Skip to comments.
Hubble telescope makes new discovery
AP on Yahoo ^
| 11/16/06
| Matt Crenson - ap
Posted on 11/16/2006 9:07:52 PM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: Physicist
BTW no more rants please. I may know more than you think.
21
posted on
11/16/2006 10:00:08 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: kinoxi
That is why QED and Relativity don't mix actually.Er, no. Quantum field theory and General Relativity don't appear to mix because a quantized spin-2 (read: gravitational) field can't be renormalizable (read: finite) in four dimensions. That's a mathematical fact that's independent of the value of the cosmological constant.
Which side are you on out of curiosity?
Extra dimensions. I believe QFT and GR are both correct. There is experimental evidence of the quantized nature of the gravitational field. If all that is the case, it implies that there are more dimensions than the four we measure.
Comment #23 Removed by Moderator
To: kinoxi
I may know more than you think. Maybe, but there are others reading the thread who don't.
To: Physicist
Have you seen any realistic results out of string theory? The answer is no. How about M theory? Maybe. I don't believe in making things up. The extra dimensional concepts don't currently work. At all.
25
posted on
11/16/2006 10:06:29 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: Physicist
Re post #24. Yes, you are absolutely right.
26
posted on
11/16/2006 10:07:19 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: NormsRevenge
. Astronomers have strengthened the evidence that the early universe was decelerating, but that it gave way to acceleration by around 4 to 5 billion years ago. Maybe that's when the first advanced civilization in the Universe decided it was time to reverse the collapse.
Quantum physics has yet to offer us gravitational equations, does it not?
As for General Relativity, the gravitational equations will not hold up under higher values, will they?
To: kinoxi
Ah, an "agenda". I see.
So what's your angle? Over-unity energy generation? Faster-than-light relativity skeptic? 6,000-year-old universe? New-age quantum consciousness...stuff? Just curious.
To: NormsRevenge; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; cornelis; Whosoever
Can this concept be metaphorically displayed as....
Chimps considering a Rolex Watch as to what it is?, where it came from?, what it's good for?, and is it good to eat?...
And since no chimp ever yet thought of God.. will never find out..
30
posted on
11/16/2006 10:17:54 PM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
To: Physicist
I believe that these are definable anomalies in space time itself.
31
posted on
11/16/2006 10:18:50 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: Physicist
I don't need to make up magical dimensions.
;)
32
posted on
11/16/2006 10:19:34 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: Yehuda
Here's a more recent picture of ultra-repulsive dark energy, accelerating away from fron imploding dark-star #2004, aka Kerranus...If ever there was a group that needed to be on the wrong side of an event horizon, it's this bunch.
To: M. Thatcher
Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known Yeah, right.
They should have said "relatively extremely well-known."
34
posted on
11/16/2006 10:25:57 PM PST
by
aruanan
To: Physicist
Could you elaborate more on those two statements? I know I am in way over my head here, but I love trying to figure this stuff out:) Specifically is a field or a wave quantized?
Quantum field theory and General Relativity don't appear to mix because a quantized spin-2 (read: gravitational) field can't be renormalizable (read: finite) in four dimensions.
There is experimental evidence of the quantized nature of the gravitational field.
35
posted on
11/16/2006 10:26:18 PM PST
by
LeGrande
To: kinoxi
Spell it out for me. Are you saying that the acceleration (or apparent acceleration) is caused by vacuum flaws like cosmic strings or domain walls? Or are you saying that you think general relativity itself is simply wrong, preferring instead something like MOND? Steady state theory? Autodynamics? Superluminal gravity? Orgone?
To: Yehuda
Ugh...Kerranus...the garbage star...
37
posted on
11/16/2006 10:33:59 PM PST
by
Dallas59
(Muslims Are Only Guests In Western Countries)
To: Physicist
Spell it out for me. Are you saying that the acceleration (or apparent acceleration) is caused by vacuum flaws like cosmic strings or domain walls? Or are you saying that you think general relativity itself is simply wrong, preferring instead something like MOND? Steady state theory? Autodynamics? Superluminal gravity? Orgone?
The apparent acceleration cannot be verified regardless of what either of us believe at this point. I think relativity is mostly right. I think this article is bunk.
38
posted on
11/16/2006 10:37:14 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: Physicist
my uninformed spectulation is as follows.
Most everything in the universe seems to be in discrete packets or quanta.
I speculate that even time comes in discret packets and it ticks like an old fashioned clock.
The acceleration in the expansion, may simply be a result of a "clock" that is "ticking" faster across the universe.
39
posted on
11/16/2006 10:37:59 PM PST
by
staytrue
To: LeGrande
Could you elaborate more on those two statements? The first would require a treatise. I'll see if I can search up a cogent link tomorrow.
As for the second, here's an old FR thread about an underappreciated demonstration of the quantum nature of gravity.
Specifically is a field or a wave quantized?
I don't really understand the question "is a wave quantized"; I might recommend that you read up on "particle/wave duality". As for fields, we know that the electromagnetic field, the weak nuclear field, and the strong nuclear field are all quantized, meaning that they can be modelled as the exchange of "force particles". We don't know mathematically how to do that with gravity, yet.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson