"Big Rip" has problems with Thermodynamics !

I grew up in Germany where we like for all things to be in their proper
place.
And everything has to play by certain rules eternal.
Thus I learned the laws of Thermodynamics in schools as the "10 commandments"
of
the Universe.

Now one of these laws clearly states that "the sum of all energies in a
closed system
remains constant". With the Universe being the all encompassing ultimate
"closed system",
this leads to one big problem with the current fancy about the "Big Rip".

That story about the ever ongoing acceleration of entire Galaxies, by some
account all
the way up to the speed of light, leads to the question of where all of that
energy for
this acceleration comes from?

Seriously folks. the "Big Rip" theory states that in the end all matter will
be accelerated
to the speed of light, which by itself should make it become infinite in
mass.

Now we all know how much energy it takes to speed up a little rocket booster,
so I have to ask
where all that energy to make entire Galaxies go faster and ever faster is
supposed to come from?

We are talking quadrillions of E here !!!

Pardon the top posting but my comments are pretty general here. First
of all, I am new to the group so I would like to establish my credentials so
you know how much weight to put to my words.

I have no academic credentials to speak of. I'm a failed mechanical
engineering student who never made it past first semester calculus. I have
a BS degree in Television/Radio Production and at age 36, I am now in the
finance industry (go figure). I am interested in this subject matter,
however, and try to follow it from time to time.

My point/question is does thermodynamics really have a role here or is it a
tool for analysis? It is my understanding that the CURRENT belief is that
the Universe is expanding and it will continue to expand. But as my high
school chemistry instructor put it, "Everything we know about chemistry is
wrong, but it works so we use it." The same seems true for physics. We
continue to make observations and refine our theories. We believe certain
things until new observations prove us wrong. Does the expansion of the
Universe actually have to have it's causes rooted in the Newtonian and
Einsteinian physics we currently understand? Sometimes we have to forget
what we know, then we are free to discover something new. Thanks for
putting up with my uneducated ramblings!

--
When failure is not an option, success becomes much more expensive.
(Get the blank out to reply)

"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote in message
...
"Morenga" writes:

I grew up in Germany where we like for all things to be in their proper
place. And everything has to play by certain rules eternal. Thus I
learned the laws of Thermodynamics in schools as the "10 commandments"
of the Universe.

Now one of these laws clearly states that "the sum of all energies in
a closed system remains constant". With the Universe being the all
encompassing ultimate "closed system", this leads to one big problem
with the current fancy about the "Big Rip".

That story about the ever ongoing acceleration of entire Galaxies,
by some account all the way up to the speed of light, leads to the
question of where all of that energy for this acceleration comes from?

If you begin from a false premise, you will reach a false conclusion.
In this case, you have assumed at least _FOUR_ false premises.

First of all, note that even in a purely "Newtonian" model, such an
observation would not contradict conservation of energy. By hypothesis,
"Dark Energy" generates a gravitational _repulsion_ not an attraction,
and the potential energy represented by this repulsive force is
_negative_,
not positive. The positive kinetic energy of recession is exactly canceled
by the negative gravitational potential energy of the repulsion exerted by
the "Dark Energy."

Second, you are suffering under the conceptual delusion that velocities
are
"absolute," and can be compared across a distance. However, in Relativity,
velocities are RELATIVE (hence the name!), and in the curved spacetime of
General Relativity, velocities can only be compared =LOCALLY=, not
globally,
since the "relative velocity" you get depends on arbitrary conventions of
both cosmic time and cosmic distance measurement, as well as the path you
"carry" the distant velocity-vector along to bring it to the local
velocity.
(See also http://www.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303008 for examples of why the
idea of "velocity at a distance" makes no sense in a curved spacetime.)

Furthermore, note that in their own frames of reference, =NONE= of these
galaxies sense _THEMSELVES_ as "accelerating" --- they =ALL= sense
themselves
to be in free-fall relative to the Universe, so that by their OWN
measurements,
their OWN velocity and energy are =NOT= increasing.

Finally, you falsely assume that it's possible to define a "total energy"
for the Universe; however, in General Relativity, energy density is only
one component of a 16-component tensor, instead of a scalar as in
Newtonian
physics. In a curved spacetime, there is no unique way to define the
volume integral of a single component of a tensor unless one postulates a
"preferred reference frame" (and moreover with specific properties that
the
Universe doesn't happen to have, namely that it must be static and
eternal)
so the "total energy of the Universe" is an undefined quantity in GR.
The Newtonian concept of "total energy" is only meaningful in a small
enough region of spacetime that spacetime may be approximated as "flat."


