Kentgen1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kentgen1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Ckatz^chat_spy 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Dark matter, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not sign changes to articles

Discussion of an article is done on its talk (= discussion) page. Your contributions to such talk pages should be signed. However, contributions to the article itself should not be signed. The article's history provides a way to identify the author(s) of each part of the article.
I will put specific comments about your changes to Friedmann equations on its talk page, Talk:Friedmann equations. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is still debate

There is a seemingly inevitable systematic bias to Wikipedia's publication rule that states that only material that has been directly cited by established conventional media can be used to support an edit of an existing science article. The bias arises because only material that is consistent with the overall scientific convention is likely to get published. "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources." Material that runs directly counter to the consensus is actually discriminated against because editors of journals and books likely use the same criterion. It is a "catch 22".

For instance, I wrote that the Friedmann equations article should include a caveat or two. I said that the equations depend on these two disputed premises: 1.) The Cosmological Principle and 2.) The Ideal Gas Law. I maintain that these assumptions are indeed in dispute.

The debate about Friedmann's use of the Cosmological Principle has been spearheaded by George Ellis. (I am sorry, but I have not yet mastered the HTML tools to include a bona fide citation according to the pure Wikipedia format.) I refer to this fact. There are several investigators who have picked up on Ellis' criticism and have proposed new metrics that support whole new proper interpretations of general relativity. Now, I could indeed include specific citations. Is this what Wikipedia moderators and administrators demand? If I do so, will my edits be approved, provided they are otherwise acceptable?

This is an interesting issue because it gives me experience in getting along with chief editors and publisher administrators.

Wikipedia instructs all contributing editors "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." But, what about Wikipedia's own inherent bias that I mention above? Is there no mechanism to ameliorate this effect? Does Wikipedia pretend to be 100% unbiased?

I intended one of the caveats to the Friedmann equations to address the issue of the assumption of the ideal gas law. Clearly, the universe is not an ideal gas. It does not fit the definition of an ideal gas or a "continuum" in Einstein's sense of a perfect fluid. Furthermore, it is not a subsystem within a larger system. (At least, this has not been proven.) So, it is meaningless to presume that the universe can be treated like an adiabatic local laboratory subsystem. It is also meaningless to presume that the universe can do "work" on the larger laboratory system, the meaning of the parameter "w" in the Friedmann equations. It is not called "w" by accident. It is also meaningless to presume that pressure, "p", can be negative. A negative pressure denotes suction. What is sucking on the universe? Or: Does the Universe Suck? On itself, I mean. This is a good idea for a T-shirt.

Is there, in fact, such a thing as pressure in the overall universe? Pressure is defined as the force exerted by a fluid on the walls of its container. Just because we could theoretically place a large segment of the universe in a vast container and measure the pressure exerted on the container walls does not mean that there actually is a large container enclosing the whole universe against which a pressure is exerted.

How might we measure the pressure within an explosion? Pressure measurement implies that the process is reversible. To the extent that the universe may resemble a big explosion and is a dynamic process, not the static process assumed by the Friedmann equations (despite the claims for it), the universes' evolution is irreversible. It may also be turbulently chaotic, but this is another issue.

Must I search or research critiques of this assumption? Why? This criticism is self evident.

Self evident material should be exempt from the rule of verifiability. The presumption is that a consultation with common modern textbooks will verify the obvious or common sense assertions made by the volunteer editor. Do the moderators and administrator demand that we submit voluminous virtual new articles or tantamount books with numerous citations and a regular bibliography as if they were mere edits? This is what the demand for fully documented verifiability in all cases, even in trivial or common sense cases would mean if it were to be blindly enforced.

I understand the situation that moderators are in. There must be safeguards against cranks and crackpots. The integrity of Wikipedia must be protected against frivolous changes and additions. Wikipedia must maintain the standards of good journalism. In fact, it is a real encyclopedia with a reputation to nurture and protect. As an author who pretends to the same standards of journalism, I sympathize.

So, I would suggest that the rule not be rigidly enforced, as it appears to be in my case. I would like to submit an amendment to the rulebook. I would use a rule that is made more flexible by application of principles that have been used by the courts to judge what a defendant "may have known or should have known" by common knowledge or modestly intelligent deduction. The defendant in this case would be the reader.

If the problem stems from a lack of citations or my ignorance of the formatting tools to include citations, in the Wikipedia style, that I have given, please tell me.

Respectfully, Kentgen1

Please provide the information needed to identify your sources (publisher, author, title, year, page numbers) in any format you find convenient. Others will reformat it to fit our standards (assuming your edit is not reverted for other reasons).

The section Friedmann equations#Useful solutions merely provides an example of how the equations can be used. It does not mean that the matter in the universe must be an ideal gas in order to use the Friedmann equations.

Pressure is a meaningful concept even if it is not being measured. Reality exists even when it is not observed. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit pertains to the whole article, not just the section, which is just a convenient place for it to reside. Pressure certainly is a meaningful concept, but I did not say it is not. I said its measurability implies thermodynamic reversibility. To have its effect on a transducer, pressure must be opposed and reversed. Even a manometer transduces into height of a mercury column. It is meaningless to try to measure an instantaneous pressure in an irreversible process and then treat the result as if as if it is reversible. At least, when we do so, we should be cognizant of the pitfalls. But, this is not being done faithfully by astronomers and cosmologists who measure the pressure indirectly via observation of secondary and tertiary phenomena. This practice may be compromised by the assumption of the ideal gas law, which if it is not valid, will make such observations moot.

It is not enough to fall back on the excuse that this is all theoretical anyway. Theory must always be formulated toward observability. This goes to the issue of the section as pertaining to usefulness.

It is a huge assumption to say that the universe is like a reversible process. In fact, this is a big issue. If the universe is not essentially a reversible process, then it is meaningless to try to rewind time 13.72 billion years in order to go back to near t = 0.

It is not only the section that I refer to, in fact. The Friedmann equations themselves demand caveats. This is the best place to mention some.

The Friedmann equations inherently assume the ideal gas premise. The assumption certainly affects the usefulness of any solutions! Besides, the assumption has such egregiously serious consequences that caveats should be mentioned, if not in this section, then somewhere.

