Problems with General Relativity

General Relativity has been one of the great feats of the human mind. It has accurately predicted the precession of the orbits of planets, determined the path of photons along a curved structure of space-time and even predicted the orbital collapse binary neutron stars. Most important is the value of general relativity in describing nature; Space and time conform to a predictable relationship of one to the other.

It is with some trepidation that I describe the following weaknesses in the application of general relativity. This is particularly dangerous action for me since I have my own particular theoretical model that asserts that the expansion of space-time is truly uniform (matter expands, all rulers and timepieces also proportionally expand in such a way to keep local or proportional measures constant, www.uniformexpansion.com). The prejudicial impact of the following criticisms of general relativity probably will not help my cause; I can only hope that a few will hang in there and at least be curious enough to see how my model of a uniform expansion of space-time can simply resolve the issues below, yet also keep the basic principles upon which general relativity is based. It should therefore be clear that my criticisms do not assert general relativity to be wrong, simply incomplete. Einstein himself stated the same.

The areas of issue are:
1. The red shift.
2. Matter and energy not equivalent
3. Problem with the metric model
4. Cosmological issues
5. General Relativity is dimensionally incomplete
6. General relativity is mathematically incomplete
7. Complexity.

The red shift.
According to special relativity, as something approaches the speed of light, the passage of time slows. A twin moving at the speed of light would not age or change relative to the stationary twin.

According to general relativity, the cosmological red shift is the result of a photon traveling through an expanding space time field which causes the photon to loose energy and it’s wavelength correspondingly increases.

A photon travels at the speed of light; therefore it will not experience the passage of time, therefore it will not change; yet it does.

There are also more arguments that can be poised against the red shift but they tend to fall into the category of observational interpretation. These include quasars interacting with galaxies, lack of time dilatation for energy variations of quasars, alternative explanations for a red shift, such as interaction with plasma, or gravitational effects. These type of arguments can be found here on this website in relationship to arguments against the big bang. Rather than dwell too much on these topics, the above problem with the red shift will be left as is since it most directly addresses the ambiguity general relativity causes when applied to the red shift.

It should be noted that my model addresses the ambiguity of the red shift without destroying the application of general relativity.

Matter and energy are not equivalent
According to Einstein’s E=mcc formula there is a direct relationship between matter and energy. Matter equals energy when the mass is multiplied by a constant (cc).

Assume one gram of matter is accelerated to .9999 the speed of light in such a direction that it will be gravitationally bound to return back to the starting point.

Assume one gram of matter is converted to light and sent off on a round trip though space.

After one year has passed, the light returns and is converted to mass again, and there is no longer 1 gram of matter left because the photons have lost energy traveling through an expanding space time field.

After a little over a year passes, the one gram of matter returns and it is weighed and it still weighs one gram.

Matter and energy are no longer equivalent in terms of how they interact with an expanding space-time field.

This example also illustrates a violation of the conservation of energy principle. The one gram mass appears to maintain its energy while one gram of light energy does not. Where did the photon’s energy go? Or why did the gram mass keep it’s energy? My model addresses this ambiguity.

Problem with the metric model
Another issue with General Relativity is that the assumptions used for establishing the metric do not reflect reality. To explain the issue it will be required to first establish the basis for the metric used in general relativity. Imagine a matrix of points uniformly separated like the atoms in a regular table salt crystal; every point has another six points located orthogonally the same distance from each other. At each point, there is a clock that allows the measuring of time. Every clock can measure the interval of time separating each point using the speed of light as a constant and just as every point remains a specific distance from each other, every point remains a specific temporal measure from each other. This structural arrangement of space-time becomes the physical description of the metric. The effect of a large mass in space-time distorts this matrix like configuration of space-time resulting in the curvature of space-time.

The problem with this matrix like order of space-time is that it does not conform to reality. The problem has to do with the clocks. It is impossible to construct a clock that does not require energy either to run or to actually observe, it at least takes the absorption of a photon to detect the photon. If the metric is going to describe reality, it has to have some means of allowing a loss of energy from the system of points. The entire matrix of distance measures and temporal measures has to have geometric relationships that are maintained and which also allows the loss of energy from the matrix.