Seriously folks. the "Big Rip" theory states that in the end all matter
will be accelerated to the speed of light, which by itself should make
it
become infinite in mass.

Sorry, no. General relativity doesn't work that way. In curved spacetime,
relative velocities can only be meaningfully defined =LOCALLY=. It makes
=NO= sense to talk about the relative velocities of points separated by
cosmological distances --- see http://www.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303008.

Furthermore, the notion of "relativistically variable mass" was abandoned
a
long time ago, since it did not in any sense act like a mass, and was
merely
a stupid way of writing the energy of an object in =FLAT= spacetime ---
see
the Physics FAQ:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html.
Nowadays, we just talk about energy, and the term "mass" is reserved for
the "proper mass (AKA "rest mass") of an object, which is a RELATIVISTIC
INVARIANT.


Now we all know how much energy it takes to speed up a little rocket
booster, so I have to ask where all that energy to make entire Galaxies
go faster and ever faster is supposed to come from?

If you mulishly insist on using inapplicable and invalid flat-space
Newtonian concepts to describe a General Relativistic curved spacetime
problem, it "comes" from and is exactly balanced by the negative potential
energy generated by the gravitational repulsion exerted by "Dark Energy."
However, You would be completed wrong-headed and demonstrating your
ignorance
should you so insist on invalidly applying this obsolete Newtonian concept
that only approximately applies is small regions of nearly flat spacetime,


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

"Stryger1" wrote in
message

Pardon the top posting but my comments
are pretty general here.

Then you don't need to quote anyone, but if you
do then top posting makes it difficult to answer
your questions related to the quote. So I just
comment on your general comments.

My point/question is does thermodynamics
really have a role here or is it a tool for
analysis? It is my understanding that the
CURRENT belief is that the Universe is
expanding and it will continue to expand.
But as my high school chemistry instructor
put it, "Everything we know about chemistry
is wrong, but it works so we use it." The
same seems true for physics.

You are right here. I've been analyzing this
thing with "expanding universe" almost 20 years
ago, when I was learning general relativity and
it turned out that the universe is really not
expanding, but one can use a MODEL in which
it is expanding and almost all the observations
will be the same as if it were expanding. I'm
saying "almost" since there are a few of them
that are different for expanding and "stationary"
models.

The most important differences are conservation
of energy and "acceleration of expansion".
Neither can be accommodated by the expanding
model, and both fit naturally the stationary one.
However since it was not known that the expansion
really looks as if it were accelerating, and no
one cares whether the energy is conserved on
global scale then the expending model was
as good as a stationary one and much simpler
to explain to astronomers who are not very
good in math of which some knowledge is
needed to understand why a stationary universe
looks as if it were expanding, and why its
apparent acceleration looked accelerating.

So for the use of astronomers and astrophysicists
the universe "is expanding". But not for the use
of physicists who know enough math to do well
with a stationary model and therefore with energy
conserved on the global scale.

So basically the universe expands only because
astronomers don't understand the mechanism
of the illusion of expansion. That's also why they
never discovered it while the simple Newtonian
approximation of gravity is sufficient for that
purpose.

If you are interested in details, I described them
for those astronomers (and so without math) who
wonder why the expansion looks accelerating
while the theory of expanding universe requires
deceleration. It is in "Einsteinian Gravity for Poets
and Science Teachers" in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/gravity.htm
I'd appreciate your comments if you ever read it.

Since observations have become more precise
there may be more and more differences between
observations and the idea of expanding universe
and so it would be good if astronomers were aware
that "expansion" is only a rather primitive model of
the real situation in which the universe is stationary
but to understand why it looks expanding one
needs to learn at least high school calculus. Not
a very popular thing among astronomers as I can
see from the discussions on internet.

We continue to make observations and refine
our theories. We believe certain things until
new observations prove us wrong. Does the
expansion of the Universe actually have to have
it's causes rooted in the Newtonian and Einsteinian
physics we currently understand? Sometimes we
have to forget what we know, then we are free to
discover something new.

