'Big Wave' Theory Offers Alternative to Dark Energy

SPACE.com -- 'Big Wave' Theory Offers Alternative to Dark Energy
"According to the new proposition, the universe is not accelerating, as
observations suggest. Instead, an expanding wave flowing throughout
space-time causes distant galaxies to appear to be accelerating away
from us. This big wave, initiated by the Big Bang that is thought to
have sparked the universe, could explain why objects appear to be
farther away from us than they should be according to the Standard Model
of cosmology."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ternative.html

On Aug 18, 10:45*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
SPACE.com -- 'Big Wave' Theory Offers Alternative to Dark Energy
"According to the new proposition, the universe is not accelerating, as
observations suggest. Instead, an expanding wave flowing throughout
space-time causes distant galaxies to appear to be accelerating away
from us. This big wave, initiated by the Big Bang that is thought to
have sparked the universe, could explain why objects appear to be
farther away from us than they should be according to the Standard Model
of cosmology."http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090817-dark-energy-alternative....

Space expansion like space curvature has no energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Yousuf Khan wrote:

SPACE.com -- 'Big Wave' Theory Offers Alternative to Dark Energy
"According to the new proposition, the universe is not accelerating, as
observations suggest. Instead, an expanding wave flowing throughout
space-time causes distant galaxies to appear to be accelerating away
from us. This big wave, initiated by the Big Bang that is thought to
have sparked the universe, could explain why objects appear to be
farther away from us than they should be according to the Standard Model
of cosmology."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ternative.html

When a mathemtical model does not accurately predict empirical
observation it is wrong. When it only selectively fails we suspect
the math is OK but one or more founding postulates are weak. Euclid's
Fifth (Parallel) postulate is wholly insufficient. Newton's tacit
assumptions that c=infinity and h=0 were insufficient. The first blew
out in 1860, the second in the early 1920s.

The SI standard of mass is a physical artifact, Newton's G cannot be
calculated, the Standard Model arrives massless. Supersymmetry's
partners refuse to appear, protons do not decay, the Higgs mechanism
does not reveal its vector boson. Supergravity, lattice and loop
quantum gravity, and above all string and M-theory predict nothing.
Dark matter is distasteful; dark energy is much worse.

Where did physics go wrong? There is no denying Noether's theorems,
therefore... error arises where Noether is assumed but is in fact
untrue, for a footnote. Noether's two theorems, tied to Lie groups,
demand either continuous symmetries or Taylor series asymptotic to
discontinuous symmetries. Find an absolutely discontinuous external
symmetry (external so it couples to translation and rotation) and you
have your perpetrator - parity.

Or, go the other way. GR was published in 1916. By 1931 Einstein
with mathematicians French Cartan and Dutch Weitzenböck supersized GR
into teleparallel gravitation. If the postulated Equivalence
Principle is true the math collapses to GR. If not, you get the
boojum arising from angular momentum tied to... parity.

If space is odd-parity in the massed sector the vacuum is chiral not
isotropic. Massless particles will ignore it, socks (even-parity
operations) will ignore it. Shoes (odd-parity operations) can detect
it. Chiral anisiotropic vacuum will selectively bear on rotations +
translations, angular momenta and inertial moments in general such as
relativistic spin-orbit coupling, and falling shoes.

Chemically and macroscopically identical, opposite geometric parity
atomic mass distributions will not conserve angular momentum in chiral
anisotropic vacuum. They will not insert into vacuum with identical
energies nor will they vacuum free fall identicaly, left and righ
shoes on a left foot. For all that, no prior observation in any venue
at any scale having used socks will be contradicted.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Stop all the whining! Somebody should look.

Theorists boast promiscuity while empiricists pay child support.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Aug 18, 1:49*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
snip crap

chiral-schmiral

Go look in a mirror.
Is the image like a brand-new car?

Go buy a car to compensate.

Drink beer.

john

On Aug 19, 11:48*am, john wrote:
On Aug 18, 1:49*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
snip crap

chiral-schmiral

Go look in a mirror.
Is the image like a brand-new car?

Go buy a car to compensate.

Drink beer.

john

Um, you forgot: "idiot"

On Aug 19, 10:38*am, Benj wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:48*am, john wrote:

On Aug 18, 1:49*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
snip crap

chiral-schmiral

Go look in a mirror.
Is the image like a brand-new car?

Go buy a car to compensate.

Drink beer.

john

Um, you forgot: "idiot"

On the other hand, chiral is the first big
split.
When you take the spinning wheel, do you precess it
clockwise or counterclockwise?
That's a huge difference, which
I sometimes feel might be the difference
between matter and anti-matter.
But Al's just talking about molecular structure.
Yes, some of them are wonky.
Big deal.
It's the atoms that matter. I think they have not only
bilateral symmetry, but also a top and a bottom.

Because they all precess one way only.

john