Jump to content
Science Forums

coldcreation

Members
  • Content Count

    1,588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by coldcreation

  1. See the link provided to you above. If you have a question (e.g., about dark energy, the evidence for a nonrotating universe, or the impossibility of a rotating universe), post it in Q&A. Hypographer's will be happy to answer it there. The Big Rip wouldn't happen for another 20 billion years or so. That aspect of dark energy is entirely speculative, and perhaps the least interesting thing about it. It can be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy and it has been shown that the universe is not rotating. The last part of your sentence makes no sense. Ther
  2. "Set up a situation that presents you with something slightly beyond your reach." "The philosophical idea that there are no more distances, that we are all just one world, that we are all brothers, is such a drag! I like differences." ~Brian Eno
  3. Your deduction dduck is baseless since you provide no specific example of where Dawkins "appears" to make the same "mistakes" as religious people. To make your case you will need to provide a quote by Dawkins with a link directly to the source so that the context (of what Dawkins writes or states) may be examined in full. As for the link you provide above Dawkins is not mentioned at all, i.e., it supports not at all your baseless claim. CC
  4. For a long time it had been suspected by scientists and philosophers that, like the earth, the solar system and galaxies, the universe itself might be rotating. Never has any observational evidence supported such a claim. Your claim is conjecture. The three principle alternatives listed above (and for convenience again here: negative pressure, cosmological constant, quintessence; quantum alternatives aside for the moment) are part of a scientific theory, backed by observational evidence. Your argument (or chimerical speculation) for a relation between dark energy and centrifug
  5. This thread is really not about dark energy at all. Observations are inconsistent with a rotating universe. Rotation around every point of the four dimensional spacetime manifold would be required in a homogeneous and isotropic universe. A universe that rotates would have one center around which it rotates, breaking homogeneity and isotropy assumptions. In addition, our location on Earth would have to be the center: something consistent with observations but difficult to explain without anthropic arguments. There is no reason why we should be centrally located, i.e., humans do not occupy a p
  6. The idea that the universe may be rotating has been around for a while. Here are some recommended texts on the topic: Gödel metric Here's another: Is the Universe Rotating? CC
  7. Actually you have it backwards. It is your job to refute the mainstream view of dark energy, namely, that a negative pressure, cosmological constant or quintessence is causing the universe to expand at an accelerated rate (good luck with that), and replace it it with the conjecture that the universe rotates and is producing a centrifugal force. The current view of dark energy is based on observational evidence that suggests accelerated expansion. What observational evidence suggests the universe is rotating (good luck with this one too)? CC
  8. It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young. ~Konrad Lorenz Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper. ~Francis Bacon I never eat any breakfast. ~Lizzie Andrew Borden I'm not a breakfast eater. ~Sean Penn Sometimes nothing is better than something (for breakfast). CC
  9. But I don't sit down at dinner and have clever ideas. ~Mark Rylance A clever man commits no minor blunders. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Clever tyrants are never punished. ~Voltaire
  10. But a dandy can never be a vulgar man. :P ~Charles Baudelaire
  11. “The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern.” ~Daniel Dennett
  12. "A sane mind should not be guilty of a logical fallacy, yet there are very fine minds incapable of following mathematical demonstrations." "A scientist worthy of his name, about all a mathematician, experiences in his work the same impression as an artist; his pleasure is as great and of the same nature." ~Jules Henri Poincaré CC
  13. For anyone interested, I've just updated State of the Modern Art World, The Essence of Cubism and its Evolution in Time by adding an important section entitled An attempt to refute the scientific connection (scroll down toward the bottom of the page where Picasso's Ma Jolie is reproduced). This crucial section, along with the one that follows (The geometrization of space) is a critique of John Adkins Richardson's, Modern Art and Scientific Thought, Chapter 5, Cubism and Logic, University of Chicago Press, 1971, pp. 104-127.). This new section dispels the myth propagated by Richardson that "t
  14. I didn't need to read that text you linked. After having opened it, I took one look at the second photo of Albert Einstein and understood the entire article. <_< EDIT> But then I read it anyway and it supports not your chimerical "appropriation" claim. PS. Sorry for the distraction Andrew. This will be my last post on the subject of Einstein's equation. PSS. Though I haven't participated much in this thread I have been following it with interest. Nice work! <EDIT CC
  15. Frankly speaking, this has NOTHING to do with science. Not the least with cosmology or astronomy. PS As far as the rest of your post goes, it's comes off as ranting and raving. CC
  16. Well, I wasn't sure where to post this. I hesitated between the this forum and Anthropology and Cultural Studies. After all, it does have to do with the science of man (including as an object of natural history or as an animal), of the structure and functions of the human body (in art), of the origins and social relationships of human beings and their cultures (in both science and art). It is also, perhaps, of historical interest, so here it is in the History forum. I just posted a new blog at Blogspot.com entitled (and subtitled): State of the Modern Art World, The Essence of Cubism and
  17. That's as ridiculous as saying that Pablo Picasso appropriated Cubism from Paul Cézanne. Knowledge evolves, or progresses. Novelty very often, if not always, draws from the past. This is not called an "appropriation" as you incorrectly write. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?" No one else had done so prior to this paper. Jules Henri Poincaré and others contributed to the knowledge that would lead Einstein to such an equation. Likewise, Cubsim was born no
  18. I would rather eat NOTHING than spam. CC
  19. Well, I just found another article of interest: Scientists reject rivals' light-speed claims, Icarus physicists' study upholds Einstein's theory of relativity EDIT> Here, I think, is the original Icarus group paper: A search for the analogue to Cherenkov radiation by high energy neutrinos at superluminal speeds in ICARUS CC
  20. I heard on CNN a couple of days ago that a new test confirms that neutrinos travel faster than light. So I looked it up and found this: New Tests Appear To Confirm Claim That Neutrinos Traveled Faster Than Light It seems to be a new test performed by the same group: OPERA. Has anyone heard of any independent confirmation yet? CC
  21. Hihihi. Excellent Rade. I thoroughly enjoyed that. :lol: I eat NOTHING between each meal. CC
  22. "Nothing is bigger than cyberspace, the Internet, and the NFL site on the world wide web." ~Microsoft. "We believe in nothing, and we think you should too. We have our workers doing nothing around the clock, finding new ways to package nothing, new problems to confront (in our big 32 page manual which is offered free with every purchase), or doing literally nothing just to waste time. Right now we are drastically understaffed, but we aren't in a hurry because we want to make sure we get nothing right." (Source) Nothing seems good enough! CC
  23. "A Western traveler encountering an Oriental philosopher asks him to describe the nature of the world: “It is a great ball resting on the flat back of the world turtle.” “Ah yes, but what does the world turtle stand on?” “On the back of a still larger turtle.” “Yes, but what does he stand on?” “A very perceptive question. But it’s no use, mister; it’s turtles all the way down.”" ~Carl Sagan, 1979, p. 293
  24. I think what AnssiH and DD refer to is the (1) notion of simultaneity based on Einstein's definition, and (2) the actual reading of clocks (the notion of time at different locations). (1') In the cosmological context of GR, inherent in certain interpretations of the Einstein field equations, there is the notion of cosmic time, the time coordinate commonly used in big bang models, i.e., cosmic time is the standard time coordinate for specifying the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions of Einstein's equations. All clocks are synchronized according to a time when a homogeneous universe
×
×
  • Create New...