Reality exists whether it is being measured or not, but not the perception of it. We seem to think that scientists are immune to the existential impact of what we say and do. Principles of quantum theory prove that we cannot do this. There is an essential existential contribution to the absolute reality that we seek so futilely.

As humans, we perceive phenomena according to our five senses. The senses are common to all of us. The intervention of instruments makes no difference. The commonality of human perception means that we can fall into the existential trap wherein what we percieve is mistaken for a representation of what is real.

The measurability of pressure, directly or indirectly, is crucial to the usefulness of the solutions to the Friedmann equations. These are caveats, after all. They are not admonitions to not use them. They are dicta to use them carefully, being aware that they have shortcomings. Just because they are "derived" from general relativity does not mean that they are not "interpretive". My edit makes a point of this. There are other ways investigators have formulated the FLRW metric that lead to sets of solutions like the Friedmann equations that do not result in a conclusion of acceleration and dark energy, for instance. It is this use that I am most worried about. So the caveats appear in this section.

To turn your criticism inside out: The tree falls in the forest whether anyone is there to see and hear it. But, does the whole forest have to fall down for us to acknowledge it?

It has been suggested by some cosmologists that the scientific method be abandoned because clinging to it demands that certain conclusions from the USE of the Friedmann equations indicate acceleration and dark energy. The dark energy hypothesis, in particular, cannot be falsified according to critical (direct) experiment. So, they say, let's forego falsifiability as a criterion. This is a case where the tree has fallen and we are trying to pretend that it did not just because we did not hear or see it. Our professional standards are at stake here.

What about the bias issue? What is being done to address the slant that occurs when only conventional wisdom or common consensus is allowed in Wikipedia. Does this not subvert one of the best attributes of Wikipedia in that it must be independent and not beholden to the Establishment?

Also, how much documentation of various technical points is enough? After all, Wikipedia could demand that the references cited shall themselves be subject to analysis and referencing.

And, as I said, a principle like one used in court should apply to whether common sense judgement should be assumed on the part of the reader. At least, she should be regarded as literate.

Kentgen1 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not assume that pressure is "measurable", nor that the expansion of the universe is reversible. We do not assume that the matter in the universe is an ideal gas. We are not making "excuses". Again, you are erroneously assuming that we are making assumptions which we do not make.

It is not clear to me why you think that we must be able to measure pressure to make use of the Friedmann equations. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Whenever the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations are used to make calculations such as Hubble diagrams (red-shift must be interpreted) these assumptions are made. I shall copiously document the basic truth of what I have said in the near future. For now let me say this:

1. in science and especially in cosmology, a quantity that is not measureable, directly of indirectly, is suspect. A theory that does not attempt to measure and account for essential quantities is no theory at all. If a quantity is measureable only indirectly for present, then it should be only a matter of time or practical significance that it is not yet measureable directly. The thought experiment that I refer to in extrapolating measureability of some parcel of the universe to the whole universe is an SOP method here in physics. It should be taken seriously. Pressure is intrinsically foundational to the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations. One may use the FLRW/Friedmann equations to compute an equation of state, w = -p, for instance. This w is said to be key. Any measurement that cannot be made (in any way), at least in principle, does not represent a quantity that actually exists, according to the tenets of the scientific method. But, these and other quantitiies exist only because of the assumptions that have been made.

2. So, you do agree that that the Friedmann equations must not presume that the expansion of the universe is an adiabatic reversible system? But they do, (see this very article) because they assume that the universe is a ideal fluid (basically a perfect gas, since most of the volume is filled with a tenuous gas of hydrogen and a bit of helium plus a trace of others. If it is highly compressible, and expansion means that it would be, even the spacetime continuum should be thought of as an ideal gas, not merely some ideal fluid, as is stated elsewhere in Wikipedia.

It has been stated by good authority that thinking of the universe expansion in terms of “stretching” of space-time is a mistake because it leads to confusion. It is better to think of the expansion kinematically. So, since the universe is expanding slowly (only from a relative point of view), there is a tenuous rational basis to view this as fulfilling the main requirement for reversibility.

This the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations do most avidly. That the FLRW/Friedmann equations use this assumption is also stated elsewhere in Wikipedia.

If you agree that the universe expansion should not be assumed to be reversible, then we have no business trying to rewind time 13.72 billion years to near t = 0 without acknowledgment of the risk of making these assumptions.

I have not said what you say I said, or you misunderstand my meaning, perhaps because I am not expressing myself very well. But, unfortunately, some of the people I have talked to do indeed have an unstated agenda. They seem to deliberately misunderstand. However, I know that you are trying hard to be fair.

My serious question is: are you saying that science cannot ever be wrong and that some of these ideas that I object to are NOT being hyped tantamount to dogma? I cannot understand why you won't budge a millimeter and concede at least some of the points that I have laboriously tried to make.

For my part, the most important thing to me is that I am trying to build a case for scientists to present to the public a more balanced story of acceleration and dark energy by acknowledging their hypothetical nature. I will proceed to the issue of acceleration and dark energy at another time. Correcting accounts of the Friedmann equations are key to my program.

Being a hypothesis in science is not a bad thing. But we should be very reticent to come down so strongly for a conclusion that is so important.

The reason why it is so important is that our view of cosmogony helps to complete our story of our very existence. Is not the narrative of our having come into being important to at least some people?

3. I have never said, nor even implied, that we are making excuses. Show me the quote. I do say that we are misrepresenting the degree of certainty and the absence of risk in embracing conclusions that are based solely on the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations as one of many possible interpretations of general relativity. Other viable interpretations of GR do not lead to the same conclusions. FLRW/Friedmann is the main exemplar of a whole paradigm.

4. I shall document the probable truth (95% confidence level) of my assertions later.

I did not intend for this to become a debate. But let me say this - I was a member of the champion debate squad at the University of Illinois at Champagne/Urbana. My MS degree is from the Illinois Institute of Technology (1985). I graduated without the PhD only due to the fact that my fellowship funding expired and the department could not afford to carry me long enough for me to stand for my defense of thesis. And, I could not afford to pay tuition from then on. However, I did all the research and was writing my dissertation at the time.