Quantum mechanics requires the loss of energy in the act of measuring physical properties, if general relativity is to be united with quantum mechanics, then general relativity must also be based upon a model that intrinsically looses energy.

Some may object to this criticism since space-time in the void of space seems to be “nothing”. It is impossible for energy to be lost from nothing. Those who to believe in general relativity know that the void of space is described by relationships of distance and time, but the assertion that an empty region of space can be losing energy, or more correctly, cause the loss of energy for all things in that expanding field, is an assertion not proved in this post but is in my model.

A few may also feel that looking at the energy requirements for hypothetical clocks is unwarranted since the clocks are hypothetical. The goal is to describe an accurate realty, not a hypothetical one. The rules or structure we use to describe reality must be consistent.

Some may also feel that the above criticism means to do away with relativity, this is not the case. The goal is to establish a model that preserves the spatial and temporal relationships between points in space-time yet also allow the loss of energy from any system.

Cosmological failures
General relativity has worked well when the time interval separating the objects is in the order of light minutes; the application of General relativity to explain cosmological phenomenon is bad. A few of the cosmological issues are.
a. The age of some stars appears to be older than the universe.
b. The universe is flat, whereas a straightforward application of general relativity predicts a curvature to space-time.
c. General Relativity does not explain why the universe is so closely balanced between collapse and expansion.
d. General Relativity does not predict the various rates of expansion that are reputed to have and are occurring.
e. General Relativity does not predict the velocity profile of stars in galaxies, the gravitational rates of attraction between clusters of galaxies and groups of clusters of galaxies. One could even include the anomalous deceleration of the pioneer spacecraft.

Now various fixes have been proposed to elevate the cosmological problems but all these “fixes” have been made after the fact. As more discoveries of the motion of deep space objects improves, more and more adjustments to the theory are made. This Band-Aid approach to cosmology is nothing new, the Ptolemaic model used to describe the location of the planets could be still used to day quite accurately by just adding more offsets and epicycles to end up with the exact position of every celestial object. The clue that something is wrong is that the model leads to increasing complexity.

a. The age of some stars appears to be older than the universe
I have specifically addressed this issue on this board awhile ago January 17 2004 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#194222 )posting. It has been possible to determine the age of stars within globular clusters based upon their expansion and their age appears to be older than the universe. It should be noted that general relativity predicts that the rate of expansion was faster in the past than the present due to gravitational interaction between galaxies. This reduces the age of the universe from the assumed flat rate of expansion ie Age of universe = 1/Ho for flat rate, Age of universe = 2/3 x 1/Ho based on a rate of expansion based upon general relativity.

The mainstream response to this problem is compounded by the addition of non-baryonic dark matter to the list of objects the universe is composed of. (non baryonic is something we can not see, or touch.) This increased mass would cause the universe to slow down even faster. Using the Band-Aid approach, Dark energy is added to the model. It is reputed that dark energy can ebb and flow through the universe as just the right rate to account for the various accelerations and decelerations. Such complexity should give pause to a rational mind, and give reason to consider other models that are asserted to be simpler.

b. The universe is flat.
The gravitational interaction of all the matter in all the galaxies should have resulted in a curvature of space-time, parallel lines should not remain parallel. At Red shifts with a z of 1 there should be observational evidence of this effect readily apparent. There is no observation of the curvature of space-time. This flatness was also indicated by the results of the Cosmic Background temperature distribution. To keep general relativity as the model describing how galaxies would gravitationally interact, a fix was proposed which allowed space-time to start off with an extreme period of incredibly fast inflation. Now with space-time so stretched out, any evidence of the curvature would be lost. Blow up a balloon large enough and the surface locally appears flat. One major problem with inflation as a model is the difficulty in providing an explanation for the period of transition from inflation to the slowing of the expansion due to gravitational interaction.

