The Laws Of Cosmology May Need A Re-Write?

No. I do not reject it, I insist that one uses the correct words to describe it.

It is completely natural to extend the best existing theory to everything, without caring about the region where it is already supported by some observation or experiment. This is not even speculation, this is simply a natural extrapolation. This is what is done if there is no evidence that the theory is false, when we can hope yet that it is true. In this case, we extrapolate without any boundary, and try to find out if the resulting picture is consistent. (In the case of GR, this technique has given the result that we obtain singularities.)

It is also completely reasonable to develop alternative theories. And, then, to try to find out what follows. Also, what follows about the very early universe. These are useful considerations, necessary to test these alternative theories. But as long as these alternative theories have no experimental confirmation, the results of such considerations are only predictions of some alternative theories, not established scientific results. So, I do not reject them, I have only objections if they are presented as established, reliable, or reasonable scientific results. They are speculations, nothing more.

I have presented arguments that it is not unnecessary. GR cannot be quantized, my ether theory of gravity can be quantized following standard knowledge how to quantize condensed matter theories. Quantization of gravity is a necessity. That my ether theory explains important properties of the SM, which are simply postulated in the SM but not explained, and which one would like to have an explanation for, is another point. If you think that an explanation of the SM is superfluous, ok, your choice, you may as well decide that modern physics is superfluous anyway.

And ignorance is not an argument.

Of course, you are known to be uneducable by scientific arguments.

A scientist says that his claims stand after evaluating the arguments made against his claims, and rejecting them with some counterarguments. You say your claims stand after ignoring everything your opponents have said. This is what makes the real difference. (And not missing education.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Full agreement. In particular I agree that inflation (in the general/technical sense of $a''(\tau)>0$ in the very early universe) is a necessity. My ether theory of gravity gives, for the particular choice $\Upsilon>0$, such an effect too, it transforms the big bang into a big bounce.

If you claim there is energy-momentum conservation in GR, it is your job to define the conserved energy-momentum density of the gravitational field and to prove $\partial_\mu(T^g_{\mu\nu} + T^{matter}_{\mu\nu}) = 0$.

You may have in mind the idea to interpret $T^g_{\mu\nu}=-G_{ij}$ as the energy-momentum tensor of gravity, in this case one has the total energy-momentum density zero because of the Einstein equations. Not really a good idea, because in this case the energy of the gravitational field in vacuum would be zero, whatever the gravitational waves flying around there.

The alternative you have in GR is a pseudo-tensor for energy and momentum of the gravitational field. Such a pseudo-tensor is nothing which allows for a physical interpretation, except if you give up the spacetime interpretation and consider one particular system of coordinates as preferred. If you suggest this way to solve the problem, fine, I will applaud.

Your point about the total energy being zero I don't understand. If the total energy of the universe is $E_0$, redefine the energy as $E-E_0$ and you will always have a total energy of the universe being zero. This changes nothing of the meaning of classical energy and momentum conservation laws, and will in particular not help you to construct a perpetuum mobile.

BTW, what do you mean with "frame" in a GR context? A tetrad field? Or simply sloppy speech for a system of coordinates?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see no necessity for that. You also are shifting the burden of proof; you claim it's not conserved, prove it. Mainstream GRT says it's conserved as long as you remain in a consistent frame. I'm not the one making the claim that's not so.

On edit: as you move from one location in a gravity field to another, you are changing from one frame of reference to another. If you fail to apply the correct transforms when doing so, energy and momentum will appear (only due to your failure) not to be conserved. This is not a defect in GRT, nor in gravity; it is a simple error in not using basic physics correctly, and not understanding what GRT says as a result.

If the universe evolved from a quantum fluctuation that by the definition of quantum fluctuations has zero energy, and we can total the observable mass-energy of the universe and when subtracted from the cosmological constant the value is zero, that's a zero energy universe, and the numbers we observe can be made to come out within error bars to that. This is fairly leading edge (at least if you call 2005 or so "leading edge," which some people apparently do) but consistent with GRT and with observation as far as we can tell.