I do enjoy this exchange, however. I am sorry if I have offended you. And, I have deep respect for you and all other physicists, indeed, all scientists. I regard our broad fellowship as a sort of "League of Heroes" in the sense of Joseph Campbell's assertion that our tendency to make legends of people tells a lot about our civilization. He says that this characteristic is essential for the good health of society. I agree.

Please consider the following quote, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III from Wikipedia (when in talk references seem to revert back to the same talk page rather than to the target) on Hugh Everett:

"Many-worlds at Princeton and afterwards

For his second term at Princeton, starting in 1954, he moved into the Physics Department. His main course that year was Methods of Mathematical Physics with Eugene Wigner, although he stayed active in math and presented a paper on military game theory in December. He passed his general exams in the spring of 1955, thereby gaining his Master's degree, and then started work on his dissertation that would (much) later make him famous. He switched thesis advisors to John Wheeler some time in 1955, wrote a couple of short papers on quantum theory and completed his long paper, Wave Mechanics Without Probability in April 1956[2] later retitled as The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, and eventually defended his thesis after some delay in the spring of 1957. A short article, which was a compromise between Everett and Wheeler about how to present the concept and almost identical to the final version of his thesis, appeared in Reviews of Modern Physics Vol 29 #3 454-462, (July 1957), accompanied by a supportive review by Wheeler. The physics world took little note. Everett had already left academia for defence work (see next section).

During March and April 1959, at Wheeler's request, Everett visited Copenhagen, on vacation with his wife and baby daughter, in order to meet with Niels Bohr, the "father of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics". The visit was a complete disaster; Everett was simply unable to communicate the core idea that the wavefunction should be regarded as a real classical field; this was simply heresy to Bohr and the others at Copenhagen. The conceptual gulf between their positions was simply too wide to allow any meeting of minds; Léon Rosenfeld, one of Bohr's followers, talking about Everett's visit, described Everett as being "undescribably stupid and could not understand the simplest things in quantum mechanics". Everett later described this experience as "hell...doomed from the beginning"[5]."

(bold italic mine)

It is highly unlikely that Everett is stupid. Obviously, Rosenfeld is the one who could not understand even the simplest thing about QM, from Everett's point of view. I include this quote just to illustrate how dogmatic scientists can be sometimes.

Clarification

I saw that there was a 3O request. I am not taking on the request myself, but in order to give a better opinion, we need some clarification. Can someone, in a few short and concise sentences, describe the issue here? What's wrong, what are the sides of the argument, and what page does this refer to? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The following was posted on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The 3O request that I made is in regard to JRSpriggs handling of my proposed changes to the article on the Friedmann equations. I have proposed numerous amendments to various section of the article over a period of several weeks. All my proposals have been aimed at providing more transparent and emphatic warnings, caveats and cautionary notes regarding the use of the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric to precisely model the behavior of the universe. Spriggs insists that no assumptions are made in this model, no cautions are needed. I say: "BALDERDASH!"

The articles themselves have one short single line entry apiece that acknowledge that the Friedmann model is approximate and that the "precision" in "precision cosmology" comes in when fixes or extensions are spliced into this "standard model". These extensions also require acceptance of more assumptions. But, I think that the articles bury these warnings deep in some rather arcane text and it is surely invisible to certain readers like journalists. Reporters love to hype theories of the accelerating expansion of the universe and dark energy. They get no sense of restraint from Wikipedia. This is what I wish to supply.

Spriggs does not acknowledge that assumptions are made and that the model is approximate. This is incredible! It is a joke! We need 3O to begin a process of reconciliation that may indeed progress all the way to arbitration.

Kentgen1 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus

To Kentgen1: To communicate effectively with other people (and to think effectively also), you must focus more. Make your messages short and to the point. Leave out anything which is not on the main topic. Otherwise, I will not have the time to read and respond to your messages. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To communicate with other people effectively you need to think more efficiently and effectively yourself. Your closed minded focus seems to be that you wish to bespeak as a person who assumes every proposed edit from some editors is from a crank or a crackpot. I do think we need 3O. Sorry, but I am getting really irritated with this whole process.

Kentgen1 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond to this here rather than on my talk page. I'm sorry, Kentgen, but I have to agree with JRSpriggs. I tried to read the discussion above, but it made no sense at all to me - and that's why I made a note to ask for clarification. How can someone give a third opinion if they can't even understand the discussion? Just because you have a clear understanding of what's going on does not mean everyone else does, and in a collaborative forum like this, we need to work together. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a rather esoteric subject area, after all. One risks oversimplification when trying to communicate the disagreement to a third party. I am certain that Spriggs understands it. His spurious comment in "FOCUS" was obviously written before he read my final defense of my proposed changes. Or else he wrote "FOCUS" to change the subject. This should not be about me or about Spriggs. My editorial proposals are not being addressed. "FOCUS" is subterfuge.

There is nothing unfocussed about my response to his denial that serious unacknowledged assumptions are being made in the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. He denies that this model of cosmology is approximate and may be misleading as it is written. He does not acknowledge that the articles need to be more transparently circumspect in their descriptions and accounts. He refuses to accept that more emphatic warnings, cautions and caveats need to be inserted in strategic spots so that people like newspaper and magazine reporters do not get the idea that this is all graven in stone.

I wrote your TALK page with a brief description of this dispute.

Kentgen1 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3O discussion on editorial changes to Friedmann equations

This section is meant to be devoted to a 3O discussion of Kentgen1's proposed edits of the article on the Friedmann equations.

Kentgen1 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I gave a third opinion on Talk:Friedmann equations#Kentgen's additions. Issues regarding content should be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. Anyway, I've removed your edits due to a complete lack of reliable sourcing. Wiki is based on the idea that everything in a page should be based on reliable sources - news articles, magazines, scientific journals, and so on. Simply listing a bunch of Wiki links on a page and your own thoughts on the topic is unacceptable and cannot be kept in an article. If you want to discuss the inclusion of text like that, find some actual sources and concisely list them on the talk page so they can be discussed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I got the impression that a third opinion would be from a person with more espertise in the subject and that, generally, it takes some time to cast about for such a person. You said you did not understand my extensive response to Sprigg's last comment. We need someone who does understand, for there is nothing wrong with my English and my response was well organized like a formal essay that was targeted for a knowledgable audience.

