Void Theory vs. Acceleration: Expert Commentary and Refutations

[heldervelez]

Mr Vanadium you are directly accusing me of "leveling a very serious charge against Clifton, Ferreira and Land, that of academic dishonesty. You are arguing that they are drawing conclusions based not on their calculations and inference as they claim but instead based on their religious beliefs."

Read again my words and tell me where did I said directly or indirectly anything like that.

I am conscious that I did not. Don't you remember that I've said that the calculations could be OK?

But I realize that "The position of a special place for Earth (and Humankind) is convenient to religion positions. And Religion must deal with different issues not those of Physics."
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21)

I do praise that people act in accord with profound convictions. This is good because they are in "good faith". I do expect a "natural bias" could exist. We are humans.

I do recognise that ilustrious academists have been under the protective 'wing' of Catholic Church, and other religions.
May be you do not know that Galileu Galilei was protected by the Church. The http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10121999_history_en.html" has more than 40 Nobel Prizes.
And has members from the whole religious spectrum including atheists. The Vatican has one of the bests Optical observatories in the world.

The Science and Religion have different objectives, 'truths' and metodologies.
Why religion has a scientific agenda?
Maybe the answer is not to be pursued is this tread but in another forum.

 

[Peter Watkins]

Whatever works is fine with me. So far I've seen nothing that works better than the mainstream model that does not suffer a fatal deficiency [e.g., observational evidence that refutes the alternative model more thoroughly than the mainstream model]. The beauty of the mainstream model is its robustness in the face of unexpected, new observations. While not complete, it is not fundamentally flawed [IMO].

There are none so blind as those who will not see

 

[yogi]

Much enjoyed reading the speculations posted by marcus - particularly those dealing with the concept of self sustained expansion persistence - something that i have personally gravitated to in recent years after being firmly convinced that the slowdown predicted by the Friedmann q = 1/2 model was correct. In fact, I have recently mused whether gravitational mass has any effect at all upon expansion rate - but only clumping of matter. More specifically whether it makes more sense to consider G as an independent Volumetric expansion driven - or sustained by, Minkowsky's spacetime. More in keeping with the notion that galaxies are wafted apart due to the uniform dilation of space except where they are close enough - and massive enough, to be attracted to one another with a force (curvature) that overcomes their cosmological spatial conveyor.

 

[bigfailedbang]

The problem with the big void of smaller density leading to apparent dark energy term is that we have to be very close to the center of the void, otherwise everything will look anisotropic. Being close to the center is HIGHLY improbable, much more improbable than being in a void at all.

More popular is the other theory that the dark energy is apparent due to the cumulative effects of the light passing through many voids. That avoids the need for us to be in a center of a spherical void. Supporters of that hypothesis have a hard time proving it since the process of matter density averaging is not defined in GR at all. It's not clear how the true metric irregular on small scales but without dark energy leads to the averaged smoothed out FRW metric with dark energy. Depending on how you define the averaging process, you will get different expressions for the apparent dark energy term. The problem is the averaging process in GR can't be defined in a coordinate independent way.

You've been thoroughly refuted here: http://physicsforums.tk

The Big Bomb never happened, and if you want more evidence to show that that is a beloved theory of crackpots, look http://gravity.tk" .

 

[Chronos]

You've been thoroughly refuted here: http://physicsforums.tk

The Big Bomb never happened, and if you want more evidence to show that that is a beloved theory of crackpots, look http://gravity.tk" .

Perhaps you are unaware of the three pillars of BB theory. Your links are cranky.