c. Balanced between expansion and collapse.
A flat universe means that the observed expansion of galaxies away from each other corresponds to a rate that is in balance with the gravitational pull between each galaxy. A classical example would be to throw a ball off the moon. (Moon used as an example since the effect of the atmosphere can essentially be ignored). If the ball is thrown, the ball would rise then fall back to the surface. If there were some linear accelerator used, the ball could be thrown fast enough that the ball will escape the gravitational effect of the moon and then go flying off into deep space. It is also possible to throw the ball at just the right speed in which the ball is balanced between falling back to the moon and moving away forever. This is a very unique velocity. It appears that the universe is moving at just this kind of unique velocity. General relativity does not predict this kind of perfect balance, and chance relationships of this type seem a bit too fortuitous. It is more likely that the expansion of the universe is conforming to some kind of order, (that does not require dark energy as a fix).

d. Differing rates of expansion
While the optical description of the motion of galaxies initially seemed to correspond to a flat rate of expansion, new evidence is complicating the issue. Now, based upon the data of Type 1a supernovas, it is reported that the universe is accelerating. This should cause a distortion in the observed flatness of the universe, especially considering that the Cosmic Background Radiation is one of the measures used to determine the flatness of the universe. Of course flatness could be preserved if the acceleration is balanced by deceleration, if appropriately applied at the proper times for the proper duration. All these accelerations, decelerations, inflations for certain intervals becomes rather unwieldy and, I believe, no longer conform to a realistic physical model, the assumptions are certainly worthy of suspicion from any kind of unbiased reviewer of the situation.

e. Non-conformant celestial motion
In order to describe the motion of celestial objects based upon the application of general relativity (which includes Newton’s laws of gravity). A myriad of adjustments or assumptions have to be made in order for observation to correspond to theory.
i. The motion of celestial objects is not conforming to the predicted relationships of General relativity and Newtonian physics. Stars in outer parts of spiral galaxies are moving too fast to be retained in a stable orbit. To fix this it is assumed that there has to be extra dark matter somewhere preserving structure. No evidence of the necessary amount of dark matter has been directly observed. Dark matter’s existence has only been inferred.
ii. The centers of galaxies have stars rotating around each other so fast that it appears there must be huge black holes in the center of galaxies. No direct observation of these million solar mass holes have been observed. There existence has been inferred due to celestial rates of rotation and as an explanation for intense energy production.
iii. The amount of dark matter assumed to exist increases as the scale of observation increases. Dark matter in spiral galaxies, more dark matter for clusters of galaxies, and more dark matter for groups of clusters of galaxies.
iv. In order to expand space with all this extra dark matter, and to account for acceleration, massive amounts of dark energy has to be added to the mix to keep the universe expanding. There is some unseen or unaccounted for force expanding space.

General Relativity is dimensionally incomplete.
General relativity uses threes spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension to describe reality. This is at least 1 dimension of time short of providing a complete description of the location of a point.

Describing the location of a point, based upon the dimensional measures of relativity, is that of three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. A point, as described from our observing reference, is located so far away in three spatial dimensions, ie it is so far either up or down, left or right and forward or backward. Additionally, based upon the principles of relativity, the point is also located a certain temporal distance away. This temporal measure is directly associated with the spatial distance between the two points by the speed of light. So not only is a point a certain spatial distance away, it is located a temporal distance away as well. The net combination of these measures results in the true distance between the points, according to the geometric model of relativity.

This is not enough to describe reality, for not only is a point so far away spatially and temporally, a point is also located by a historical measure. We are all located at a unique moment of time. This means that space-time is at least 3D/2T, three spatial measures and two temporal.

General relativity is mathematically incomplete.
The mathematics describing relativity is based upon a metric description of space-time. A metric is mathematically a matrix description or manipulation of space-time. Mathematical descriptions of space-time based upon a matrix can change the direction of a vector, and its magnitude. The metric description of space-time does not presently include a translation.

It is possible to add two matrixes yielding a form of translation, but this is not apart of the model of general relativity since it would be initially assumed to be trivial. For example, first all of realty is at one point, and then all of reality is at another with all the proportional relationships of one measure to the other preserved. Nothing apparently has changed.