I also got the impression that it was Spriggs who reverted my edits and, from his comments, he objects to the content that casts doubt upon the Friedmann equations, the FLRW metric, accelerating expansion and dark energy. He insists that no assumptions are being made in Friedmann and clearly there are. This comment alone denotes a person who grossly lacks objectivity and who wishes to resist objections to the growing (accelerating) popularity of the new standard model. The trouble with consensus is that it is often wrong. Science is not a democracy.

Sprigg's objections did once mention that more extensive references need to be cited. I responded the easy way. What's wrong with citing Wiki itself? Does not Wikipedia claim some degree of authoritativeness? A few of the references that I provided that cited Wikipedia did not have single specific entries and I should have cited Wiktionary because they are really just definitions. This is an oversight that I can easily correct. To correct or extend my other citations, I already have them in hand because I wrote an extensive critique of Friedmann, FLRW and dark energy that I posted on my blog and on my website ( http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/ , http://www.lonetree-pictures.com/ ). Plus, all I need to do is follow the other Wikipedia links backward to find more links to the "primary Literature", which is, I believe, what you are demanding. My purpose in citing Wikipedia itself was merely to make the point that my contribution is not spurious or lacking validity. It is NOT my personal opinion.

However, my impression is also that Sprigg's main beef was with the content that strives to introduce a greater degree of skepticism into the article on the Friedmann equations. Clearly, as a mathematician and a physicist, he loves them. I cannot compete with such love.

This is why I think we need a bone fide 3O interlocutor with much more expertise in this arcane subject area and who does not have obvious conflicts of interest, as you do, since you are responsible for reverting my edits in the first place. I want to avoid carrying this issue to a higher level, if possible.

Spriggs made much more specific objections than merely the quality of my references. If Spriggs is to have the final say, I need to answer these specific objections and correct them if and when necessary.

However, your present comment seems to indicate that Spriggs does not have final say. This is good. I can meet your main objection and I shall do so! Then, if all is satisfactory at this point, we really do not need 3O after all.

I wish to become a good source and resource for you and Wikipedia. I plan to write several articles on matters in my baileywick (physics, math, chemistry, biochemistry and an area even more esoteric than cosmogony: chemical microscopy).

Kentgen1 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For your information, I have not yet reverted any of your edits to Friedmann equations or Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. However, I would have reverted you if others had not reverted you before I had a chance to do so. I was merely the first person who tried to explain to you why you were reverted. If you want to understand better what is going on, I suggest that you read the revision history of those articles (click on the "history" tab at the top of the page) and also read the talk pages of those articles which you can reach by clicking on the "discussion" tab. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that these equations assume that matter is an ideal gas. That is not so. The equations can be deduced directly from these assumptions: that spacetime is a simply connected Lorentzian manifold with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension; that its metric satisfies the Einstein field equations; and that spacetime (and the distribution of matter it contains) is spatially homogeneous and isotropic. Nothing else is required to get them. You should provide proof of your claim that ideal gas is assumed. Otherwise, other people (or I) will keep reverting your baseless claims. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reread the article:

The Friedmann Equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

Useful solutions

The Friedmann equations can be easily solved in presence of a perfect fluid with equation of state (ideal gas law)

                   See the formula given.

where p is the pressure, rho is the mass density of the fluid in the comoving frame and w is some constant.

Actually, w is really a parameter that is constant only for this universe under these assumptions.

A chemist would write the ideal gas law as PV = nRT. But, using reduced Planck units this becomes PV = T (n and R both equal 1). Now rho = M/V where M is mass. So V = M/rho, then PM/rho = T. But, since n = 1 and it really is only a stand-in for M, then M = 1 too. Then P/rho = T. Now, PV itself has the dimensions of energy or work, w. So, P/rho = w. This is really the so called equation of state.

If the universe expansion and rate is accelerating then there is an additional component to w and w becomes negative. Then the change in P must also be negative since the change in rho must be zero or positive (the condensed matter and/or energy in the universe is considered just another phase). A negative change in P is construed to mean repulsive dark energy in the form of Lambda or quintessence.

There is a real logical inconsistency when we move from the ideal gas analogy to general relativity without stating why this should be possible or desirable. Why are we justified in mixing our metaphors? The justification comes when we acknowledge the approximate nature of our model and exercise due care in hyping the conclusions. We acknowledge that the approximations facilitate an approximate computation and that is all. Friedmann is being used to push a dogma. Wikipedia must resist this hype.

Also, when a system does work and w is negative, upon what is the universe working? Itself? Or does -P mean that the universe is being sucked upon by its "laboratory frame of reference". If the universe works upon itself, then the potential energy contained in the universe is increasing or else the universe is becoming more turbulent. This is O.K., except where is the energy coming from? We assume the conservation of matter and energy. Is the First Law of Physics being violated?

The metaphor is not even followed very closely. For, if there are other phases present, even in small amounts, the Cosmological Principle cannot hold and the universe's matter and energy distribution cannot be considered "ideal". Furthermore, Lambda or Quintessence must presume that the energy is already there and was always there. Where? This is an unstated premise. There is no way to prove it. Lacking a direct way to prove it by means of the falsifiability principle, that is, via a critical experiment done upon the null hypothesis, only anecdotal circumstantial evidence is available. One may not PROVE a hypothesis by any anecdote or combination of anecdotes.

Therefore, I repeat, and I will continue to repeat, that the Friedmann equations should be treated with a degree of circumspection and skepticism. This is all that I am trying to do.

Elsewhere in Wikipedia it is stated that FLRW/Friedmann is only approximate. The lumpiness and other attributes of the universe that are observed must be tacked on by ad hoc means. Band-aids must be applied. These band-aids cannot be used to prove anything either.

