The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
From: hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:54:15 +0200 (CEST)
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 3:54 am
Subject: Re: A positive cosmological constant
In article
<ab7eccc2-5132-40d7-a353-b1222d36f...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Anon E. Mouse" <agall...@gmail.com> writes: > I referenced the paper cited above and quote the abstract here;
Please read recent papers by Geraint Lewis. That's an uncommon > "The Cosmological Spacetime > Fulvio Melia, Majd Abdelqader > (Submitted on 30 Jul 2009) > We present here the transformations required to recast the
combination of names; he is the only astronomer in the world with that name, so it should be easy to find him at arXiv. He also blogs at Cosmic Horizons. It's a low-traffic blog so you can easily read everything. He also discusses his own recent work there. Recently, together with a Dutch colleague, he wrote a paper criticizing some recent work (not sure if it is the above paper) claiming that strange things happen at the Hubble radius, and shows that the claim is false. I agree. As he notes, there have been no open questions regarding cosmic horizons for at least more than 40 years. There is a classic paper by Wolfgang Rindler which is THE paper to read if one is interested in these things. He didn't write that many papers in the 1950s so you should be able to find it at ADS (where you can access the full text in PDF or GIF format). Also, you absolutely have to read Stabell and Refsdal's paper on the classification of cosmological models and the companion paper by Refsdal, Stabell and de Lange which calculates various quantities for various cosmologies. In particular, they explicitly calculate all the various types of horizons for a wide range of cosmological models, and plot them in the cosmological parameters space. Anything which disagrees with this is simply wrong. (Note that before Rindler's paper there was real confusion of the concepts and also confusion in the nomenclature.) These two papers can also be found at ADS. Just search for "Stabell, R."; these are among his oldest papers. > Thus the inclusion of a positive cosmological constant added in 1917
Even without the cosmological constant, cosmological velocities can be > alters a founding postulate of the relativity principle as given in > 1915. It is the second of only three postulates that is altered. The > second postulate as given and translated states roughly, no mass can > move faster than c. The amended necessary to include a postive > cosmological constant would be, no mass moving faster than c can be > directly observed, or as an affirmative statement, only mass moving > with a relative velocity less than c may be directly observed. greater than C. Check out Edward Harrison's classic textbook on cosmology. > Mass/energy has been left behind our local group. Mass energy has
The local groups is well within the horizon. > escaped our local group and expansion of space-time over time > increases apparent velocities in a manner inconsistent with Newtonian > mechanics alone. > The relative velocity of the masses and charges of the prions of the
There is no evidence of this. Also, what is "direct"? Various types of > nucleus are moving with a relative velocity greater than c in the > laboratory frame of reference and this is the fundamental cause of our > inability to directly observe sub-atomic particles, which is why we > use inference instead of direct observation. electron microscopes essentially observe individual atoms. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||