is kind of like having an elephant in the room and no one wants to discuss
it.

Slap together ANYTHING and if it's wrong maybe it will lead somewhere. I
promise you probably won't be prosecuted to the full extent of the criminal
code.

Bret Cahill

"Convictions are a greater enemy of the Truth than lies."

-- Nietzsche

"Well they certainly are a greater enemy of criminals than lies."

-- Bret Cahill

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov8-04, 05:08 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <20041107124305.09790.00000147@mb-m20.aol.com>,\nbretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) writes:\n\n> Here is something really basic that hasn\'t generated any plausible theories.\n> It is kind of like having an elephant in the room and no one wants to discuss\n> it.\n\nI\'m not sure why you expect an observation to generate a plausible\ntheorey if it is understood in the context of theories which are 70\nyears old or more. OK, one can ask what the ultimate ORIGIN of the\ncosmological constant is, but that is like asking WHY matter is a source\nof gravitation. The latter question is seldom asked; why ask the former\nto suggest that there is something "really puzzling" about the\ncosmological constant (responsible for the increase in the rate of\nexpansion of the universe).\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <20041107124305.09790.00000147@mb-m20.aol.com>,
bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) writes:

> Here is something really basic that hasn't generated any plausible theories.
> It is kind of like having an elephant in the room and no one wants to discuss
> it.

I'm not sure why you expect an observation to generate a plausible
theorey if it is understood in the context of theories which are 70
years old or more. OK, one can ask what the ultimate ORIGIN of the
cosmological constant is, but that is like asking WHY matter is a source
of gravitation. The latter question is seldom asked; why ask the former
to suggest that there is something "really puzzling" about the
cosmological constant (responsible for the increase in the rate of
expansion of the universe).

MP

Nov14-04, 07:07 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message\nnews:20041107124305.09790.00000147@mb-m20.aol.com...\n> Here is something really basic that hasn\'t generated any plausible\ntheories.\n> It is kind of like having an elephant in the room and no one wants to\ndiscuss\n> it.\n\nAlmost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:\n- Cosmological Constant\n- Chaplygin gas\n- Quintessence\n- String type matter\n- Scalar fields\n- GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)\n\netc.\n\n> Slap together ANYTHING and if it\'s wrong maybe it will lead somewhere. I\n> promise you probably won\'t be prosecuted to the full extent of the\ncriminal\n> code.\n\nWell, if you wan\'t to hear ANYTHING, lets slap me together these\nstatements (and figure out for yourself, whether it is right or wrong\nand where it will lead you)\n\nH t = 1\nuniverse is coasting\nmatter consists out of strings\nactive gravitational mass density of (string) matter is zero\nLambda = 0\n\nBest MP\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107124305.09790.00000147@mb-m20.aol.com...
> Here is something really basic that hasn't generated any plausible
theories.
> It is kind of like having an elephant in the room and no one wants to
discuss
> it.

Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:
- Cosmological Constant
- Chaplygin gas
- Quintessence
- String type matter
- Scalar fields
- GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)

etc.

> Slap together ANYTHING and if it's wrong maybe it will lead somewhere. I
> promise you probably won't be prosecuted to the full extent of the
criminal
> code.

Well, if you wan't to hear ANYTHING, lets slap me together these
statements (and figure out for yourself, whether it is right or wrong
and where it will lead you)

H t = 1[/itex]
universe is coasting
matter consists out of strings
active gravitational mass density of (string) matter is zero
[itex]\Lambda =

Best MP

CWatters

Nov16-04, 02:16 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message\nnews:cn54g0\\$4a2\\$1@online.de...\n\n> Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:\n> - Cosmological Constant\n> - Chaplygin gas\n> - Quintessence\n> - String type matter\n> - Scalar fields\n> - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)\n>\n\nI assume it can\'t be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren\'t any stars\non the "outside" of the universe shining in.\n\nFar to weak?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:cn54g0$4a2$1@online.de...

> Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:
> - Cosmological Constant
> - Chaplygin gas
> - Quintessence
> - String type matter
> - Scalar fields
> - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)
>

I assume it can't be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren't any stars
on the "outside" of the universe shining in.

Far to weak?

CWatters

Nov16-04, 02:16 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message\nnews:cn54g0\\$4a2\\$1@online.de...\n\n> Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:\n> - Cosmological Constant\n> - Chaplygin gas\n> - Quintessence\n> - String type matter\n> - Scalar fields\n> - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)\n>\n\nI assume it can\'t be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren\'t any stars\non the "outside" of the universe shining in.\n\nFar to weak?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:cn54g0$4a2$1@online.de...

> Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:
> - Cosmological Constant
> - Chaplygin gas
> - Quintessence
> - String type matter
> - Scalar fields
> - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)
>

I assume it can't be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren't any stars
on the "outside" of the universe shining in.

Far to weak?

