| Thread Closed |
[SOLVED] any comments on astro-ph/0509230 |
Share Thread |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #18 |
|
|
[SOLVED] any comments on astro-ph/0509230
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #19 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #20 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #21 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #22 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #23 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #24 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #25 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #26 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #27 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #28 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #29 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #30 |
|
|
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 |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #31 |
|
|
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.) |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #32 |
|
|
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.) |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #33 |
|
|
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.) |
| Oct12-06, 04:30 AM | #34 |
|
|
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.) |
| Thread Closed |