That's exactly true. But as I said above the Einsteinian
and Newtonian (which is actually only an approximation
of Einsteinian) physics explain much more than only
those things that contemporary astronomers can
comprehend. Luckily for theorists, so they don't need to
look for any other theory yet to explain why the
expansion is "accelerating" or why Pioneers 10 and 11
have "anomalous" accelerations, all of those observations
were already predicted by Einstein's theory (for a
stationary universe though, the one the astronomers
find difficult to understand).

If you are interested in numerical results: the Hubble's
constant predicted for a stationary model (the ratio of
redshift to distance) is c/R, where R is so called
"Einstein's radius" or c/sqrt(4 pi G rho) where G is
Newtonian gravitational constant, and rho is density
of the universe. The acceleration of the apparent
expansion is (c/R)^2/2, and "anomalous" acceleration
of space probe is predicted as c^2/R (all of those
things are observed too, with high accuracy too). So
as you can see the results are rather simple but
require some knowledge of high school calculus to
understand them and it is most likely why astronomers
still didn't discovered them (I can't think about any other
rational explanation). If you happen to know the high
school calculus (and have time too) you may check my
results yourself. They are in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm
under the title "The General Time Dilation" which is a
phenomenon, not discovered yet by astronomers (due
to their lack of mathematical skills I presume) and which
follows directly from the conservation of energy, and so
from simple thermodynamics. Which, as you can see,
still has a role in explaining the nature.

-- Jim

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 06:04:35 GMT, Stryger1 wrote:

Pardon the top posting but my comments are pretty general here. First
of all, I am new to the group so I would like to establish my credentials so
you know how much weight to put to my words.

I have no academic credentials to speak of. I'm a failed mechanical
engineering student who never made it past first semester calculus. I have
a BS degree in Television/Radio Production and at age 36, I am now in the
finance industry (go figure). I am interested in this subject matter,
however, and try to follow it from time to time.


You do have common sense, don't you?
Astronomers do not invent things they only discover stuff that is already
there,
for all of us to see.


My point/question is does thermodynamics really have a role here or is it a
tool for analysis?

It is supposed to be the basis of our Universe.
W/o these laws nothing in the flow of energies makes any sense.
Indeed even the Perpetuum Mobile would be a possibility.

It is my understanding that the CURRENT belief is that
the Universe is expanding and it will continue to expand.

"Believe" is not supposed to be a part in this.
We talk about knowing or not knowing, theory or fact.
Believe is something for Churches.


"Everything we know about chemistry is
wrong, but it works so we use it."
The same seems true for physics.

My Prof. told me that the main difference between Chemistry and Physics is
that
the later one can be explored by reasoning, while the first one has to be
traversed
via blowing stuff up all the time :-)


We continue to make observations and refine our theories.

Agree with that.

Does the expansion of the
Universe actually have to have it's causes rooted in the Newtonian and
Einsteinian physics we currently understand?

For Newton the Universe was constant.
It had to be as he had no understanding of 4th+ dimensions or space time
curvatures. In Newton's Universe objects can accellerate w/o limitations,
time is always constant, and the mass of an object never changes.

Einstein's Universe has to be dynamic (the old guy first didn't want to
accept
that one himself), as the very characteristics of an object depend on that
object's
location within the space time continuum.
For Newton, gravity was a constant force.
For Einstein, gravity itself doesn't even exist.
It is an illusion. It is the mass of an object that curves space and the
curved space
dictates to the object how it has to move.
Where Newton saw the Apple fall straight to the ground, Einstein saw the
Apple
follow the space that had been curved by the mass of Earth.

By the way, I'm unable to find my original posting. Has it been removed or is
my
News Reader at fault here?

Greetings
Morenga

"Morenga" wrote in
message

Astronomers do not invent things they only discover stuff
that is already there, for all of us to see.

They not only discover but also interpret it and many times
their interpretations have turned out wrong (e.g. it turned
out that the earth is not in the center of the solar system
as astronomers, supported by even bigger authority,
maintained; it also turned out that the universe is not
expanding, that it is another illusion) so it won't hurt if we
don't believe everything the astronomers tell us. We need
to use our own brains sometimes.

[Thermodynamics] is supposed to be the basis of our Universe.
W/o these laws nothing in the flow of energies makes any sense.
Indeed even the Perpetuum Mobile would be a possibility.