Why do you object to changes that merely bring Wikipedia back into mainstream thinking about the scientific method? This is not about me or my personal opinions. I will continue to offer proof of this.

I acknowledged that you did not revert my changes. I can document, and I shall, everything that I recommended - as I have hereby begun to do. The Wikipedia references that I gave in my last attempt to edit are also a start.

Kentgen1 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Friedmann equations, as they are actually used, are not derived. See the article. In order to use them at all, they do too rely on assumptions like the ideal gas law. Your comments are untrue and prove that you are grossly biased. I want a new reviewer.

Kentgen1 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the derivation of the Friedmann equations is too mathematically tedious (i.e. very long and hard for novices to understand) to include in this encyclopedia. If you want to see it, acquire one of the books or journal articles listed in the references.

Your description of the ideal gas law is incorrect — you mistakenly said that R, n, and M can all be taken to be 1. In units where R=1, n is the number of molecules; and M would be the sum of their masses. Generally, these are different. So you cannot choose to have both be 1. But once again, this is irrelevant to the articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the point anyway. The point is that the Friedmann equations must be applied. The applied equations are not all derived. As they appear in the article they contain more assumptions than are acknowledged in the section on assumptions. When they are applied, these assumptions are made with gusto. Thus, all of the assumptions that are currently made in "modern precision cosmology" are suspect and under intense debate. I have suggested changes to let the reader know that the totality of all these equations, as a model for the entire universe, are approximate. One little line hinting at this caveat in the body of the text is not enough. The overall impression one gets is that the model is accurate and precise. It is not. It cannot be relied upon for momentous decisions about cosmogony.

What is amazing is that Saul Perlmutter et al. and Adam Reiss et al. make the mistake of believing their own hype.

One can presume a total number of atoms, molecules, photons, what have you, with an average formula weight or equivalent weight such that the total mass/energy of the universe is 1. R must be rescaled accordingly. Maybe it is not 1, but something different, sorry. One way or another, the units are reduced units so that we do not have to bother with all kinds of different dimensions. My final equation is correct. The point of this exercise is not a demonstration of creative algebra, but an illustration of how pressure comes to be a vastly important quantity in the applied Friedmann equations. This makes the ideal gas assumption very critical and it should be acknowledged repeatedly in the article.

I want a new reviewer. You focus on trivia and fail to see the big picture. You are hopelessly biased and are trying to protect your bias.

Kentgen1 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The way that the Friedmann equations are usually used is to take the "matter" to be a mixture of: dust (no pressure), radiation (pressure = density * c^2 / 3), and dark energy (pressure = − density * c^2). Nothing about gas, ideal or otherwise. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote, Unquote:

"Useful solutions

The Friedmann equations can be easily solved in presence of a perfect fluid with equation of state (ideal gas law):"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

The Friedmann equations, AS THEY ARE PRESENTED HERE IN THIS ARTICLE, are not derived solely from general relativity. The ideal gas law is assumed in order to apply the GR components and make them useful. Without some additional assumptions like the ideal gas law, the GR equations are just a bunch of tensor mechanics: pure math with no practical implications.

Are you revising the article too?

Kentgen1 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I want a new reviewer.

This whole conversation is pointless. You are ignoring the reason that I think the article needs to be revised. They are presently presented like a model that is unassailable and you believe it too. Where is your sense of skepticism? If you believe it, others will too without an appreciation for the risks.

From time to time you make statements that are patently untrue and mindlessly absurd. I have said "Check" in our little game several times but you think you have wiggled out somehow. I am just waiting for you to say something so demonstrably foolish and ridiculous on its face that even an "unbiased" mediator will be able to see it. Then, I will not have to try to boil down this whole transcipt into a short and concise mediation application. It will be right there in a nutshell. At that time I will declare "Checkmate!"

I am hoping by this that a mediator will also conclude that you are deliberately being obtuse for reasons of gross bias and that I do, in fact, need a new reviewer.

By the way, the equations that you present in your last comment are themselves "derived" from E = mc^2, the ideal gas law and the equation for the volume of a sphere. There is no factor of pi because reduced units are in effect.

Are you really supposed to be a mathematician?

Kentgen1 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-09/Friedmann_equations

I've closed out your mediation request because I think you have a misunderstanding how the process works here on Wikipedia. For the record, I have no clue what you guys are talking about in this article I struggled my way through high school calculus so I will give you that insight. You use a lot of terms that are unique to academic research as as requesting a new "reviewer". WP doesn't work based on peer review, it works based on consensus. Looking at the article there seems to be clear consensus of disagreement with your position.

Now, that's not to say you are wrong but I think it's difficult for others to understand your position when you respond with a shear wall of text. I cannot even begin to fathom reading all of what you have posted in these responses. There seems to be general agreement you are relying on original research which is not allowed. You need to include reliable sources of your information that you want to bring into the article. You didn't bring any sources when you made your changes so they were removed. That's standard practice. Minority views are always welcome but only if they have sources to back them up.

I would encourage you to take a look at the policies on original research and reliable sources and I will be happy to help clarify any issues for you. --Wgfinley (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Friedmann equations, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

About the Critique

The following sandbox version of what I intend to be either a new segment of the "Friedmann Equations" (FE) or of the "FLRW Metric" has the working title "Critique of the Universe" since it is a critical review of the FE/FLRW standard model of cosmology. It may be able to stand alone with a title like "The FLRW Metric, Friedmann Equations, Hubble Acceleration and Dark Energy - a Critique". Anyway, after it has had a few rounds of editing by interested Wiki-editors, It will certainly look a lot different. This is only an initial position but, the general outline and the tone will survive. The title may change, however.

Kentgen1 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have written the following abridged abstract referring to a contribution under construction that is meant to be a new free standing article or else a segment to be appended to the Friedmann Equations article or maybe to the FLRW Metric or perhaps to both. This proposed contribution has the working title “Critique of the Universe”.

In the full text contribution on my Talk Page, the references are numbered in “belt and suspenders” duplicate style because, at present, some of them contain a comment as well as a reference or else the reference is incomplete – being only a reference to Wikipedia itself – so the citation would need to be edited and upgraded. I hope I can attract some editors who might like to do this.

