PhysBang

I think it should be fairly obvious that this book is stunningly premature. The author is claiming to have a theory of everything but cannot yet do the basic mathematics that we would use to verify that his theory meets today's basic physics. Frankly, this book is the physics equivalent of a Nigerian scam. The author goes on the internet promising a stunning reward for a little cash investment, but there is nothing to deliver.

I have a question: Can you give us a description, in standard SR inertial reference frames, of what happens during pair production?

Because no theory of stellar nucleosynthesis can account for the presence of hydrogen or the relative abundance of hydrogen to helium,

This is one of the least offensive posts in this thread! Let's take a look at a really offensive sentence: What is "Lagrangian-like" about the configuration of any elements of the galaxy? Is it that there are elements of the galaxy that are arranged in a circle? Is it that elements of the galaxy are between other galaxies? The poster doesn't actually say. Rather than address any actual data or any actual scientific work on the objects in question, the poster simply presents a theological pronouncement on the objects in question and uses this in some sort of sophistic presentation of what is not even an alternative to traditional gravity theory. This is something that is not even wrong. The poster tells an untruth by saying that, "The point of this thread is to determine (to show) exactly what that mechanism [for organizing gravitating bodies] is and why it is so important, not just for astronomy, but for cosmology and physics in general." This is a lie because the poster is obviously not interested in discussing the actual evidence of what the actual organization is. Rather, the poster wants to tell us what we should think the organization is and then use this in a sophistic presentation of a hypothesis about the universe as a whole and gravity specifically. If the poster could address UncleAl's pertinent questions, then I will retract this claim. However, this will not happen.

Actually, the theories that you are talking about do use evidence. Just very little evidence. The point of the article is that eventually the great amount of evidence we have access to now will be gone. (The article comes about ten years too late, but since the evidence won't disappear for millions if not billions of years, it's not all that important.)

He trots out the same BS on board after board. This board doesn't really have any moderation, so he doesn't get summarily dismissed for outright lying that he will do some actual science.

More factual errors, quote mining, and pithy sayings. Creationists the world over marvel.

Certain kinds of inflation support certain kinds of "seed" inhomogeneities and certain scalar indexes of inhomogeneities (roughly how inhomogeneous the universe is a certain scales). Still, one can have inhomogeneities without inflation. One just needs to posit them as initial conditions (as opposed to positing the conditions necessary for an inflation field as initial conditions).

Indeed, the idea that there is some sort of finely tuned stability or balance in the solar system or the galaxy is pure fantasy. You can find this idea in much of coldcreation's writings, if you care to look. It is an integral part in his fantasy about the cosmological constant and Lagrange points. But it honestly is not worthwhile taking the time.

So this is your theological point. Excellent.

So, essentially your position is that the new cosmological constant keeps all the mathematics of the old one, and even has actual measurements to back it up, but it lacks the value of symmetry that is part of your theology?

How can you accept the C-field, which uses the cosmological constant, but throw out the cosmological constant? Your refusal to actually learn the basic mathematics of the theories that you trash because they are generally accepted or laud because they are not generally accepted is embarrassing.

Yes, every time someone points out how Arp's evidence always withers away as soon as any further research is done on any of his examples, it's part of some vast conspiracy against the work of a number of scientists who, unlike those actually employed to do cosmology, actually do have scientific standards. Hoyle put forth a number of theories throughout the years, all based on a variety of principles that are not consistent with those of other models, none of which have met with as much success as the standard relativistic model. Yet to point this out is to ally oneself, supposedly, with the vast conspiracy of sub-standard scientists.

And what about k-correction?

I'm sorry, I missed some of the preliminaries on the equation that indicated the calculation for DL. However, don't the K-corrections to the supernova observations take into account flux changes due to redshift?

I'm not sure what the point of that was. The standard model doesn't use equation (1).

Given Arp's absolutely abyssmal track record, why do people keep invoking him? Seriously, the guy doesn't actually have an alternative explanation and his key examples keep folding whenever a better telescope is aimed at them. Gravitational lensing shows that there are two possible cases: a) all quasars are at their redshift distances, or :eek_big: some quasars are at their redshift distances and there is another class of quasars that look exactly like the other quasars that have an anomalous redshift. The only reason one has for believing in option ;) is to carry a torch for some extremely hypothetical idea with no actual evidence.

But does this error corrupt the entire sample? Are the same techniques used in the Virgo Cluster the same techniques used for all SNe Ia? Does the error affect the measurement of the second derivative or just the first? Sure, aside from observed homogeneity, measurements of the Hubble parameter, observed element abundances, measurements of parameters from large-scale structure, and measurements from the SNe Ia, it has no evidence. Hunh? But not to actually do science yourself? Why don't you get involved and do the work yourself?

This doesn't tell me anything about the degree of error in these observations or the effect of this error. I really do not understand. Surely not all the SNe Ia observed were in the Virgo Cluster. What is the relationship between this cluster and the sample of supernovae observed? It was not expected, but it was one of the things that the observation was able to measure. It influences the second derivative of the scale factor, which was the target of the observations. Sure, but is this based on the actual evidence about these events? Is that a long way of saying that you don't have a physical theory upon which to base your criticisms?

Bra - f'n - vo!

Perhaps you can explain how something can be both a constant of nature and equal to zero everywhere. I think I'll develop an "angel constant" and claim that it is a true constant of nature that is zero everywhere. Indeed, it is very similar, since there are applications for temperature below absolute zero. So what you are saying is that you want to introduce a totally new concept, give it the same name as an existing constant (or the purposes of confusion?) ? A concept that goes against the existing well established laws of physics that use terms like "negative pressure" and has no conceptual or empirical support behind it? They aren't very good entries, but what can one expect from Wikipedia? The negative pressure of the cosmological constant is associated with the basic mathematics of general relativity. Yes, it's very weird if one does not address it in the actual scientific terms but instead dresses it up for a pop audience. Sure. But what does the actual physics say? The term "dark energy" arises because it's a new cosmological idea to popular science journalism. That this cosmological behaviour is related to negative pressure is something that can be measured. You even linked to a study that was all about trying to determine the equation of state of this energy density, and that determines the pressure! It is forgivable in the sense that we can forgive him for removing a part of the mathematics of his theory without good grounds. That doesn't mean that every scientist should ignore the empirical results regarding this part of the theory. If you would read through the mathematics of the theory, you would see that there is nothing to negative pressure in this case that isn't forced by Einstein's mathematical theory. What about the applications of negative pressure listed in the wikipedia article that you linked to? Are the technologies based on these principles not actually operating?

What does this have to do with SNe Ia observations? What are the distances and redshifts involved? What does this have to do with SNe Ia observations? What are the distances and redshifts involved? Do you have any actual physical theory to back up this opinion? Can we see this physical behaviour in a toy model? Can we produce any guess as to its magnitude?

His model has the cosmological constant already built in. Just no matter.

Again, that metric is the one that is proved to not be static, as the static coordinates do not cover the entire space.

An yet, despite their distaste for dark energy, all these astronomers embrace dark energy. They do this because without knowing it`s specifics, they know it is there. To say otherwise would be to ignore the evidence.