That's right, and yet there are people who maintain that energy
is not conserved because the "expansion of the universe"
prevents it (e.g. Prof. Baez, the leading force in new concept
in physics that conservation of energy can't have mathematical
representation because the "universe is expanding" -- he
apparently didn't hear the bad news).

It is my understanding that the CURRENT belief is that
the Universe is expanding and it will continue to expand.

"Believe" is not supposed to be a part in this.
We talk about knowing or not knowing, theory or fact.
Believe is something for Churches.

It is not quite so: when we don't know for sure we believe.

There is no way around it. People "knew" for about the whole
last century that the Hubble's redshift can be explained "only
by expansion of the universe", and yet it turned out that it was
a false knowledge (and therefore only a belief). It turned out
that when one starts looking into Einstein's gravity the solution
jumps out by itself. Just no physicists ever cared to understand
general relativity and it was left to applied mathematicians who
could only shuffle equations and expansion turned out to be
mathematically the simplest assumption.

This has been a good lessons in how cautious one has to
be before declaring something "knowledge" and not "faith".

Einstein's Universe has to be dynamic (the old guy first
didn't want to accept that one himself) [...]

Yet it turned out that he is the last one left laughing. And
all the applied mathematicians who called themselves
"cosmologists" are trying now to fit the accelerating
expansion into their math, hoping for miracles. They don't
even try to explain "anomalous" acceleration of the space
probes hoping that it goes away on its own. They already
admitted that "Einstein's greatest blunder", as they liked
to call it (the cosmological constant) was not even a
blunder after all. So Einstein could have really a good
laugh at their expense.

Feynman said once that in all the disputes between
Einstein and others the nature always took the side of
Einstein's. "Expansion of the universe" was just one
more example of nature being on Einstein's side (which
BTW was obvious always and would never be doubted
if not for physicists's lack of interest in gravity). See
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/feynman.htm

For Einstein, gravity itself doesn't even exist.
It is an illusion. It is the mass of an object that curves
space and the curved space dictates to the object how
it has to move.

Close but not enough. It is SPACETIME not space.

Curvature of space has very subtle role in gravity and
surely doesn't dictates to the objects how to move.
It only dictates energy how to stay conserved. Almost all
the observed movements of objects in space are due to
the simple gravitational time dilation. As the illusion of
expansion turned out to be due to the "general time
dilation".

Where Newton saw the Apple fall straight to the ground,
Einstein saw the Apple follow the space that had been
curved by the mass of Earth.

Not true. Space around the apple can be exactly as
Newton imagined it and the apple would still fall to earth.
It is gravitational time dilation that makes the apple fall
not the space. Read my "Einsteinian Gravity for Poets"
(no math to confuse the reader) in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/gravity.htm

-- Jim

You are right here. I've been analyzing this
thing with "expanding universe" almost 20 years
ago, when I was learning general relativity and
it turned out that the universe is really not
expanding, but one can use a MODEL in which
it is expanding and almost all the observations
will be the same as if it were expanding. I'm
saying "almost" since there are a few of them
that are different for expanding and "stationary"
models.


Well, according to Hawkins and even the late Einstein
himself the Universe *has* to either expand or contract.
It can not be static !
I do not dispute the notion of a dynamic Universe.
I just think that the idea of endless accelleration
for all particles is utter nonsense.
Accelleration requires energy.
Pos. Gravitational potential equals a finite amount of
energy. The inverse grav. potential as required by the
"Big Rip" theory would require infinite energy as the
acceleration never stops!


The most important differences are conservation
of energy and "acceleration of expansion".
Neither can be accommodated by the expanding
model, and both fit naturally the stationary one.

The stationary Universe is a leftover of Newtonian
views of our World. Indeed it would require some
mythical forces to keep it static.
Since the very process by which energy is "produced"
(which it is not, it just changes shape) is the "destruction"
of matter (aka its transformation into energy), this means
that the ratio of matter to energy is ever changing.
This alone prevents a static Universe, as it also influences
the very fabric of the space curvature which is governed by
that one unilateral force - gravity derived from the distribution
of matter.


needed to understand why a stationary universe
looks as if it were expanding,

Please try to explain that one to us ordinary mortals.