Both of the articles are defective in that they contain no criticisms, no caveats, no cautionary dicta. They lack a critique. This violates Wikipedia’s own NPOV policy because, to the reader, it appears as if Wikipedia sanctions or tacitly accepts the statements and conclusions given in the articles as scientific fact, when they are just hypotheses.

As an editor pointed out, the FLRW is indeed just a mathematical object but, there are alternate mathematical expressions that do not require the same assumptions and do not lead to the same derived set of equations as a model. So, a caveat or two would be in order. Just because it is itself mathematically internally logical, does not mean that the math actually makes sense, particularly with regard to the required assumptions.

See the unabridged abstract and my full text proposed contribution and help edit it at:

Kentgen1 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There are so many criticisms of the Friedmann Equations article that one doesn’t know quite where to begin. So, instead of citing each objection separately in a futile attempt to edit, I have written a proposed separate article that details them. This abstract refers to that proposed article which may be viewed here.

                         CRITIQUE of the UNIVERSE

  Friedmann Equations, FLRW Metric, Hubble’s Law “Acceleration”, Dark Energy

                                 ABSTRACT

The universe (U) has been described using an ideal gas model. The Friedmann equations based on the Friedmann/Lemaitre/Robertson/Walker metric (FE/FLRW) must also make other hidden or unstated presumptions. The FE article refers the U system to a “state” variable, w, using the ideal gas law to formulate an “equation of state”. So, being in a particular state, an equilibrium constant, K(eq), may be defined. If U is at equilibrium, its processes should be thermodynamically reversible.

The model refers to U like a laboratory subsystem. To avoid drawing attention to this implied perspective, gas law “negative pressure, -p” (arising from putative acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate) must be internalized by characterizing it as a result of some kind of dark energy (DE), which is to say, as a result of negative w instead of negative p. This disregards certain discrete positive values of w that are also discussed in the FE article. This “-w” must refer to some kind of internal or potential energy. This requirement is not only because no process producing negative p (suction) can be admitted, but the universe’s processes are assumed to be adiabatic. By the conservation law, there must be an invisible reservoir of such DE. Solving “the missing mass problem” arising by implication in the FE, DE is considered to be unmeasurable.

We observe phenomena in U as far back in time as 8 to10 billon years, well over a half-life. So, the current latter phase is seen to have taken longer than the former, when changes were dramatic. Yet, things have not really changed that much since then. So, the expansion rate must actually be decelerating.

Earlier modern Hubble constant determinations, obtained for less distant celestial objects than were used by P&R, were got mainly by using the highly reliable Cepheid variable star technique. All such previous determinations show that H naught is not constant but is decreasing with time, not increasing.

The FE/FLRW model is clearly inadequate for discussing “modern precision cosmology”. It contains too many stated and hidden assumptions, silent postulates and unstated conjecture.

To the extent that the FE/FLRW model is inadequate, the Big Bang Theory may be impacted adversely. Many editors know this and they know that the Big Bang piece is a premier Wikipedia article . . .

Kentgen1 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Critique of the Universe

A "belt and suspenders" approach to the references is used for now because some of them have comments embedded within and some of them are incomplete at this time. They will be completed soon.

I am sure that Wiki-editors will wish to delete material that they deem to be mere commentary. So be it.

I have had trouble convincing some wiki-editors that the Friedmann equations rely on the assumption that the spacetime continuum/matter-energy mixture that is presumed to comprise the universe in this model are to be treated like an ideal gas. It is said that the Friedmann equations are derived from general relativity alone. But, the Friedmann equations, all by themselves, are useless without solutions. The solutions presume the ideal gas approximation. The entire body of the mathematical development of the Friedmann equations proper and their usual solutions according to the standard model of cosmology is what I mean by "The Friedmann Equations"

So, let us acknowledge that the solutions to the Friedmann equations that constitute the standard model do indeed refer to the ideal gas laws. Let us not waste time arguing semantics.

Gary K

CRITIQUE of THE UNIVERSE

The Friedmann Equations, FLRW Metric, Hubble’s Law Acceleration and Dark energy

At the outset, please note that use of the “Standard Model of Cosmology” with its necessary assumption of a Hubble constant, H_o = k, to compute an accelerating universe expansion rate, necessarily with H_o ≠ k, is self-contradictory¹.

The Friedmann equations (FE) and the Friedmann/Lemaitre/Robertson/Walker (FLRW) metric upon which the FE are based have been described as a “first approximation” but, this is misleading. Both the FE and the FLRW metric, as they are almost always presented, contain so many layered unstated assumptions as well as some acknowledged “guesstimates” that the result is not merely a “first approximation”, but is a blatant mistake. And, the hidden postulates and unstated assumptions are far more important then the explicit ones. . .

The Introduction and the Solutions sections of Wikipedia’s the "FLRW Metric" and the "Friedmann Equations" describe the substrate matrix and substance of the universe together as comprising a fluid. Due to the required properties (such as frictionlessness) of any such substrate matrix or ground for the whole universe, what they mean by a “fluid” is really an “ideal” or “perfect” fluid. Both matter-energy and the spacetime continuum under general relativity comprise this fluid² , which can only be described as an ideal gas³ simply because no other metaphor is appropriate.

The universe is described as comprising a continuum, an entity which is really unlike any solid, liquid or gas. Therefore, to refer to the universe and the continuum together as expanding without limit or as having a pressure or density per se, is pure expedience. Einstein described the space-time continuum as a matrix of infinitesimal (infinitely small, infinitely closely spaced and infinitely numerous) massless particles having no mutual affinity⁴ (so, it must have the nature of an infinitely deep fractal chaos, completely unlike any real gas). Yet, the universe appears to be indefinitely compressible, as is demonstrated by its extreme expansion⁵ – it is observed to seem indefinitely decompressible. So, any reference by the FE to a continuum or “ground” having a mass density, ρ or rho, and a pressure, p⁶ , must indeed refer to a system comprised of a putative ideal gas because this basis,sub-floor, underlayment, continuum or ground would then meet the definition. This is especially so in the absence of any qualifier. Inadequate as it may be, there is no way around it: there simply is no alternate interpretation.