The assumption that translations are trivial is a limiting description of nature. If space-time were moving in an unobserved dimension, similar to a flatland universe moving in an unobserved vertical dimension, then a very simple explanation for the energy associated with mass can be achieved. What Einstein called the “intrinsic energy of mass” becomes simply a kinetic energy expression. E = mcc = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 m v^2 and v = square root of two divided by two times the speed of light which = the velocity of three-dimensional space along an unobserved dimension. (Of course this very simple description of the source of E= mcc is too simple to be true).

Complexity
General relativity is complex. This criticism is not much of an argument, if nature is complex, so be it. However, it is unfortunate that this complexity is assumed to be required to describe nature without consideration of other models. (Part of a rejection letter concerning my request for publication from one physics journal included the following “This is too simple to be true”.)

Still, there is a philosophical bias on my part to find some simpler model to describe reality. It is my belief, borne out of a tested geometric model that conforms to observational evidence, that if relative measures are transformed to absolute measures, the result will be a much more appealing and simple description of nature. Kepler would be happy.

Jerry’s comments
(Some of you who made it this far down the page may want to also look at some of the postings made in response to Jerry’s posting titled Einstein at 100, a twisted look at general relativity. http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#364000)

Closing
My goal in this posting is not to show that general relativity is invalid, it is simply incomplete. It is hoped that my uniform expansion model will eventually be given a fair consideration, especially since it resolves all the above shortcomings of general relativity.

John M. Kulick
AKA Snowflake.

What evidence do you have for a second time-like dimension?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Snowflake, I hope you realize you're sort of bashing your head against a brick wall, if you get my drift...

Edit: and before anyone says something stupid, no, I'm not saying it's taboo to challenge general relativity. I'm just pointing out that there is a reason this theory is still around after God knows how many attempts to disprove it.

Hi Celestial mechanic

You asked
What evidence do you have for a second time like dimension?

The evidence for two time like dimensions is considerable.
A. Simplicity
The primary reason for the existence of two dimensions of time is the comparative simplicity of the mathematical model by which reality is described. For example, it is possible to describe the motion of the planets using offsets and epicycles or Kepler’s ellipses but which model results in the simplest description?

B. Epistemological
The philosophical reasons for requiring another dimension of time was previously mentioned. Relativity is based upon the temporal distance between points. A complete description of the location of a point requires a historical measure.

C. Variation in the Effect of gravity
One prediction of the model is that the effect of gravity diminishes over the passage of Cosmic time. (Cosmic time is the term Dirac used, I usually use Absolute time). Locally, based upon our relative measures of time, there is never any observation of this variation in the effect of gravity. A local pendulum always takes a “second” to swing a period; chemical reactions also keep their relative local measure, as well as celestial mechanics (for the most part, precession described by general relativity may seem to throw this last statement off a bit but it does not. For relativistic precession, the events are also becoming historically determined ). Since relative measures of time never describes a change in the effect of gravity over the passage of relative time, another measure of time is necessary.

Based upon Absolute measures of time, the variation of gravity conforms to an exact and geometrically described rate (Part of the “Ratios of Time” formulas in my Uniform expansion model. For example, A1/A2 = (T2/T1)^(4/3), with the present age of the universe being 8 billion years (T2) and observation of an object when the universe was 1 billion years old, (T1) results in an increase in the effect of gravity of 8^(4/3) = 16 times, A1/A2. (If a spring scale were used to “weigh” the increase in the effect of gravity there still would be no locally observed increase in the effect of gravity since the stiffness of the spring will correspondingly increase).

The extra dimension of time can be “observed” by looking into deep space to observe objects in the past in which the increased effect of gravity is realized. Evidence for this includes the following
1. The energy output of quasars can be explained with out resorting to super massive black holes. I wrote on this topic earlier http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?
2. The diminished energy, or dimmer than expected energy output of type 1a supernovas no longer results in the interpretation that the universe is accelerating, It now conforms exactly to the relative rate predicted by the straight forward application of general relativity (Age of universe = 2/3 1/Ho, Ho = Hubbell’s “constant”. ) The universe is decelerating at a geometrically determined rate.
3. Evidence of the Sun blowing up 5 billion years ago, yet still preserving the foundation upon which a solar system can be built within 5 billion years is explained. This substantiates the claim of physicist O.K Manuel who has determined the sun blew up 5 billion years ago based upon the “enriched” evidence of an element called strange Zeon. I wrote on this topic here on this board at http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?
4. Stars would evolve much faster than presently assumed. This helps explain the presence of so much heavy elements in very high red shifted galaxies.
5. The increased effect of gravity so early in the evolution of the universe would also explain the formation of groups of galaxies into gravitationally determined structures so early in the evolution of the universe.
There are more arguments for asserting that the effect of gravity varies according to the passage of cosmic time but I am drifting away from your question.

