[SOLVED] any comments on astro-ph/0509230


by melroysoares@hotmail.com
Tags: astroph or, comments, solved
jacob navia
#19
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#20
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#21
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#22
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#23
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#24
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#25
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#26
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#27
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#28
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#29
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

jacob navia
#30
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
melroysoares@hotmail.com wrote:
> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this
> makes sense
> Melroy
>


I am no expert but...

WHERE would the universe rotate ????????

I mean the universe is everything. To rotate it would have to have
a limit, and an enclosing body where this "rotation" could be
measured. Then the universe would not be the universe but a part
of it, since it would be enclosed in a bigger body.

Q.E.D.

Rotation makes just NO SENSE when applied to the universe, excuse me.

But I am happy that it does not rotate, of course :-)

jacob

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
#31
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
In article <1126838054.669209.8660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
melroysoares@hotmail.com writes:

> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this


I haven't yet read the paper. Here are some comments on the abstract:

> The negative pressure associated with
> a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus
> resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse
> always leads to an explosion.


Is this really a puzzle? First, the statement is illogical, for if
sometimes collapse did NOT lead to an explosion, then such cases would
probably not be noticed observationally. Second, with a supernova or
whatever the idea is that some of the energy generated by the collapse
powers an explosion whereas the stuff not carried away by the explosion
continues to collapse. Where is the puzzle here?

(If the authors are referring to THEORETICAL arguments, rather than
OBSERVATIONAL ones, as to collapse always resulting in an explosion,
then if the arguments are convincing then the theory must be well
understood, thus there can be no puzzle. If they are not convincing,
then the statement is wrong, and again there is no puzzle.)

> An indirect consequence is that the
> reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be
> possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In
> this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an
> overall steady state universe.


Forget vacuum energy, forget the steady-state universe. ANY universe
can form as a fluctuation in another universe. Unlikely? Perhaps.
However, as Penrose has pointed out many times, the standard big bang
has such a low entropy that it is more likely that the entire observed
universe arose fully formed via a fluctuation than that it evolved from
such a low-entropy big bang, at least if standard physics is all that is
involved. (Penrose does believe in the big bang, but invokes the Weyl
curvature hypothesis to explain the low entropy.) Regardless of what
one thinks of Penrose's other ideas, I've never seen a good rebuttal to
this argument; the puzzle of the low-entropy big bang seems to be
glossed over by most people.

>From the paper on dark energy stars cited (which is also by one of the

authors):

> Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real
> world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum
> mechanics.


There is an assumption here. Admittedly a common one, but an
assumption. Everyone knows that QM and GR conflict. The assumption is
that QM is absolutely true and that GR must be modified. Why not the
reverse? (Again, Penrose has championed this view, and provided at
least some plausibility arguments for it.)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
#32
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
In article <1126838054.669209.8660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
melroysoares@hotmail.com writes:

> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this


I haven't yet read the paper. Here are some comments on the abstract:

> The negative pressure associated with
> a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus
> resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse
> always leads to an explosion.


Is this really a puzzle? First, the statement is illogical, for if
sometimes collapse did NOT lead to an explosion, then such cases would
probably not be noticed observationally. Second, with a supernova or
whatever the idea is that some of the energy generated by the collapse
powers an explosion whereas the stuff not carried away by the explosion
continues to collapse. Where is the puzzle here?

(If the authors are referring to THEORETICAL arguments, rather than
OBSERVATIONAL ones, as to collapse always resulting in an explosion,
then if the arguments are convincing then the theory must be well
understood, thus there can be no puzzle. If they are not convincing,
then the statement is wrong, and again there is no puzzle.)

> An indirect consequence is that the
> reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be
> possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In
> this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an
> overall steady state universe.


Forget vacuum energy, forget the steady-state universe. ANY universe
can form as a fluctuation in another universe. Unlikely? Perhaps.
However, as Penrose has pointed out many times, the standard big bang
has such a low entropy that it is more likely that the entire observed
universe arose fully formed via a fluctuation than that it evolved from
such a low-entropy big bang, at least if standard physics is all that is
involved. (Penrose does believe in the big bang, but invokes the Weyl
curvature hypothesis to explain the low entropy.) Regardless of what
one thinks of Penrose's other ideas, I've never seen a good rebuttal to
this argument; the puzzle of the low-entropy big bang seems to be
glossed over by most people.