So for the use of astronomers and astrophysicists
the universe "is expanding". But not for the use
of physicists who know enough math to do well
with a stationary model and therefore with energy
conserved on the global scale.

How can a Universe where stars are dieng, black holes
are "removing" matter beyond their event horizon and
gravity is always there to "pull you down, but never up" be
static? The very fact that galaxies attract each other
means that only if their movements where frozen in space/time
by a mythical "broomstick force" (which they are not), could
this world of ours be static.

The Big Rip theory would be perfect for your view of the world
if not for the issue that it requieres ever ongoing acceleration.
Outdoing gravity and even relativity in the end.

So how do you counter the universal foe of "stationarism",
gravity, in your Universe?


(for a
stationary universe though, the one the astronomers
find difficult to understand).

Wrong. All Astronomers, starting with Ptolomei to young
Einstein himself, understood the concept of the static
Universe "perfectly". It was the concept of dynamics,
introduced with the Theory of Relativity, that caused to
many of them headaches (including you?).


So as you can see the results are rather simple but
require some knowledge of high school calculus to
understand them and it is most likely why astronomers
still didn't discovered

So all these Astronomers are stupid and you are the
only smart one here?


"The General Time Dilation" which is a
phenomenon, not discovered yet by astronomers (due
to their lack of mathematical skills I presume)

Quick, Jim, quick. You have to send in your papers to
the Nobel Price commitee so they can make your fame
eternal. You discovered something that neither Hubble,
Herschel or Hawkins found out about.
Not to speak of their dullwittet contemporaries.

I'll await to read about your glorification in the news


Your most humble admirer
Morenga

"Morenga" wrote in message
...
snip
By the way, I'm unable to find my original posting. Has it been removed or
is
my
News Reader at fault here?

Greetings
Morenga


It is still showing on my news reader.

"Morenga"
Message-id:

Well, according to Hawkins and even the late Einstein
himself the Universe *has* to either expand or contract.
It can not be static !

[I can't see my comment to this post of yours that I posted
yesterday so I comment again. If my last post shows up
eventually, you might see two similar posts of mine, but it
is better to have two than none, I think.]

The universe can't be "static" but can be "stationary".

The difference is basically that while in "static" nothing
moves (which is obviously not a case with our universe)
in "stationary" the objests move but the general shape
of the universe stays the same (it becomes neither
bigger nor smaller).

Contrary to popular opinion the universe may be (and
as far as our observations allow to tell, is) "stationary".

The apparent expansion is the result of interpreting
Hubble's redshift as Dopler redshift (caused by the
galaxies moving away from each other). This in turn
is caused by the poor understanding of general relativity
(or actually no understanding whatsoever) by
astronomers and so called "gravity physicists" who are
not even physicists but applied mathematicians who
apparently never learned any real physics and don't
have any appreciation of conservation of energy and so
don't mind assuming that the universe can expand even
if it violates conservation of energy, as you noticed. An
eveluation of "gravity physics" written by R. P.
Feynman is in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/feynman.htm
if you are curious about Feynman opinion about
"gravity physics".

I do not dispute the notion of a dynamic Universe.
I just think that the idea of endless accelleration
for all particles is utter nonsense.

Yet this is an observational fact. So either you accept
it as abolishing laws of thermodynamics or as an
apparent acceleration of an apparent expansion (in
other words a misinterpretation of data). Luckily for
thermodynamics, general relativity requires that in a
stationary universe there is a Hubble's type redshift
that simulates accelerated expansion. So we can
conclude that the acceleration of the expansion that
we observe, and that would violate the principle of
conservation of energy if it were real, is confirmed to
be an illusion and so the general relativity (Einsteinian
gravity) is still describing correctly what we observe
(with different metric though than proposed by
supporters of the idea that the universe is really
expanding). So practically the hypothesis of expanding
universe died with discovery that this expansion "is
accelerating". Not everybody noticed this development
though. But if you wait a while, it will start dawning on
astronomers too everntually.

Accelleration requires energy.
Pos. Gravitational potential equals a finite amount of
energy. The inverse grav. potential as required by the
"Big Rip" theory would require infinite energy as the
acceleration never stops!

I don't know what "Big Rip" theory is so I can't comment
on it, however, as I said above, since there are no
observations that require us to believe that the universe
is even expanding, we don't need to worry about
creation of energy from nothing.