D. Conformant to structure.
Three spatial dimensions and two temporal dimensions results in predictions on how reality is structured. This 3D/2T relationship is found in the following examples.
1. Matter conforms to a 3D/2T description. For example consider the following dimensional analysis. If Mass is dimensionally described by Mass = 3D/2T times some constant consisting of a number, then F = MA = gMM/DD, no longer needs a dimensional fudge factor g. F = MA = D^3/T^2 x D/T^2 = (D^3/T^2 )^2/ D^2 (note no “g” with dimensions, it becomes only a number) = D^4/T^4. similarly E = F x D = Mcc, = D^5/T^4
2. Quarks conform to a 3D/2T description. If matter were broken up into its most elemental parts, the pattern would be consistent with its dimensional description. 3D/2T quite nicely can predict 6 basic types, and also allow quarks to “disappear” when they are no longer attached to the plane formed by two dimensions of time.( When matter is “broken” it’s pieces can go from a 3D/2D pattern to a 2D/T + 1D/T pattern. )
3. A 3D/2T dimensional pattern can be geometrically described to result in 10 dimensional configurations, this is conformant to the local dimensional structure derived from the metric of general relativity and is a common dimensional expression found in string theory.

E Conformance to model
The two dimensions of time have to be orthogonal to each other. This preserves the necessary relationships predicting how the velocity and acceleration of matter are going to change with the expansion of space time. This has more to do with the development of my theoretical model than it does in relationship to your question of evidence of the two measures of time.

F. Resolves conflicting descriptions of the universe.
There are epistemological reasons for believing the universe to be eternal. There are epistemological reasons for believing the universe to be finite. Based upon our relative measures of time the universe appears to be infinitely aged yet from an absolute or Eye of God perspective, the universe is finite. From “God’s perspective” our clocks progressively slow down, one second now represents thousands of years near the beginning of time. The relationship between relative time, t to absolute time T is geometrically described.

In short, the gravitational predictions give the best evidence of the necessity for another dimension of time.

John M. Kulick
AKA snowflake.

Hi Gullible Jones

Thank you for the warning.

Granted, as you state, many have tried to disprove general relativity, but I am not trying to disprove it, I am trying to fix it.

Also, consider that despite the efforts of thousands of very intelligent people working a lifetime, none have been able to unite the physical description of reality under one uniform set of rules.

Does this mean it is an impossible dream? Was Einstein wrong in trying to achieve this goal? I do not believe so. All the fundamental properties of the universe can be described according to a geometric model.

The sad part of this is that the real reason I am “sort of bashing my head against the wall “ is not because of the invalidity of my model or that I am wrong in explaining the gaps in general relativity, it is that the mainstream will simply ignore any real fundamental review of the basics. This is the real reason no one has been successful in completing the incomplete work of Einstein. There are very qualified physicists with a reputable education who have lost their jobs because of their “out of the mainstream” questioning of general relativity. This kind of entrenched mentality is responsible for the perseverance of the present acceptance of general relativity as it is.

