Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
Original Message: - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:35 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model Klaus wrote: Yup, but we've got indirect evidence already. Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't work without it. You mean like F=ma? The use of dark energy as an explaination for accleration in the opposite direction of all known forces is fundamentally based on that. That's pretty well what it says. As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity. All we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some people came up with a fishy theory about gravity. We didn't invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove our theory that things fall to the ground. But, it did have something that was considered in that light: spooky instantaneous action at a distance with no known mechanism. Further, the fudge factor of dark energy is more akin to the charge of the electron in QED or maybe the fudge factor used to explain the orbit of the moon for about 100 years before Laplace, I think, did the calculations that showed the consistancy of the moon's orbit with the predictions afforded by Newtonian gravitation. The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Dark energy is a means of expressing this in terms of force. I'm not sure what your difficulty is. Are you arguing that the expansion of the universe is not really accelerating, and that there were some unwarrented assumptions that went into these conclusions? Or, do you see a problem with describing this acceleration in terms of F=ma? Dan M. D'oh! Yup, this model helps us to explain why things fall to the ground, but there is no way to find out the real truth. And there will never be. Why not? Never is way to absolute for me. Especially on an SF list! Meanwhile, cosmology and particle physics make darn intersting subjects to discuss! ;-) Now _that_ we can agree on. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model Original Message: - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:35 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model Klaus wrote: Yup, but we've got indirect evidence already. Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't work without it. You mean like F=ma? The use of dark energy as an explaination for accleration in the opposite direction of all known forces is fundamentally based on that. That's pretty well what it says. As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity. All we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some people came up with a fishy theory about gravity. We didn't invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove our theory that things fall to the ground. But, it did have something that was considered in that light: spooky instantaneous action at a distance with no known mechanism. Further, the fudge factor of dark energy is more akin to the charge of the electron in QED or maybe the fudge factor used to explain the orbit of the moon for about 100 years before Laplace, I think, did the calculations that showed the consistancy of the moon's orbit with the predictions afforded by Newtonian gravitation. The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Dark energy is a means of expressing this in terms of force. I'm not sure what your difficulty is. Are you arguing that the expansion of the universe is not really accelerating, and that there were some unwarrented assumptions that went into these conclusions? Or, do you see a problem with describing this acceleration in terms of F=ma? Going back to basics, it seems to me that our experience with orbital mechanics for spacecraft and satelites and our use of the slingshot effect to propel interplanetary missions to the outer solar system are pretty good evidence that we have a good theory and a good grasp of it. We have had discussions here of the Pioneer Anamoly in the past, and IIRC the question is still open so it isn't like we need to abandon current theory as unrealistic. xponent Evidential Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What science fiction writer are you?
On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Carolyn L Burke wrote: It said I was Arthur C. Clarke. AOLMe, too./AOL :-) Does that make me a Greg Benford by proxy? Maybe. __ Steve Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