No redefinition of the energy is required; energy is different in different frames. No change to the meaning of classical energy and momentum conservation laws is required; energy and momentum are conserved as long as you remain in a consistent frame. If you change frames without making the proper transforms to them, you will get inconsistent results but that's not an inconsistency in GRT, it's an error on your part that you didn't apply the correct transforms. No perpetual motion is suggested nor required.

Ummmm, if you're trying to do physics without defining a frame of reference you've made a very basic error. The postulates of GRT include the existence of frames of reference, and it doesn't make any sense to talk about GRT without them. In SRT inertial frames of reference are postulated; GRT provides the transforms for accelerated frames of reference (which includes frames of reference in a gravity field). In fact you can't even do classical physics without defining a frame of reference, sticking to it, and transforming anything you bring in from another frame of reference. This isn't just GRT, or even SRT; it's basic physics, period.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you are being nothing more than overly pedantic.
Again, the Universe could be said to be near infinite in extent and content, if not infinite, meaning it is at least humongously big, beyond that which we can comprehend.
In essence, I would be paying more attention to your ether and the reasons why it remains in limbo, despite your own claims of being more predictive then GR.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In fact the best that can be said for any ether, is perhaps at a stretch, GR's spacetime could be labelled as an ether.
But nice to see you havn't rejected my claim that professionals are able to reasonably logically speculate about the past, at least up to t+10-43 seconds, and forward to many trillions of years hence, when BH's have evaporated via HR and the possibility of proton decay.

And it should be glaringly obvious to a so called professional such as yourself, that GR is purely a classical theory and was not meant to be applied at the quantum/Planck level.
Again, you seem to be totally playing with semantics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They are reasonably logical speculations, formulated by professionals, based on current knowledge and certainly not pulled out of someones rear end.
Not sure why you are fighting and whining about this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are quite adapt at twisting people's words. The only inference of superfluous I have made is in regards to your ether, which it appears again I need to remind you languishes in oblivion without citations or any mention.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You appear somewhat aggravated Schmelzer, as you have been in the past when your superfluous ether has been questioned. So you stoop to your usual adhoms. Sad for someone claiming to be a Professional.
I bypassed your argument for your ether simply because I have seen it time and time again, at every opportunity that you see the need to raise it.
Quite natural I suppose in some respect, like a Mother protecting her baby.

 

A frozen star denotes a surface. A BH has no surface to contend with.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/

Nice to have read Einstein's papers, just a shame that you totally misinterprete them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW light always goes at "c" in relation to any local frame: It never slows down or stops.
And worth remembering that any light emitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away, will appear to hover there forever, never succumbing to the BH and never quite getting away.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

I have no need to apologise to Schmelzer, and even yourself, considering I have not claimed anything that is in actual error, nor have I used any adhom attack..
I have though objected to some silly pedant argument because I like using the phrase "near infinite" and of course your own totally confusing aspect re light and BH's and the crank like dismissal of reputable articles as pop science..

 

I say there is no conserved local energy-momentum tensor in GR. How do you think one can prove non-existence? You can prove existence by presenting one. I have already mentioned in my posting some possibilities and why they fail. I can use appeal to authority, for example by quoting "there is no known meaningful notion of the energy density of the gravitational field in general relativity", Wald, General Relativity, p.286. My MTW copy has no search possibility, therefore Wald.

What means "as long as you remain in a consistent frame"? I don't know any well-defined notion of a "frame" in GR. I have learned GR with a background of manifolds with charts and local coordinates, without any need for any "frames".

Then, the whole point is that the theory is diff-invariant, thus, I'm not forced to remain in one "frame" (whatever this means) but can switch to another one. All I have to do is to use the correct transformation laws for the tensor fields from one system of coordinates to another one.

If you would have an energy-momentum tensor, there would be well-defined laws how to transform them. You have none.

Define what you mean with "energy" once you claim that such a notion exists, and how it has to be transformed in case of change of coordinates.

This is not an answer. So is your "frame of reference" simply a system of coordinates or what? Of course, classical physics uses preferred coordinates, also named "frames" or "inertial frames", SR too. GR does not have any such special systems of coordinates.

 

This is part of a scientific background. Science requires accuracy, and this looks, for laymen, often like pedantism.

Nobody is interested to see that you can copypaste your own claims and ignore every criticism of them.