Sit back, perhaps someone from the mainstream will try to prove me wrong. Will their explanation for the red shift make sense? Will their defense stand the objective review of a critical and objective mind?

snowflake

Criticism shouldn't be too hard on anyone's suggestion that General Relativity may be in need of improvement. Here's Wiki's description of GR which says in part (copyright "fair use") on page 4: There is room for "improvement" if observations yield reason to make adjustments to GR. Understandably that there should also be resistance to such improvements, but not unreasonable resistance, since good science demands verifiable and predictable effects. Patches post hoc such as Dark matter and Dark energy, which complicates GR, should be held in suspicion by reasonable minds. Also a universal equivalence principle may have to be ultimately questioned, in my opinion, as the Pioneers Anomaly brings fresh data to be considered. It would seem more reasonable to be open minded as more empirical data comes in from deep space, even closer space such as the now descending Huygens probe at Titan, to see what anomalies may creep into our expected data, and then assess these in ways unbiased by the prism of strict GR, since this theory may be in need of revision. Lastly, if a revision surfaces that fixes the anomalies observed, then it needs to be further applied against QM theory for a final test. My own bias in this area is that much will be simplified, ala Occam's razor, with a variable G, but this is yet a not fully evolved theory. One spin off from seeing it through the lens of a variable G is that Dark matter becomes more credible, and the Pioneers Anomaly understandable. Can an adjusted GR yield a TOE? I think it can but only if we can identify through QM why the equivalence principle is modified by a nuclear relationship to G.

I wish I were smarter and knew more, but that's all I can offer for now. ops:

I don't think General Relativity needs be jettisoned, since it has proven to be a more or less workable model, though it can be a very cumbersome method, but it may not hurt to tweek it a little to give more universal results.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

The photon's "restframe" has no coordinate energy associated with it. The photon in its "frame" doesn't change because it has no energy at all. Of course, there is no such thing as a restframe at the speed of light, so that's where your "paradox" is derived.

The vast majority of astronomers admit to seeing no evidence for this.

With variable luminosity and light crossing times, it is difficult to see how any time dilation measurements could be made in the first place.

Alternatives don't seem to work as well as the standard.

How is the redshift ambiguous?

What makes you think photons will come back? Do you think the universe has a topology like that? Where's your evidence?

[quote]This example also illustrates a violation of the conservation of energy principle. The one gram mass appears to maintain its energy while one gram of light energy does not. Where did the photon’s energy go? Or why did the gram mass keep it’s energy? My model addresses this ambiguity. [/size]

It isn't an ambiguity. Coordinate energy is not conserved over large scales, but because there isn't any interaction between the scales other than through lightcones, there really isn't any energy lossed. The universe just has a new set of rulers.

The energy of the system is conserved, though the entropy is increased when a local observation is made. Your criticism isn't valid.

You cannot simply consider a system to be in isolation when it is interacting with other systems through observations.


No it doesn't. The conservation of energy is rigorous in QM down to Heisenberg uncertainty limits.

This statement suffers from being so bad that it "isn't even wrong".

The author doesn't seem to understand what is meant by his own statements. When something "intrinsically loses energy" it has three options. It can either lose energy to another reservoir, radiate it away, or lose it because of a change in reference frame. Relativity takes care of the third case and the first two cases are fine as long as you're contained in those reference frames.

Quantum mechanics conserves energy in all interactions except when you can violate the E*t commutator.

It works even with real clocks. It's your analysis that's incorrect, not the question.

Highly debatable and probably incorrect statement.

The flatness problem is solved by inflation. You'll have to criticize inflation if you want to bring this up.

???

Due to dark matter?

Small, but may be attributable to known causes that are completely unrelated to gravity.

That's the definition of a "fix". Any new theory you propose will be made "after the fact". This isn't a criticism really.

That's the way science works.

The Big Bang is a simpler model than any other I've seen. It requires only three assumptions to work.

Again, this is a debatable result. The error bars and systematics are big enough that most scientists aren't convinced this is a problem yet.

You are confusing "flat" and "empty". An empty universe would have the first age you list. A flat, matter-dominated universe would have the second.

Incorrect. Mass is mass is mass. Whether it is dark matter or not dark matter is beside the point.

This was predicted before it was an observed effect. We aren't sure what it is, but the phenomena is very real and seen in two independent places (the CMB and the SNIa Hubble Diagram).

No. It is reputed that the dark energy behaves in such a way that it is more dense as the universe expands, with a negative pressure. There is no "ebb and flow".

It's actually a simpler solution than matter or radiation. I'm not sure why you think it is complex.

