Measuring the curvature of spacetime

Get a clue. Your discussion is incoherent. The cosmological constant is vacuum energy. Not curvature. Like all other matter GR predicts it contributes to the local spacetime curvature. It's the driver for the global acceleration of the expansion of space. Get it SPACE? Not spacetime. The SPACE between gravitationally bound systems doesn't expand. The cosmological expansion of the universe is global. The discovered acceleration of this expansion is a component of the global expansion. Why are you pretending to be interested in physics. So far you've shown you're a scientific illiterate with respect to modern cosmology and physics in general. You should quit embarrassing yourself. This is what I think of you. You're the crank who seems to need to ridicule famous scientists. Act like you know more about the science. You're just a crank with a self esteem issue. Can't reach any other conclusion. Go air your dirty laundry someplace else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Danshawen;

See, I do not support these DM / DE stuff, but the way they are theorized must be clearly understood. DM interacts gravitationally with matter, so certainly it will distort the spacetime.

On the other hand DE, if you take the same as einstein's cc, then please note that it appears along with the structure of the spacetime, not as a part of the matter/energy affecting curvature of the spacetime. Nonetheless mathematically its value is theorized to be positive, so if at all it can affect the curvature, then it will be opposite of what matter/energy would do. So effectively (if at all you must) you can say that it causes curvature in the negative direction, the same argument can be arrived by understanding DE as negative pressure / negative energy.


PS : I do not subscribe to this animal called DE, the way it is theorized as on date.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not bad, because your argument appears offhand, still you may google about flat/open/close shapes of the universe, that will give you an idea that minimum curvature value need not be zero...it can be negative..

If Ω = 1, the universe is flat
If Ω > 1, there is positive curvature
if Ω < 1 there is negative curvature

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First and foremost I am never scared of anything, and secondly I don't make mistakes, yours and few others inability to decipher what I say, does not make me wrong.

It is just that it is pointless to discuss maths with Paddoboy, admittedly he does not understand even the basic algebra, so on the same footing so far you have not been able to convince me that you would understand any metric maths, just copy pasting some manifold terminology does not establish that, paddo also throws technical terms (see how is struggling with chromatic / achromatic beyond dictionary meaning)...You failed on that a priori - a posteriori argument, after that you failed by sticking to that yellow image which incidentally was establishing Newtonian rather than curved spacetime, if you are not trolling then your last few posts shows that you do not understand notion of straightlines in curved spacetime, you could not respond to those relevant four points.....so please establish that you can really understand the maths of metrics, I am game after that.

 

Danshawen,

You are BS in physics and then telecom engineering. You know very well that at undergarduate level itslef the formal education of calculus would involve, limits, differentiation, integrations, definite integrations, their applications, differential equations and partial differential equations atleast upto second order..........the question is can you realistically learn these at a later stage of your life if you have no formal education ?

There are few here on this subforum, who have admittedly no formal education of maths / Physics and still they call others cranks and what not.....I don't call them cranks, I call them ignorants, my objective is to remove a bit of their ignorance. I am succeeding, at the cost of getting very high marks from James.


Edit : After Paddoboys, later post.

BS here refers to 'Bachelor of Science', not that BS which Paddoboy understood...

 

The correct term is an open Universe, which of course is not evident at all.
According to all evidence so far, particularly WMAP, we live in a flat universe to within very tiny error bars.
Before those results were available, we were thought to live in a closed universe.
And as usual anyway, you have missed entirely the point of the question.

 

And it has been proven many times that you are also.

Formal education which I doubt you have anyway, counts for naught, when you have an anti science agenda, and are burdened with the medical condition known as delusions of grandeur.
If anyone has called you a crank, it is because that's what you are: Its as simple as that. This forum has some very perceptive contributors that are not taken in by your generally flowery bullshit, as per complicating the previous question.
And of course the usual total dishonesty shown by claiming you have not called anyone else a crank. Perhaps you believe that your's are the only posts anyone ever reads? There has to be some legitimate reason for such naivitey and general stupidity.

 

No, you are certainly wrong many times, as most have noted, and anyone making the claims that you do, either does it to purposely get a raise out of posters, or you have a severe medical condition.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I speak of scientific facts and theories as held by mainstream, not some agenda driven god delusion, while at the same time you are playing games to reinforce your delusions and general quackery.
In essence as shown by most of your posts, particularly those accusing others of "running away"or being "scared" you exhibit a childishness most times evident in pre-school kindergartens.

 

Obviously you are troubled in understanding such concepts as DM and DE, as you are evn unable to understand correctly BH's.
But yes, DM certainly interacts gravitationally, a common point very well known by even amateurs such as yourself, and of course me..

DE is actually a constant force best described in the following.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...oes-dark-energy-make-the-universe-accelerate/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Near all on this forum do not subscribe the quackery and nonsense that you like to post in the guise of science.
[please see my two tutorials and the inane attempt by you to invalidate]

 

Here's a paper on a professional's thoughts on DE......Äctually my preference for what its worth.....
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.3966v3.pdf
Abstract:
The expansion of the observed universe appears to be accelerating. A simple explanation of this phenomenon is provided by the non-vanishing of the cosmological constant in the Einstein equations. Arguments are commonly presented to the effect that this simple explanation is not viable or not sufficient, and therefore we are facing the “great mystery” of the “nature of a dark energy”. We argue that these arguments are unconvincing, or ill-founded.