Semantic arguments will not alter this contention nor fix the flaws in the inherent, fully explicit, totally complete detailed definitions that are intrinsically a part of the FE/FLRW description. This ideal gas model also presumes that this system is bounded and it must be at equilibrium. It presumes it is bounded because, if it is not, it is cannot be at equilibrium. The ideal gas law and its corollaries simply do not apply to any system that is not “stationary”. So, the equilibrium condition is prerequisite. Then, indeed, the universe must also be timeless.

As mentioned above, this ideal gas must be frictionless: it must be an explicitly defined superfluid⁷ . Altogether, on the surface, the ideal gas model seems not to be such a terribly bad approximation since the vast majority of the volume of the universe is filled with hydrogen with a little helium thrown in⁸ , all embedded in superfluid spacetime. Assuming we can mix the spacetime continuum and its “content” this way, as if the content is separate and apart, this mixture exists at an extremely low pressure, which would facilitate the ideal gas approximation. The average density of the universe is thought to be as little as 0.2 molecule per cubic meter to, at most, only about 6 atoms or molecules per cubic meter⁹ .

In an expanding universe, stars, galaxies, nebulae, planets and people may be considered to be just along for the ride because according to the approximations made - strictly for the sake of computational tractability - they are not supposed to comprise a significant new condensed phase¹⁰ .

That condensed or more highly compressed phases are supposed to constitute an insignificant contribution to the nature and properties of the universe is summarized by the so-called “Cosmological Principle” (CP). The total density of the universe may be considered identical with an average density, as if the condensed matter is all smeared out evenly over the whole volume. In other words, the CP approximation says that there really are no such things as stars, galaxies, nebulae, planets or people. And, in effect, this new approximation imputes mass to the continuum. This might have useful implications, but it is not part of the general theory of relativity, having no experimental basis.

Moreover, CP says that everywhere one looks, in any direction, from any location in the universe, in this homogeneous rarefied soup of mainly hydrogen and helium embedded in a relativistic spacetime matrix, the view is exactly the same. In reality, the universe may be very lumpy and heterogeneous, but this detail is handled separately by the “new standard model of precision cosmology” as an ugly ad hoc add-on. In other words, a lumpy bumpy model is superimposed upon the smooth and creamy model to make a sort of a stack of pancakes or a Dagwood sandwich.

“In a strictly FLRW model, there are no clusters of galaxies, stars or people, since these are objects much denser than a typical part of the universe. Nonetheless, the FE-FLRW model is used as a first approximation for the evolution of the real, lumpy universe because it is simple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpiness in the universe are added onto the FLRW model as extensions.” from Wikipedia, The FLRW Metric¹¹ .

Needless to say, there are a few problems with these approximations and assumptions. The most severe problem is that the “consensus” of cosmologists (and Wikipedia editors too) does not recognize any of the problems. Conventional wisdom among astrophysicists and such amateurs alike does not accord the FE-FLRW “standard model” with nearly enough skepticism.

The Trouble with All “Models”

Models are always designed to simplify and sometimes even to oversimplify. Otherwise, they would be called “ab initio” exact treatments. At best, this model is indeed a “first approximation”. The math is unsolvable if the lumpiness of the real universe is included, so this “detail” is left out when computing numerical properties of the universe like density, pressure and even the interpretation of redshifts. So, nobody should be surprised when queer circular conclusions are reached such as an accelerating expansion rate and “dark energy”.

One trouble is that the condensed or relatively compressed or compact matter in the universe constitute new phases which, over the billions of years that the universe has existed, must be expected to behave as if they had a vapor pressure. So, they are not inert.

They are not degenerate either. So, a mixture containing a rarefied gas and these other more compact phases cannot be treated like a pure virgin gas and/or a perfect continuum. Any amount of an active compact or condensed phase, no matter how small, a physical chemist will say, will upset pressure and density calculations for any kind of a putative gas¹² .

Plus, any physicist will aver that a dispersed suspension within any kind of fluid containing more than one phase is expected to have altered bulk properties like the way it transmits light and other energy. This will be true even if these other phases are indeed actually otherwise inert. In the universe, the percentage of additional phases may be very small, but the effects that are to be detected are also very small. This should be of concern to “modern precision cosmologists”.

Using the ideal gas law does indeed require one to presume that the system is at a stationary timeless condition of equilibrium. But, the universe is demonstrably not at equilibrium. This fact not only upsets the direct mathematical approximations, but it seriously upsets any indirect theoretical physics of all such oversimplified models that presuppose the ideal gas law, like the Friedmann equations.

Equilibrium

The FE/FLRW model indeed requires one to presume that the fluid system, regardless of type, must be truly at equilibrium, including uniform constant temperature, because it refers the system to a “state” variable, w. Therefore, since the universe must always be in some particular state, a value for an equilibrium constant, K(eq), may be defined.

Repeating, the universe is demonstrably not at equilibrium. Also, if it is insisted, for the sake of argument, that the universe is really held to be at equilibrium at all times then, strictly speaking, its processes must be held to be thermodynamically reversible. This is huge: the real, practical and eschatological thermodynamic implications of this are stunning. If it is held, for the sake of argument, that these auxiliary implications simply do not apply, then this constitutes another colossal set of assumptions.

Equilibrium also means that the magnitude of the equilibrium constant points to whether the system proceeds toward completion of the implied process or “reaction”, that is, toward the final yield of “products”. Or else, it stays close to the initial stage composed mainly of beginning substances, phases or “reactants”.

Thus

M0(s) ↔ M0(g) .

In other words, according to Alan Guth’s inflationary scenario, the “inflaton”, a potentially huge parcel or domain of greatly excited false vacuum, an infinitely dense solid clot of pure energy that must arise probabilistically, call it M0(s), must ultimately decay to its final ground state, a true vacuum, labeled M0(g). At the finish, the ground state comprises nothing else but the simple vacuum except, perhaps, a stray degenerate photon.