The reasons are well understood, scientists have to care about getting grants, and developing ether theories is actually counterproductive for this.

And as long as you name this speculation, no problem.

Nonsense. GR was developed at a time when only the beginnings of quantum theory have been developed, and it was, of course, meant to be a universal theory. It was recognized only much later that there is a conflict. And even later that it is much more plausible that in this conflict it is GR which is the loser, and not QM. And even today there are scientists who think that this can be different, and that it is quantum theory, not GR, which has to be modified.

Completely uneducable? They are not based on "current knowledge", because a theory which is not supported by any experiment is not "current knowledge", but a speculative theory. I do not speculate out of what end such speculative theories come out.

Not sure, indeed, that it makes sense to correct people who are completely uneducable, ignore completely all arguments and continue to repeat all the same nonsensical claims.

 

Science certainly requires accuracy: And while I'm certainly a lay person, I'm not a Maverick.

I ignore only your boring often repeated propaganda on the ether.

Into conspiracies again, are we?

When and where have I claimed anything else: This is no more than your personal excuse to push your ether again, by whatever means possible including pedant.

No, fact: Just because it wasn't entirely recognised in 1916 does not detract from my stated facts. More pedant I see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course they are based on the knowledge we possess so far as per the example I have already given: reputable cosmologists when speculating, are generally careful they speculate within the parameters of the current laws of physics and GR.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More stooping to adhoms and insults?
Your scientific views as well as your political views are generally not accepted by mainstream: Sadly for you, that includes your ether paper.

 

The following article, although WIKI, gives are reasonable logical chronology of the Universe, past and present, based on current knowledge, the laws of physics and GR. The future chronology gives a few possibilities based on current knowledge and known laws.
Big Rip: Big Crunch: Big Freeze:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

I repeat:
What I'm really trying to say in even more basic language, is that certainly cosmology certainly still has a long way to go but the fact that they are even able to make "educated guesses," on questions such as "how can we have something from nothing," or the Universe being the "ultimate free lunch," as well as the reasonable predictions already mentioned, means we have come a long way and can be reasonably pleased with ourselves. [ourselves being humanity in general]
In the distant past, to even ask such questions, got nothing more then blank looks, or the invoking of mythical deities, spaghetti monsters, magical Unicorns and such.
As I say, such speculative assumptions and predictions are not just pulled out of someone's rear end.

 

OK, since we're citing authorities, I'll cite Philip Gibbs who has argued this same BS you're promoting with Lubos Motl, and Motl gave up; he had an answer for the discussion, but no answer for the math. See these two blog posts:

https://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/06/energy-is-conserved/
https://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/08/energy-is-conserved-the-maths/

Gibbs shows that in fact, energy is conserved under GRT. The first one is the discussion, and the second one has the GRT math in it. Furthermore, he has published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal:

http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/81

An rXiv version is also available, for those who don't have a subscription to the above:

http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1008.0051v1.pdf

Anybody who can argue Lubos Motl to a standstill has earned respect.

This is a standard argument that Gibbs shows is incorrect using Noether's Theorem, as noted in the above references.

Right, and if you use them correctly then energy and momentum are co-conserved quantities. BTW you just agreed with me that you must transform to move from one frame to another. Just sayin'.

I'll leave that to GRT.

Sure it is. The coordinates are defined on a manifold that is not flat. The frame is not preferred or special. If the proper transforms are done, and in the case of a curved (i.e. accelerated) frame transforms must be done from point to point within the frame as well as between frames, then energy is co-conserved with momentum. See Gibbs above.

 

"The dependency on the contravariant transport vector k is left explicit. Any attempt to remove it to derive a stress tensor will destroy covariance and make the result co-ordinate dependent."

Thus, the energy-momentum tensor depends on something else, a new field named "transport vector". Which is not a physical field, at least in standard GR. Of course, an illustration of Kretschmann's objection against the thesis that covariance means something physical - every physical theory allows a covariant formulation. So, the pseudotensor also allows a covariant formulation. Which, unfortunately in this case, includes additional (physical?) fields.

Been there, done this. http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/08/argumentation-about-de-broglie-bohm.html

 

If you would ignore it, it would be fine.

