On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 4:34:39 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:45 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > *Carroll seems to be an outlier* > > > Nobody, including Carroll, claims to know for certain what causes the > universe's spacetime curvature, it might be the energy of empty space, aka > the Cosmological Constant, or it might be caused by something else. Some > have proposed that maybe the spacetime curvature is caused by > "quintessence", a hypothetical fifth fundamental force that, unlike vacuum > energy, would not be constant but would increase with time; if that's true > the acceleration of the universe would be accelerating and there is only 22 > billion years remaining before the entire universe is destroyed in a Big > Rip. It will take further observations, not theory, before we know if the > acceleration is itself accelerating, but whatever the cause of the > spacetime curvature Carroll is not an outlier, few if any physicists > would disagree with Carroll's statement that "*the manifestation of > spacetime curvature is simply the fact that space is expanding*". > > > *I don't pray at the feet of physicists, even those from prestigious >> universities* > > > But you do pray at the feet of Flying Saucer Men from Roswell New Mexico, > and I consider that to be...ah... unwise. So the next time you think you > are the first to find a glaringly obvious blunder that generations of > physicists with boiling water IQ's have all failed to notice you might want > to have a little humility and consider the possibility that maybe just > maybe the confusion does not lie with them but with you. >
*It's hard to adequately respond to such a display of arrogance and stupidity. I imagine you would have confidently ridiculed those who reported rocks falling from the sky. The dispute about whether UFO's are alien spacecraft is just about the interpretation of the data available, and clearly you have not made an honest, objective effort to familiarize yourself with what's available. If I may say so, it's an odd schizophrenic aspect of your character structure, given that you fully embrace the most ridiculous interpretation of QM conceivable.* *I never said Carroll IS an outlier. Rather, I said he SEEMS to be an outlier. Do you see the difference? Can you read plain English? He seems to ME an outlier because whenever I read anything about Einstein's field equations, it's invariably stated that curvature is caused by the presence of energy/momentum, which is one of the postulates of GR. Maybe I am confusing curvature of space with that of space-time. I dunno. * *Further, since, IMO, Carroll embraces about the dumbest interpretation of QM possible, MW, I really don't think his IQ is as high as you believe. And I am in very good company in this evaluation; Steven Weinberg. * *As for my conjectures about the flatness and the shape of our universe, I think you (and Brent) fail to see the singularity I pointed to; namely, IF at T = 0, the universe began as small, it could never have evolved infinite spatial extent characteristic of flatness since expansion goes at a finite rate, and the universe is generally thought be 13.8 billion year old, a FINITE number. OTOH, if an infinite spatial extent was created at the instant of the BB, it would fall into the category of a singularity since no physical process can occur with a time duration of zero. I sent an email to a noted cosmologist about this (whose name slips my mind), someone Brent referenced, but never received a reply.* *AG* > > John K Clark > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3088d42d-1620-4688-95bb-e22305fb7a19%40googlegroups.com.