The most important differences are conservation
of energy and "acceleration of expansion".
Neither can be accommodated by the expanding
model, and both fit naturally the stationary one.

The stationary Universe is a leftover of Newtonian
views of our World. Indeed it would require some
mythical forces to keep it static.

It is not "static", it is "stationary", and so it does not
require any mythical forces to stay this way. It is its
natural state.

Since the very process by which energy is "produced"
(which it is not, it just changes shape) is the "destruction"
of matter (aka its transformation into energy), this means
that the ratio of matter to energy is ever changing.
This alone prevents a static Universe, as it also influences
the very fabric of the space curvature which is governed by
that one unilateral force - gravity derived from the distribution
of matter.

According to Einsteinian gravity (general relativity) there
is no "unilateral force - gravity" at all in the universe. You
must be talking about Newtonian model that is not a right
model for cosmology since it does not have curved space
and curved space is an important thing for cosmological
applications. Newtonian "gravitational force" is not. If you
treat cosmology with Newtonian model you are bound to
make a lot of errors in your reasoning as most
astronomers already did and that's why we have this
mess with accelerating expansion considered to be real.

needed to understand why a stationary universe
looks as if it were expanding,

Please try to explain that one to us ordinary mortals.

I explained it in my "Einsteinian Gravity for Poets"
(no math, just for "ordinary mortals") in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/gravity.htp
but if you find it too long and boring the basic result
is that to keep energy conserved in the space that
contains masses the time has to run slower at the
greater distance from an observer by 1/R per unit
of distance (where R is radius of curvature of space;
there is a link to the derivation of this result over
there too for mathematically oriented readers).

Since this is also what is observed, there is no
observational contradiction of this prediction of
general relativity, we can assume that it is just
what happens in the real world (and so the laws
of theromdynamics are still working).

How can a Universe where stars are dieng, black holes
are "removing" matter beyond their event horizon and
gravity is always there to "pull you down, but never up" be
static? The very fact that galaxies attract each other ...

According to Einsteinian gravity galaxies don't attract
each other (nor "black holes are removing the matter
beyond their event horizon -- all of it are fantasies of
silly and most likely bored applied mathematicians who
don't have better things to do but to invents such things
to earn living somehow).

... means that only if their movements where frozen in
space/time by a mythical "broomstick force" (which
they are not), could this world of ours be static.

What you are saying is still a Newtonian look at the
universe. But the universe is surely not Newtonian, so
you don't need to worry about a "broomstic force".
I suggest you read the article I mentioned to update
your gravity to Einsteinian.

The Big Rip theory would be perfect for your view of the world
if not for the issue that it requieres ever ongoing acceleration.
Outdoing gravity and even relativity in the end.

As I said I don't know what "Big Rip theory" is nor what
phrase "outgoing gravity" might mean. Since Einsteinian
gravity still works without slightest problem I just stay
with it and strongly advise you to do the same.

So how do you counter the universal foe of "stationarism",
gravity, in your Universe?

What foe? There is no foe in Einstein's universe. You have
to be more precise. Are you talking again about Newtonian
"universal gravitational attraction"? It disappeared from
physics almost a century ago, so most likely before you
were even born. And you still didn't hear about it?

(for a
stationary universe though, the one the astronomers
find difficult to understand).

Wrong. All Astronomers, starting with Ptolomei to young
Einstein himself, understood the concept of the static
Universe "perfectly". It was the concept of dynamics,
introduced with the Theory of Relativity, that caused to
many of them headaches (including you?).

Not me. But I'm talking about contemprary astronomers
who still believe in existence of "attractive gravitational
force" that acts somehow at the distance, since
Einsteinian gravity with its curved space seems to them
to difficult to understand and not worth learning because
they hope it might be replaced soon by something else.
Well, I think that they are wrong and there is nothing
that can replace it since this is how the nature works.
R. P. Feynman once said that in all disputes between
Einstein and othere the nature always took Einstein's
side. Apparently it is the same case in gravity.

So all these Astronomers are stupid and you are the
only smart one here?

I'm not the only smart one. Apparently as statistics
show about 5% of astronomers don't accept the
hypothesis that the universe is expanding, and
historically the majority was always wrong about the
nature. But if 95% of astronomers interpret the
observations wrong it is not because they are stupid
but because they don't know certain things. With
even more observations contradicting the expansion
than only "acceleration" of it, and "anomalous"
acceleration of Pioneers 10 and 11, they will learn
soon enough. Because they are not stupid just they
don't have time to study every detail in physics while
their field of interest is astronomy.