MP

Nov17-04, 11:13 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message\nnews:rhOld.23089\\$gT3.1229960@phobos.tel enet-ops.be...\n> "MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message\n> news:cn54g0\\$4a2\\$1@online.de...\n>\n> > Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:\n> > - Cosmological Constant\n> > - Chaplygin gas\n> > - Quintessence\n> > - String type matter\n> > - Scalar fields\n> > - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)\n> >\n>\n> I assume it can\'t be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren\'t any\nstars\n> on the "outside" of the universe shining in.\n\nWhy would radiation pressure *accelerate* the expansion?\nPositive pressure gravitates. Radiation pressure is always positive:\n\nT = 0 -> \\rho = P1 + P2 + P3 -> \\rho_act = 2 \\rho >= 0\nunless \\rho < 0. You are not assuming that the radiation has\nnegative energy-density, do you?\n\nT = trace of stress energy tensor (zero for radiation)\n\n\\rho = energy density of radiation\n\nP1, P2, P3: three principal pressure\n\n\\rho_act = \\rho + P1 + P2 + P3 = active gravitational mass-density\n= "source" of gravitational acceleration. If\n\\rho_act > 0: decelerating universe\n\\rho_act < 0: accelerating universe\n\\rho_act = 0 (strings): coasting universe\n\n>\n> Far to weak?\n>\nwrong sign\n\nBest MP\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:rhOld.23089$gT3.1229960@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> "MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
> news:cn54g0$4a2$1@online.de...
>
> > Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:
> > - Cosmological Constant
> > - Chaplygin gas
> > - Quintessence
> > - String type matter
> > - Scalar fields
> > - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)
> >
>
> I assume it can't be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren't any
stars
> on the "outside" of the universe shining in.

Why would radiation pressure *accelerate* the expansion?
Positive pressure gravitates. Radiation pressure is always positive:

T = -> \rho = P1 + P2 + P3 -> \rho_act = 2 \rho >=
unless \rho < . You are not assuming that the radiation has
negative energy-density, do you?

T = trace of stress energy tensor (zero for radiation)

\rho = energy density of radiation

P1, P2, P3: three principal pressure

\rho_act = \rho + P1 + P2 + P3 = active gravitational mass-density
= "source" of gravitational acceleration. If
\rho_act > 0: decelerating universe
\rho_act < 0: accelerating universe
\rho_act = (strings): coasting universe

>
> Far to weak?
>
wrong sign

Best MP

CWatters

Nov18-04, 12:52 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message\nnews:cndhgr\\$860\\$1@online.de...\n\n> Why would radiation pressure *accelerate* the expansion?\n\nI was thinking F=M*A\n\nDoesn\'t a solar pressure powered space craft accelerate?\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:cndhgr$860$1@online.de...

> Why would radiation pressure *accelerate* the expansion?

I was thinking F=M*A

Doesn't a solar pressure powered space craft accelerate?

Sergey Ivanenko

Nov19-04, 01:28 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message\nnews:cn54g0\\$4a2\\$1@online.de...\n> Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:\n> - Cosmological Constant\n> - Chaplygin gas\n> - Quintessence\n> - String type matter\n> - Scalar fields\n> - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)\n>\n> etc.\n>\n\nIs it possible that the Universe is a rotating hypersphere and\nthe rotation (4-D rotation, i.e. rotation in two orthogonal planes) is the\n"force" that causes the Universe to expand (centrifugal forces are\n"winning" over the hypersphere\'s elasticity)?\n\n(rotation of hypersphere is mentioned, for instance, in\n"Clifford Algebras and Spinors" by Pertti Lounesto,\nhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521005515/002-9036023-6148042\nUse "search inside this book" link to search for "rotating ball" --\nyou\'ll get to the chapter "6.6 Rotating ball in R4").\n\nSergey\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:cn54g0$4a2$1@online.de...
> Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:
> - Cosmological Constant
> - Chaplygin gas
> - Quintessence
> - String type matter
> - Scalar fields
> - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)
>
> etc.
>

Is it possible that the Universe is a rotating hypersphere and
the rotation (4-D rotation, i.e. rotation in two orthogonal planes) is the
"force" that causes the Universe to expand (centrifugal forces are
"winning" over the hypersphere's elasticity)?

(rotation of hypersphere is mentioned, for instance, in
"Clifford Algebras and Spinors" by Pertti Lounesto,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521005515/002-9036023-6148042
Use "search inside this book" link to search for "rotating ball" --
you'll get to the chapter "6.6 Rotating ball in R4").

Sergey

Paddy

Nov19-04, 01:31 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message news:<rhOld.23089\\$gT3.1229960@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...\n> "MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message\n> news:cn54g0\\$4a2\\$1@online.de...\n>\n> > Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:\n> > - Cosmological Constant\n> > - Chaplygin gas\n> > - Quintessence\n> > - String type matter\n> > - Scalar fields\n> > - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)\n> >\n>\n> I assume it can\'t be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren\'t any stars\n> on the "outside" of the universe shining in.\n>\n> Far to weak?\n\nmmmm... all those stars radiating outwards, not to mention the MBR.\nThe radiation would have to interact with the vacuum in order to\nentrain it, so you\'d get a non-Hubble red shift. How strong an\ninteraction would be needed?\nIt would have to be pretty weak to have not been seen by the\nproponents of tired light.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message news:<rhOld.23089$gT3.1229960@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> "MP" <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
> news:cn54g0$4a2$1@online.de...
>
> > Almost everybody discusses it. Some think it is:
> > - Cosmological Constant
> > - Chaplygin gas
> > - Quintessence
> > - String type matter
> > - Scalar fields
> > - GR is wrong at long distances (-> MOND)
> >
>
> I assume it can't be solar radiation pressure? I mean there aren't any stars
> on the "outside" of the universe shining in.
>
> Far to weak?

mmmm... all those stars radiating outwards, not to mention the MBR.
The radiation would have to interact with the vacuum in order to
entrain it, so you'd get a non-Hubble red shift. How strong an
interaction would be needed?
It would have to be pretty weak to have not been seen by the
proponents of tired light.