>From the paper on dark energy stars cited (which is also by one of the

authors):

> Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real
> world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum
> mechanics.


There is an assumption here. Admittedly a common one, but an
assumption. Everyone knows that QM and GR conflict. The assumption is
that QM is absolutely true and that GR must be modified. Why not the
reverse? (Again, Penrose has championed this view, and provided at
least some plausibility arguments for it.)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
#33
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
In article <1126838054.669209.8660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
melroysoares@hotmail.com writes:

> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this


I haven't yet read the paper. Here are some comments on the abstract:

> The negative pressure associated with
> a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus
> resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse
> always leads to an explosion.


Is this really a puzzle? First, the statement is illogical, for if
sometimes collapse did NOT lead to an explosion, then such cases would
probably not be noticed observationally. Second, with a supernova or
whatever the idea is that some of the energy generated by the collapse
powers an explosion whereas the stuff not carried away by the explosion
continues to collapse. Where is the puzzle here?

(If the authors are referring to THEORETICAL arguments, rather than
OBSERVATIONAL ones, as to collapse always resulting in an explosion,
then if the arguments are convincing then the theory must be well
understood, thus there can be no puzzle. If they are not convincing,
then the statement is wrong, and again there is no puzzle.)

> An indirect consequence is that the
> reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be
> possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In
> this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an
> overall steady state universe.


Forget vacuum energy, forget the steady-state universe. ANY universe
can form as a fluctuation in another universe. Unlikely? Perhaps.
However, as Penrose has pointed out many times, the standard big bang
has such a low entropy that it is more likely that the entire observed
universe arose fully formed via a fluctuation than that it evolved from
such a low-entropy big bang, at least if standard physics is all that is
involved. (Penrose does believe in the big bang, but invokes the Weyl
curvature hypothesis to explain the low entropy.) Regardless of what
one thinks of Penrose's other ideas, I've never seen a good rebuttal to
this argument; the puzzle of the low-entropy big bang seems to be
glossed over by most people.

>From the paper on dark energy stars cited (which is also by one of the

authors):

> Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real
> world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum
> mechanics.


There is an assumption here. Admittedly a common one, but an
assumption. Everyone knows that QM and GR conflict. The assumption is
that QM is absolutely true and that GR must be modified. Why not the
reverse? (Again, Penrose has championed this view, and provided at
least some plausibility arguments for it.)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
#34
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
In article <1126838054.669209.8660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
melroysoares@hotmail.com writes:

> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this


I haven't yet read the paper. Here are some comments on the abstract:

> The negative pressure associated with
> a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus
> resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse
> always leads to an explosion.


Is this really a puzzle? First, the statement is illogical, for if
sometimes collapse did NOT lead to an explosion, then such cases would
probably not be noticed observationally. Second, with a supernova or
whatever the idea is that some of the energy generated by the collapse
powers an explosion whereas the stuff not carried away by the explosion
continues to collapse. Where is the puzzle here?

(If the authors are referring to THEORETICAL arguments, rather than
OBSERVATIONAL ones, as to collapse always resulting in an explosion,
then if the arguments are convincing then the theory must be well
understood, thus there can be no puzzle. If they are not convincing,
then the statement is wrong, and again there is no puzzle.)

> An indirect consequence is that the
> reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be
> possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In
> this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an
> overall steady state universe.


Forget vacuum energy, forget the steady-state universe. ANY universe
can form as a fluctuation in another universe. Unlikely? Perhaps.
However, as Penrose has pointed out many times, the standard big bang
has such a low entropy that it is more likely that the entire observed
universe arose fully formed via a fluctuation than that it evolved from
such a low-entropy big bang, at least if standard physics is all that is
involved. (Penrose does believe in the big bang, but invokes the Weyl
curvature hypothesis to explain the low entropy.) Regardless of what
one thinks of Penrose's other ideas, I've never seen a good rebuttal to
this argument; the puzzle of the low-entropy big bang seems to be
glossed over by most people.

>From the paper on dark energy stars cited (which is also by one of the

authors):

> Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real
> world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum
> mechanics.