"The General Time Dilation" which is a
phenomenon, not discovered yet by astronomers (due
to their lack of mathematical skills I presume)

Quick, Jim, quick. You have to send in your papers to
the Nobel Price commitee so they can make your fame
eternal. You discovered something that neither Hubble,
Herschel or Hawkins found out about.
Not to speak of their dullwittet contemporaries.

I'll await to read about your glorification in the news

Don't be silly. All those things are contained already
in Einstein's theory of relativity, I just learned it becuse
I wanted to know why so many people think that the
universe is expanding. It turned out that it isn't and it
is the end of it. Nothing more to learn about it except
what is the real metric of the spacetime. So I wrote
this metric for all who care about this issue (it is
exp(-r/R)dt^2 + 2 sinh(r/R)dtdr - exp(r/R)dr^2).

The physics and math of the phenomenon is
straightforward general relativity and if all the great
brains that you listed (with some spelling errors
though) didn't see it in Einstein's theory it is because
they were not looking for answers in it. Einstein
himself worried that his theory is left not exploited to
the end, and that people instead of trying to find out
all its predictions fantasize about their own ideas
(like expansion, black holes, and even more silly
things like time travel). I just looked for its predictions
and found out that it predicts that a stationary
universe should look as if it were expanding with
Hubble's constant c/R and acceleration of this
"expansion" (c/R)^2/2. It is too little for a Nobel prize,
not even enough to be worth published in a scientific
journal since any interested physicist can derive it in
about 15 minutes knowing that the universe is really
not expanding.

Editor of "Physical Review Letters" even told me that
as he knows his readers it wouldn't be iteresting to
them so he does not even needs to read my
derivation and form an opinion about it if he is not
going to publish it anyway :-) which is rather a sound
attitude. Saves a lot of time (and space in the journal).

Your most humble admirer
Morenga

Your patient explainer of the mysteries of nature

-- Jim

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:14:12 GMT, Stryger1 wrote:


"Morenga" wrote in message
t...
snip
By the way, I'm unable to find my original posting. Has it been removed or
is
my
News Reader at fault here?

Greetings
Morenga


It is still showing on my news reader.


thanks, must be some timeout thingy on my reader then.

Greetings
Morenga

(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in
message-id:

[Below I'm responding for Morenga who is apparently not
a physicist so he might feel intimidated by your post not
seeing its obvious problems. Or maybe he is just laughing
his head off since I doubt if he's ever seen such a pile of
nonsense in one place]

If you begin from a false premise, you will reach a false conclusion.
In this case, you have assumed at least _FOUR_ false premises.

First of all, note that even in a purely "Newtonian" model, such an
observation would not contradict conservation of energy. By hypothesis, "Dark
Energy" generates a gravitational _repulsion_
not an attraction,

But this "hypothesis" contradicts not only the Newtonian model
but also general relativity and common sense so we can dismiss
it right off the bat. One out, three to go.

and the potential energy represented by this repulsive force
is _negative_, not positive. The positive kinetic energy of recession
is exactly canceled by the negative gravitational potential energy
of the repulsion exerted by the "Dark Energy."

(The above is left only for completeness despite that it does not
contains any physics worth talking about).

Second, you are suffering under the conceptual delusion that
velocities are "absolute,"

Did Morenga said velocities are "absolute"?

and can be compared across a
distance.

Of course they can be compared across a distance.
If they couldn't we couldn't even talk about "space".
Please go and drop a brick on your foot and explain
whether its velocity changed as a function of distance
to your foot and if not than why.

However, in Relativity, velocities are RELATIVE
(hence the name!),

Please explain why they are not RELATIVE in Newtonian
physics (unless you consider Newtonian physics and
relativity to be the same thing).

and in the curved spacetime of General Relativity,
velocities can only be compared =LOCALLY=, not globally, since
the "relative velocity" you get depends on arbitrary conventions of
both cosmic time and cosmic distance measurement, as well as
the path you "carry" the distant velocity-vector along to bring it to
the local velocity.

Not if you carry it along a geodesics that happens to be only
one, so you really don't have as much choice as you think.

