Sunday, September 24, 2006

Ground Rules For This Forum... for, "anon"

Why is it that my so-called "critics" never take me up on it when I offer to take their bullshit to the moderated physics forum?

1) Shoot this down or face the music.

These links should help clear-up any questions:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-03/msg0073465.html

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

He brought in the cosmological constant to counterbalance the runaway recollapse effect that occurs in this model 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.

15 comments:

Neo-Darwinian Anticentrist Extremist said...

Yup... I thought you'd do this too... post up your little prose that I've seen you use a million times.

Just a fart in the thunderstorm of quackdom, really.

island said...

T DWORSKY wanted to say this here...
Where have you broken ground here?

Einstein didn't know about the real particle potential of the quantum vacuum, or he never would have abandoned his finite, closed, spherical, DETERMINISTIC cosmological model, because matter generation in this background causes expansion by increasing negative pressure, while the newly created particle couterbalances the effect.

He abanodoned it because he thought that an expanding universe would runaway in that direction, but the increase in the matter density offsets the effect, so he had no reason to do so... he just didn't know everything that we now know.

Einstein was right, all along.

island said...

Neo-Darwinian Anticentrist Extremist said...
Yup... I thought you'd do this too... post up your little prose that I've seen you use a million times.

Just a fart in the thunderstorm of quackdom, really.


Yup... just like I suspected, you can't address a single point... rather you attempt character assassination.


Neo-Darwinian Anticentrist "loser"... is a much better fit for you.

Get it right next time, huh?

Neo-Darwinian Anticentrist Extremist Loserwicz said...

Why would I bother? It's just much more fun to see you rant and claim you haven't been shot down all the time.

Besides, it's your favorite sport, isn't it? Arguing over blog posts?

Even if I did bother to shoot it down (and I am doing something else at the same time as I carry on this little 'debate', so I can't be bothered to devote time to your trash), you'd just claim it was wrong for some contrived reason and then claim I was a loser or 'wilfully denying' some point you made.

Ultimately, I'm just talking to you becuase I find quackery fun. I guess eventually I'll get bored. I'd rate you above Gene Ray for coherence, but below quantum aetherdynamics for ranting.

island said...

Why would I bother?

It's not that you wouldn't bother, it's because you and I both already know that you can't shoot me down or it would have been done long ago and I could have been done with this without all the flack, because I would love more than anything to be rid of this unfun monkey on my back.

Neo-Darwinian Extremist Loserman-letterman-philips-adams said...

If you don't like it then go do something else. After all, no-one asked you to go and insult the internet.

I'm getting shades of Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged here, anyway. Although it's with physics rather than the universe at large.

If you want to be treated with more respect, just treat all you find with the same respect as you claimed to have treated those other physicists with. It would mean I couldn't laugh at rants on here, and it also would mean you might get a bit further than just being banned off the blogs of all and sundry.

island said...

If you don't like it then go do something else. After all, no-one asked you to go and insult the internet.

All that Bla Bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla... and the monkey still hasn't typed out anything legible... ;)

island said...

And as I have repeatedly said, I didn't come here to address physics.

No, you and I both already know that you can't because it's the same mechanism that inflationary theory uses without giving Einstein his deserved look... duh.

Neo-Darwinian... who cares said...

So you woke up one day, and said 'I am going to insult all those who disagree with the anthropic principle!'.

Now we're getting to the truth. You don't have a career, do you? You're just doing the rounds as you have waaay too much free time on your hands.

For me, this is just one evening of amusement. Not life.

island said...

So you woke up one day, and said 'I am going to insult all those who disagree with the anthropic principle!

No, I never do that. You perceive the insults are going in one direction only, but you're cluelessly wrong about that.

ND-ACE said...

I've seen others have a go at you as well. Usually it's because you've insulted them first though.

And I worked out something - thanks to the wonders of tabbing, I can keep an eye on articles in arXiv, but also here. Invention is a wonderful thing.

Maybe if you weren't so quick to insult, you wouldn't get so much stick off people. Ever consider that?

island said...

I've seen others have a go at you as well. Usually it's because you've insulted them first though.

No, that's you're perception of my reaction to willful ignorance and whatnot.

Bring an example in full context, or stow-it.

island said...

Maybe if you weren't so quick to insult, you wouldn't get so much stick off people. Ever consider that?

I've given many examples where that is indeed the way the conversation went, yet, you fail to recognize that... why?

Neo-Darwinian ACELLPA said...

Ultimately, anyone who does a search for anthropic principle in Google can see it.

You tended to crop up all over the place, making posts of accusing them of being wilfully ignorant for no other reason than they just happen to disagree with the anthropic principle in general. You seem to think it's a personal insult, when they're just expressing an opinion on science.

You're perfectly entitled to yours. It's just that it's no better than any other opinion, and insulting people you disagree with won't really get you that far.

It just gets you more stick. You're just about the only person I've had a conversation with on this tone. But then this is merely about threadcrapping, not physics or anything of an academic nature.

island said...

You tended to crop up all over the place, making posts of accusing them of being wilfully ignorant for no other reason than they just happen to disagree with the anthropic principle in general.

Nope, that's an opinion that you've failed to substatiate, and I can assure you that I can point out exactly what justifiably pisses me off when this happens that isn't present when I don't run into the sterotypical bullshit from self-honest people that you're still ignoring... why?