No, simply repeating the standard, already well-established counterargument against your repetition of long refuted nonsense. Well established because you have never presented any reasonable objection. Except crying "conspiracy", which is obviously nonsense.

No. You cannot speculate using GUTs as the basis and do this "within the parameters of the current laws of physics". Because the GUTs are not "current laws of physics". They could be, at best, a current favorite fashion among the speculative theories currently considered. (But in fact they are not even fashionable today.)

There are types of behavior where adhoms and "insults" become a reasonable and rational reaction. The pattern of behavior you show here, in a regular way - ignorance of any arguments about the content, followed by repetition of the claims which have been refuted, with "my claims stand" and "pedant" as the only justifications, is a pattern which, after some time, makes a repetition of the content arguments meaningless. So, one can leave the refuted claims unanswered (which is what you would like) or one criticized this type of behavior - which is, of course, ad hominem. And which you will consider as insulting, even if the criticism is objectively correct.

As long as those who do not accept my views don't give any good arguments, I couldn't care less.

 

The most basic flaw in arguing for some exact global cancellation between matter+radiation and 'gravity' ('zero-energy universe') is imo that there is no gravity i.e. gravitational field on a homogenized basis. That is, suppose all matter+radiation were completely uniformly dispersed as a gas. There would be a minor overall energy adjustment needed to account for the extractions from local gravitational potentials owing to local inhomogeneities, but otherwise this would not materially alter the dynamics of cosmic scale expansion. But would make it nakedly clear there is no global 'gravitational field' in any sense that could be ascribed an energy density to. As there is then neither a 1st or 2nd derivative of a fapp utterly flat spatial metric. And in all attempts at ascribing a GR pseudo-tensor energy density to the grav field (of massive bodies or GW's), it's the 1st derivative that must be used - i.e. what is commonly thought of as basically a Newtonian style g-field. Such calculations necessarily work from some arbitrary preferred frame, but for the universe the only sensible 'preferred frame' is where locally the CMBR is uniform. And there is NO 'gravitational field' to work with! It's true there is an effect of mutual gravitational attraction - it provides in GR the negative component of evident overall accelerated expansion.

I once favourably quoted articles by Gibbs as 'strong argument' that GR was fully consistent with energy-momentum conservation both locally and globally. But that was back then. His claim of zero energy universe rests in part on associating an energy density with that negative acceleration component of expansion parameter a. Thus the 'negative energy overall balancer'.
Sorry, nice try but there is no field there, so nothing to hang a real energy density on. Fact is the universe seems to have been born with an enormous positive net energy content, which owing to the radiation component's cosmic redshifting, has been steadily declining since the time dot. Sample any region in the homogenized universe, and a net positive value emerges - small but positive. The question of 'DE' is a little delicate and elsewhere I have pointed to it's resolution via a theory other than GR, but there are other contenders and nothing settled. At any rate, the currently preferred position has DE posessing a positive energy density (though negative pressure), which thus could not aid the 'zero-energy universe' camp re above.

 

If it isn't indulging in unsupported conspiracy nonsense, then the inference is just plain downright insulting...take your pick.

You appear to have that somewhat arse up.
The relationship between electricity and magnetism can be the basis [along with other known data] to formulize GUT, and finally the Superforce,

Rather ironic since since the reason why I am ignoring your ether claims is due to the repetitious nature of you trying to elaborate on it at every opportunity.

I may only be a lay person Schmelzer, and I may not be competent enough to invalidate your ether hypothesis equation by equation, but again, if it did all you say it does, it would not be languishing in oblivion among thousands of other uncited papers.
You could be lining up for this year's Nobel for physics I would imagine.
I suppose though given your extreme political views that your"couldn't care less" is understandable.

 

OK, let's try Einstein then.

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/63

Titled, The Law of Energy Conservation in the General Theory of Relativity. I found it fairly compelling.

At the end of the exposition, Einstein says:

Putting this in context, Einstein's interpretation of the energy theorem is:

You will find this on the first page of the paper.

That pretty directly contradicts your claim. Are you saying Einstein was wrong?

As for the transport vector, as noted on page 6 of the linked paper, Gibbs 2010,

Emphasis mine. The transport vector is a choice of frame; but the relation is frame-independent. You can choose any convenient frame.