There is an assumption here. Admittedly a common one, but an
assumption. Everyone knows that QM and GR conflict. The assumption is
that QM is absolutely true and that GR must be modified. Why not the
reverse? (Again, Penrose has championed this view, and provided at
least some plausibility arguments for it.)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
#35
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
In article <1126838054.669209.8660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
melroysoares@hotmail.com writes:

> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this


I haven't yet read the paper. Here are some comments on the abstract:

> The negative pressure associated with
> a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus
> resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse
> always leads to an explosion.


Is this really a puzzle? First, the statement is illogical, for if
sometimes collapse did NOT lead to an explosion, then such cases would
probably not be noticed observationally. Second, with a supernova or
whatever the idea is that some of the energy generated by the collapse
powers an explosion whereas the stuff not carried away by the explosion
continues to collapse. Where is the puzzle here?

(If the authors are referring to THEORETICAL arguments, rather than
OBSERVATIONAL ones, as to collapse always resulting in an explosion,
then if the arguments are convincing then the theory must be well
understood, thus there can be no puzzle. If they are not convincing,
then the statement is wrong, and again there is no puzzle.)

> An indirect consequence is that the
> reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be
> possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In
> this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an
> overall steady state universe.


Forget vacuum energy, forget the steady-state universe. ANY universe
can form as a fluctuation in another universe. Unlikely? Perhaps.
However, as Penrose has pointed out many times, the standard big bang
has such a low entropy that it is more likely that the entire observed
universe arose fully formed via a fluctuation than that it evolved from
such a low-entropy big bang, at least if standard physics is all that is
involved. (Penrose does believe in the big bang, but invokes the Weyl
curvature hypothesis to explain the low entropy.) Regardless of what
one thinks of Penrose's other ideas, I've never seen a good rebuttal to
this argument; the puzzle of the low-entropy big bang seems to be
glossed over by most people.

>From the paper on dark energy stars cited (which is also by one of the

authors):

> Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real
> world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum
> mechanics.


There is an assumption here. Admittedly a common one, but an
assumption. Everyone knows that QM and GR conflict. The assumption is
that QM is absolutely true and that GR must be modified. Why not the
reverse? (Again, Penrose has championed this view, and provided at
least some plausibility arguments for it.)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
#36
Oct12-06, 04:30 AM
P: n/a
In article <1126838054.669209.8660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
melroysoares@hotmail.com writes:

> the title does look intriguing. at least the claims are very
> extraordinary.
> maybe the GR experts on this forum can shed light on whether any of
> this


I haven't yet read the paper. Here are some comments on the abstract:

> The negative pressure associated with
> a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus
> resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse
> always leads to an explosion.


Is this really a puzzle? First, the statement is illogical, for if
sometimes collapse did NOT lead to an explosion, then such cases would
probably not be noticed observationally. Second, with a supernova or
whatever the idea is that some of the energy generated by the collapse
powers an explosion whereas the stuff not carried away by the explosion
continues to collapse. Where is the puzzle here?

(If the authors are referring to THEORETICAL arguments, rather than
OBSERVATIONAL ones, as to collapse always resulting in an explosion,
then if the arguments are convincing then the theory must be well
understood, thus there can be no puzzle. If they are not convincing,
then the statement is wrong, and again there is no puzzle.)

> An indirect consequence is that the
> reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be
> possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In
> this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an
> overall steady state universe.


Forget vacuum energy, forget the steady-state universe. ANY universe
can form as a fluctuation in another universe. Unlikely? Perhaps.
However, as Penrose has pointed out many times, the standard big bang
has such a low entropy that it is more likely that the entire observed
universe arose fully formed via a fluctuation than that it evolved from
such a low-entropy big bang, at least if standard physics is all that is
involved. (Penrose does believe in the big bang, but invokes the Weyl
curvature hypothesis to explain the low entropy.) Regardless of what
one thinks of Penrose's other ideas, I've never seen a good rebuttal to
this argument; the puzzle of the low-entropy big bang seems to be
glossed over by most people.

>From the paper on dark energy stars cited (which is also by one of the

authors):

> Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real
> world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum
> mechanics.


There is an assumption here. Admittedly a common one, but an
assumption. Everyone knows that QM and GR conflict. The assumption is
that QM is absolutely true and that GR must be modified. Why not the
reverse? (Again, Penrose has championed this view, and provided at
least some plausibility arguments for it.)



Register to reply