CONCLUSION
First, the cosmological constant term is a completely natural part of the Einstein equations. Einstein probably considered it well before thinking about cosmology. His “blunder” was not to add such a term to the equations: his blunder was to fail to see that the equations, with or without this term, predict expansion. The term was never seen as unreasonable, or ugly, or a blunder, by the general relativity research community. It received little attention only because the real value of λ is small and its effect was not observed until (as it appears) recently. Second, there is no coincidence problem if we consider equiprobability properly, and do not postulate an unreasonably strong cosmological principle, already known to fail. Third, we do not yet fully understand interacting quantum field theory, its renormalization and its interaction with gravity when spacetime is not Minkowski (that is, in our real universe). But these QFT difficulties have little bearing on the existence of a non vanishing cosmological constant in low-energy physics, because it is a mistake to identify the cosmological constant with the vacuum energy density. As mentioned in the introduction, it is good scientific practice to push the tests of the current theories as far as possible, and to keep studying possible alternatives. Hence it is necessary to test the ΛCDM standard model and study alternatives to it, as we do for all physical theories. But to claim that dark energy represents a profound mystery, is, in our opinion, nonsense. “Dark energy” is just a catch name for the observed acceleration of the universe, which is a phenomenon well described by currently accepted theories, and predicted by these theories, whose intensity is determined by a fundamental constant, now being measured. The measure of the acceleration only determines the value of a constant that was not previously measured. We have only discovered that a constant that so far (strangely) appeared to be vanishing, in fact is not vanishing. Our universe is full of mystery, but there is no mystery here. To claim that “the greatest mystery of humanity today is the prospect that 75% of the universe is made up of a substance known as ‘dark energy’ about which we have almost no knowledge at all” is indefensible. Why then all the hype about the mystery of the dark energy? Maybe because great mysteries help getting attention and funding. But a sober and scientifically sound account of what we understand and what we do not understand is preferable for science, on the long run.-
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

BS = Bachelor of Science
BS = Bull Sxxt

Obviously you have no clue about the first one.

 

And you obviously are proficient in the second one.

 

Thats your ignorance....

 

No, that's your bullshit!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In fact my lack of ignorance and perception has finally dragged you out of the closet and revealed your previous identity.

 

Ignored....
You must be having nightmares about your earlier screwer......you remember him almost invariably when you get cornered...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all...Didn't give it a second thought and the continued reasonable conversation since that, has reinforced my opinion even more.
Still it must be somewhat of a change for you so I'll not dampen your spirit too much more.

 

The space between gravitationally bound galaxies sometimes red shifts (recedes from us) sometimes blue shifts (gets closer, like Andromeda) but the further away from each other they are, the larger the redshift magnitudes. That's what the Hubble constant is all about.

This is some pretty basis astrophysics you don't understand.

I don't mind you coming here to learn. So do I, but I got an A in a college level astronomy course where we used calculus and analyzed red shifts. You are the one claiming authority about science you don't understand. What sort of person is that?

 

So, you seem to be saying, that the DE accelerations detected in the type 1A supernova populations are from a new force previously unknown to science, and so therefore GR's principle of equivalence and the curvature that would otherwise go along with acceleration/gravitation just takes a timeout or a holiday, right?

Do you have any idea, this is almost as bad as superstition? The only difference is, you are doing the same thing superstition does but using the terminology and a few of the tools of science to tell your story. Do you understand what a "Cargo Cult' is?

You are both practicing Cargo Cult Cosmology and passing it off as if it were mainstream, which is something else the Fabulous Furry Bogdan Brothers were famous for. I knew they would somehow find themselves an online venue somewhere, probably under assumed names, and perhaps originating in different countries. So, what's yout next act, boys?

 

This might be right. You may lack the self-understanding to properly evaluate your own behavior and competencies. Regardless, you still have not provided the evidence for your claims. Where is the math?

We all understand what you say. You have made a number of mathematical claims that you still have not provided evidence for. So, again, let's see the mathematical proof for the mathematical claims that you have made.

If you are not scared and you understand this field, then you should have no problem providing the mathematical proof.

Who cares about paddoboy? I have a math degree and I have taken graduate courses about General Relativity. So have others here. So many people here will be able to see your proof and properly understand and judge it.

So, too, will we be able to judge your continued refusal to provide this proof.

The evidence so far seems to indicate that you have cut and paste so. Let's see your mathematical proof for your mathematical claims.

No, I used those technical terms correctly. Determining the mass of the sun is an a posteriori enterprise. If you think that the mass of the Sun is something that one can determine without evidence, then you are peddling mysticism, not physics.

I have never said anything about any image. This is the second time that you have directly lied about me.

You may lie about me, but those lies do not produce a mathematical proof for your mathematical claims. People who read this thread will know that you would rather lie than produce a proper argument for your position.

Forget about what I can and can't understand. Let's see your proof. If your proof works, then other readers will see that it works.

Otherwise, you can go back to dodging the question and lying. Then other readers can judge you accordingly.

 

Just to remind everyone, we're all friends here. Some of us, not so close as others, but please be respectful and considerate to one another. If I have learned nothing else here, it is that is possible to learn from mistakes, and that includes our own as well as the ones others may make.