Which is sort of what I've been trying to tell you for several posts now.
.

 

And one more thing, Schmelzer: with respect to frames of reference and GRT, it is incorrect to claim that GRT doesn't have frames of reference. It does; it's just that they're curved, not rectilinear like the inertial frames in SRT and classical physics. The EFE defines just exactly how they are curved by defining the frame of reference on a manifold that has non-zero curvature; but even if it's curved, it's still a frame of reference, just on a curved manifold rather than a flat one. You can use the curvature of the three terms on the left side of the EFE (I think the Einstein tensor takes away from understanding of the EFE, personally, though it certainly makes it all easier to calculate with, so I generally avoid the form of the EFE using that tensor) to define the curvature of the stress-energy tensor on the right side.

Though I can see why you'd like to avoid admitting that.

 

About my statement "The reasons are well understood, scientists have to care about getting grants, and developing ether theories is actually counterproductive for this." (Or so it seems.)

This is sociology, we have the organization of science we actually have, I do not think or claim that there was any bad intention creating it. But, once we have it, those who do not care about getting the next grant, will be out of work after the actual grant is finished, and as taxi drivers they will not have much time to develop science. So, if they want to remain scientists, they have to care about getting grants. Where is the conspiracy, you know, the hidden gang who plans some wrongdoing? There is none. There are successful scienctist, those who have gotten their power based on their previous success, who distribute the grants. They think that their own direction is the best - else, they would start doing something different themselves. So they give the grants to those who want to develop their own proposals. Also no bad boys conspiring against scientific truth, simply people who think this is the best for finding truth. So, no bad wrongdoers involved, everything reasonable given the conditions we live in. So, also no insult.

LOL. Crying "insult" and then this.

You are not ignoring them. Unfortunately. You repeat nonsensical arguments against the ether. Remember, ignorance is not an argument.

No. Given the actual way science is organized, not only the ether, but every new idea needs a large portion of luck, namely 1.) that there is somebody brave enough to develop such a new idea, despite the obvious danger of getting no grant at all, 2.) the support of some establishment scientist with a save enough (permanent) position who is able to give grants for something new and finds the idea promising.

 

The question is: Is your "frame of reference" something different from a system of coordinates? If not, it is an unnecessary doubling, and, moreover, confusing. Confusing because "frames of reference" usually (say in SR) refer to some special systems of coordinates (like inertial frames). If yes, then give the definition.

You think I'm afraid of contradicting Einstein? LOL. No problem. The Einstein tensor is the same pseudo-tensor. What is claimed is that this pseudo-tensor can be, nonetheless, used to define valid integrals at infinity.

Unfortunately, this does not work. It works only if you make "reasonable" assumptions about the coordinates near infinity. Einstein restricts himself to the case where the coordinates remain unchanged outside a sphere. One can also prove the same theorem for moderate changes of coordinates near infinity. But not for general systems of coordinates. If you, say, replace the coordinates with $r' = \ln r$ or $r' = e^r$ or so, the same Einstein pseudotensor gives very different global energies. This has been shown by Logunov and coworkers. (Note that not all criticism of GR made by this group is correct, most of it is wrong, so my reference is no support of the position of this group about GR, but this point was correct and also not questioned by those who have defended GR against these attacks.)

Tell me at first how you define a frame. Or it is simply a system of coordinates, or it is some covector field, or a contravariant vector field, or a tetrad field, or something completely different ....

After this we can start to talk about the physical meaning of some expression which defines, for each vector field, some tensor field.

 

It isn't out of context. I have learned something. Why don't you read this Baez article :

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

 

No it doesn't. The NASA article refers to gravitational red shift. It goes infinite.

I don't. The guy said what he said. Don't kid yourself he said something different just because it doesn't match some popscience garbage you've been reading.

Only Einstein said the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable. Who are we to believe, Einstein or popscience paddoboy?

Yes, because at the event horizon the speed of light is zero. Not because space is falling down. The waterfall analogy is garbage.

You have claimed things that are in actual error, such as the waterfall analogy. And you have used ad hominems. What do you think crank-like constitutes?