Thursday, August 17, 2006

Back to "Square-One"

I knew that this was going to happen. I commonly get into discussions with people on both sides of the ideologic spectrum, which **shouldn't*** have anything to do with science, but I try to face any obviously motivated questions with the facts as I can support them, (along with an occassional shot at their motivated mentality, which I don't do if I can't show evidence for it), figuring that this should be enough to satisfy whatever requirement for scientific integrity. Apparently that isn't good enough though, because I commonly find that what I've said was simply ignored in lieu of a better answer. That's not science, it's willful denial, and there is no "opinion" involved, so we're going to do this a little differently from now on:

1) Shoot this down or face the music.

In Einstein's static model, G=0 when there is no matter.

The cosmological constant came about because we do have matter, but in order to get rho>0 out of Einstein's matter-less spacetime structure, you have to condense the matter density from the zero pressure metric, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0, which causes expansion.

*Note that the background changes everytime that you do this.

It is plainly evident from this that most natural way to create new matter in Einstein's model, ("the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity"), also holds it flat and stable, so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his finite universe without this knowledge are therefore subject to suspect review!

Theorists don't always get my meaning here, and they automatically think that I'm referring to our current understanding of the quantum vacuum, but that isn't even necessary if in 1917 Dr. Einstein tells Friedmann, DeSitter and "company" that his finite expanding model is NOT unstable, because, like Hoyle's flawed steady-state model, Einsteins universe expands due to continuous particle creation, except that Einstein actually has a built-in mechanism for this!

So where does it go from here if we are unable to disprove Einstein's finite closed spherical universe, given this "new-light" on the subject?... which no honest physicists has ever even tried to do.

2) Add the anthropic principle to this finite, closed, bounded structure and what you get is a very strong statement about biocentric structure that "evolves" perpetually forward to higher orders of entropic efficiency.

Don't hand me ANY crap unless you can disprove number one, or, failing that, don't forget that it is the default cosmological model with all the ugly trimmings, until you do.


Fab said...

Hey, I was just reading through my blog comments and was quite flattered someone who is obviousyl as smart as you would give such a nice comment to me about my anthropic principle article.

Love the sciene. Just wish I understood some of this stuff more ;) Will continue to read.

island said...

Hi Fab, thank you.

I was very impressed by your treatment of the anthropic principle. The only reason for this particular post is because things have gotten a might too political around here lately. People don't do the kind of research that you did before deciding that they can irrationally harbor their ideologically slanted opinion, while accusing me of doing basically the same thing. They don't know the facts, so they assume that things that I say voice my own "slant", because they don't recognize research that many others have done that hasn't been "popularized" by the likes of Barrow, Tipler or Bostrom.

So I figured, what the heck... if I'm going to be accused of this, then here it is... My personal "slant". Shoot it down, or deal with reality until you can.

Let me know if there is anything that I can explain.

Thanks again!

island said...

FYI for anyone that is interested... This is Fab's post that I commented on.