(See also http://www.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303008 for examples
of why the idea of "velocity at a distance" makes no sense in a
curved spacetime.)

Please go and drop a brick on your foot a few times to see if
it takes several different paths through spacetime. Two out,
two to go.

Furthermore, note that in their own frames of reference, =NONE=
of these galaxies sense _THEMSELVES_ as "accelerating" ---
they =ALL= sense themselves to be in free-fall relative to the
Universe, so that by their OWN measurements, their OWN
velocity and energy are =NOT= increasing.

Please go and drop a brick on your foot to experience this lack
of increasing energy in a brick as "by [its] OWN measurements,
[its] OWN velocity and energy [is] =NOT= increasing." It is "just"
in a free fall wrt you (and the universe). Three out, one to go.

Finally, you falsely assume that it's possible to define a
"total energy" for the Universe; however, in General Relativity,
energy density is only one component of a 16-component
tensor, instead of a scalar as in Newtonian physics. [...]

In mathematical sense a component of a tensor is a scalar.
Of course it is not invariant so if you want all scalars to be
invariant then you have to have your private math (as you
most likely have BTW).

In a curved spacetime, there is no unique way to define the
volume integral of a single component of a tensor unless
one postulates a "preferred reference frame" (and moreover
with specific properties that the Universe doesn't happen to
have,

The frame of observer is always a "preferred reference frame"
and "if you don't like this one I have also others" [Groucho
Marx]. In each of them energy has to be conserved on the
principle of conservation of energy or you'll be able to create
energy from nothing in some of those frames, which ability
you most likely don't claim. But if you do then please
demonstrate it (it may be just a gedanken experiment).

namely that it must be static and eternal).

It might be also "stationary". Please demonstrate that it is
not stationary (and remember that you just said that
velocities can't be determined at distance).

so the "total energy of the Universe" is an undefined quantity
in GR. The Newtonian concept of "total energy" is only
meaningful in a small enough region of spacetime that
spacetime may be approximated as "flat."

Spacetime is everywhere "flat". It is only space that is curved
and time that is dilated but luckily for us, both those
properties of spacetime fit themselves perfectly to keep the
spacetime "flat" (the same 4-volume everywhere). Four out,
none left standing. Sorry.

[Morenga]
Seriously folks. the "Big Rip" theory states that in the end
all matter will be accelerated to the speed of light, which by
itself should make it become infinite in mass.

Sorry, no. General relativity doesn't work that way. In curved spacetime,
relative velocities can only be meaningfully defined =LOCALLY=. It makes =NO=
sense to talk about the relative
velocities of points separated by cosmological distances --- see
http://www.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303008.
Furthermore, the notion of "relativistically variable mass" was
abandoned a long time ago, since it did not in any sense act
like a mass, and was merely a stupid way of writing the energy
of an object in =FLAT= spacetime --- see the Physics FAQ:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html.
Nowadays, we just talk about energy, and the term "mass" is
reserved for the "proper mass (AKA "rest mass") of an object,
which is a RELATIVISTIC INVARIANT.

Please go and drop a brick on your foot to experience
personally non existing "relativistically variable mass".
A theory has to be valid for =ALL= distances not only for
"cosmological". So please go and drop a brick on your foot
if you believe its mass doesn't change and so it has the same
energy at your foot as when you just dropped it and so your
foot is safe according to your theory. Let's see if what you
preach really happens in the real world. Then we talk about
Baez's theory about energies.

[Morenga]
Now we all know how much energy it takes to speed up a little
rocket booster, so I have to ask where all that energy to make
entire Galaxies go faster and ever faster is supposed to come
from?

If you mulishly insist on using inapplicable and invalid flat-space
Newtonian concepts to describe a General Relativistic curved
spacetime problem, it "comes" from and is exactly balanced by
the negative potential energy generated by the gravitational
repulsion exerted by "Dark Energy."

So now we are back to dark magic to save our "physics".

However, You would be completed wrong-headed and
demonstrating your ignorance should you so insist on
invalidly applying this obsolete Newtonian concept that only approximately
applies is small regions of nearly flat
spacetime,

-- Gordon D. Pusch

Please go and drop a brick on your foot. It might open your
eyes on gravity, variable mass, various types of energies
and in general on physics that sane people do.

-- Jim