It would behoove the author not just to assert simplicity but actually show it.

If and only if there is no expansion of the universe. If there is, a balance can be reached that's characterized by the density parameter and measured from the critical density.

This isn't correct. The story goes as follows:

It is theoretically reasonable to expect a flat universe because it would allow for expansion as we see it today (an old universe). However, flat seemed to be a "fine-tuning" problem since a small deviation from this critical density would cause either catastrophic expansion or collapse. Inflation was proposed initially as a universe that was composed of the simplest things we know of -- gague bosons. It turns out that with a potential and an energy associated with this field we get an exponentially expanding universe that is necessarily driven to flat in the same way that if you blow up a balloon to enormous sizes the surface of the balloon looks flat.

Confirmation of inflation didn't come just from the flat universe. It came from a consideration of how inflation behaves at late times. In particular, there has to be an effect where certain parts of universe are thrown out of the horizon and then come back in. That's what is seen in the CMB anisotropies and that's why cosmologists think inflation is on the right track.

The basic details are well known, the scalar potential simply rolls down to its minimum and we have the rest of the universe take over. Reheating is tricky, but can be done.

Not any more. This definition of flat is only true in a matter-dominated universe (which we don't inhabit).

Since your definition of flat is outdated (it used to mean simply balancing matter with expansion velocity, but it doesn't any more), this criticism is entirely incorrect. With a cosmological constant in our universe, we get a flat geometry -- even though there is a cosmic jerk.

No, that's not right at all. The cosmic jerk is part and parcel to balancing the expansion of the universe.


They aren't that unwieldy. You should try to learn more about them before you dismiss them so casually.

What do you mean by directly observed? The way we observe mass is by looking at gravitational effects. We know that velocities of virialized and rotating objects are effected by gravity. Therefore, we are observing mass.

Inference is the tool of science. Some inferences are strong. Others are weak. The inference for the existence of dark matter is considered strong because we see evidence for it in a large number of independent observations.

That's because it is impossible.

Again, this is a strong inference because there are number of ways you can measure these things.

I'm sorry I can't bring you a black hole in a bag, but just because I can't doesn't mean they don't exist.

We cannot make a vacuum as rarefied as the ISM, but that doesn't mean the ISM isn't rarefied.

And why does this make you disbelieve general relativity? The hierarchical model for structure formation explains this effect quite nicely.

This is not correct at all. Even without dark energy, the universe would be expanding. It would simply be an open universe then.

[quote]
This is not enough to describe reality, for not only is a point so far away spatially and temporally, a point is also located by a historical measure. We are all located at a unique moment of time. This means that space-time is at least 3D/2T, three spatial measures and two temporal.[/size]

You are confusing dimensions with points necessary for measurement. They are not the same thing.

to determine an accurate measurement of an n-dimensional space one needs n+1 points. 2 points determine a line, 3 points a plane, etc. In the sense of time, since you need two points to determine an event, that means that time is one-dimensional.

If you want to measure a location in space you will need 4 points that will determine two intersecting lines.

To measure something in spacetime you will need five points (since one of your time measurements is at the same point as one of your space measurements).

The dimensions are completely consistent.

This isn't correct. It's just that we don't use the translation matrix because we assume everything travels on geodesics.

I hope you take my criticisms seriously. There are some tremendous flaws in your arguments.

Well, the field is moving so fast, books have a hard time keeping up. But you'll probably want to take a look at The Inflationary Universe, the quest for a new theory of cosmic origins [1997] -- Alan H. Guth... Then there's The Runaway Universe, the Race to Find the Future of the Cosmos [2000] -- Donald Goldsmith. Also Wrinkles in Time [1993] -- George Smoot, Keay Davidson -- is pretty good. These are all fairly accessible to a curious but general audience....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

It will not change what?

BTW, I like the idea of multiple time dimensions. My own has three!

Ahhhhhh, that explains your ability to time travel. 8)

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

well, it almost explains it. It's a lot easier to go back in time if you're not running into yourself all the time. I can just take one step to the theta, and time t slides right on by. One step in tau, and time t runs backwards.

PS: JK