The equilibrium constant would then be written

K(eq) = [M0(g)] / [ M0(s)] ,

where the brackets denote concentration, partial pressure or partial density.

With the bracketed quantities in natural units, a vast volume containing a unit “quantity” of the true vacuum denotes the final product “density” or concentration, [M0(g)]. This is divided by a unit quantity of matter/energy, [M0(s)], as the clot of pure energy from Guth’s super dense, ultra intense solid energy “inflaton” point particle. This is expressed as

K(eq) = 1/1 = 1 .

By its intermediate magnitude alone, a process physicist or physical chemist would know, this value neatly admits or allows that the evolution of the universe should obviously still be continuing. The implication of this equation is that it will take a long time to reach equilibrium. So, both the stated and hidden FE/FLRW assumptions actually will be met only at such time as this equilibrium condition becomes a reality, perhaps more than 2 trillion years hence. By their own definitions, the hidden assumptions can neither pertain to our real universe at this moment nor at any time in the near future.

Eternal Homogeneity and the Strong or Perfect CP

Universe homogeneity is part of the so-called “Cosmological Principle” (CP). The CP approximation says that there really are no such things as stars, galaxies or people; there are no relative concentrations of matter. Another unstated presumption is that this condition must have persisted throughout time - since the beginning - or else the other affected assumptions will never have had a chance to initialize. That is to say, crucial characters most typical of the deep past cannot possibly obey the implications of CP because the expansion process itself must interfere.

That is, CP homogeneity maintains that such characters should be considered to typify, assist or epitomize the universe’s evolution, but cannot have evolved themselves. Yet, the crucial features of the universe really do evolve. This is what cosmology is all about! So, as another contradiction in terms, eternal homogeneity is impossible.

The so-called timeless, strong or “perfect CP” is not essentially different from the complete definition of the putatively less stringent or "weak CP" because whenever we look at any distant celestial objects, we look far back in time. Any statement of the CP, strong or weak, must account for this as a sort of “timelessness”. We deal with blocks of spacetime, after all, when we make astronomical observations.

When we look deeper into space, we observe more and more of the universe in what is often called “block time”. The meaning of this is that the spacetime continuum is itself immune from time. The ideal gas model also assumes the same sort of timelessness and so this model does not constitute a dynamic model at all. Far from it. But, the FE try to treat an inherently static process as if it is dynamic, another hidden contradiction; the concept of the “scale factor” notwithstanding (see below under “Dark Energy”).

Merely by assuming that we can dynamically model the universe at all has fundamental problems regarding the epistemology of this whole issue. By defining a scale factor, a(t), we presume that somehow we can stand apart from the universe and observe its evolution, state a function for a(t) and construct a plot of the scale variable, a, versus the time variable, t. It is probably quite meaningless to state this function and a waste of time to draw such a plot because we have no hope of ever being able to stand apart from the universe as if there is some sort of a "meta universe". Or else, we must acknowledge that we presume a meta universe when we speak of a scale factor and regard the FE/FLRW model seriously. (Though the author does exactly this at http://www.lonetree-pictures.org/ .) More hidden presumptions.

So, homogeneity, as here discussed, is not a property of the universe. The universe simply is not homogeneous. Why should it be relevant that the universe could be considered to be homogeneous on scales of more than 100 megaparsecs? What has scale got to do with it? Whatever the answer, we must “prove it”.

Prove it, consistent with the scientific method, with explicit falsifiable premises and without a trace of circular logic. This cannot be done. The universe is either homogeneous or it is not, there is no middle ground.

Plus, there are structures in the universe that are larger than 100 megaparsecs, such as several “great walls” or “sheets” of galaxy clusters and superclusters¹³ . Furthermore, every spiral galaxy has a supermassive black-hole in its core that possesses an hyperbolic gravitational potential around it. This is due to the relativistic nature of black-holes which are supposed to exist as gravitational or spacetime singularities.

Because of this detail of its relativistic geometry, a gravitational singularity must indeed always possess an hyperbolic gravity field. Hyperbolic gravitational potentials (proportional to 1/r) do not fall off very rapidly, nearer to zero, like the normal parabolic potentials of Newton’s Law (proportional to 1/r²). Hyperbolic supermassive black-hole potentials extend to infinity, or at least to a lot farther than 100 megaparsecs. They could actually explain “dark matter” (DM) because the presence of the galactic disc means that the potential falls off very slowly indeed (as 1/r + 1/r²). This debate point means that the universe is actually as heterogeneous as Swiss cheese.

Furthermore, if it is seen that DM is actually a result of this hyperbolic field, it would confirm that black-holes really are relativistic singularities, that singularities exist. Some of the competitors to Einstein’s theory might thus be eliminated. So, we would not need “M Theory” or “Supersymmetry”. It would be unfortunate if there is no such thing as an ultra-massive Higgs boson or a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle).

Isotropism

And, we cannot assume that the universe is isotropic either. George Ellis has repeatedly maintained and others have also pointed out that, since we cannot observe the universe in the direction of the plane of our galaxy, we cannot be sure that it is isotropic. Even if we could observe in that direction, our light horizon may not extend far enough to confirm that we are not inside a huge cosmic void. Interpolation to fill in the blocked zone must use all sorts of assumptions that subvert what we would be trying to define. If we are in a void, redshift measurements at very large distances will be skewed to appear as if the universe’s expansion rate is accelerating¹⁴ .

Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess

Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess each claim to head up independent teams of researchers that have both uncovered evidence for accelerating expansion and dark energy. Yet, their efforts were not independent but were a concerted collaboration¹⁵ .

But, this observation of acceleration, made by Saul Perlmutter¹⁶ et al. and Adam Riess¹⁷ et al . is the result of assuming yet another item. They presume that the Hubble constant is, ever will be and surely always has been truly constant. Because they insist on this unstated premise, they multiplied the magnitude modulus versus redshift data for nearer or not so old type Ia supernovae by an adjustment factor to bring this data into line with data got for much more distant and "older" data. This produces a nice straight line and irons out the kink that embarrassingly shows between segments of a simultaneous plot of the two data sets. Then the slope of the straight line is artificially made constant, like data for a well behaved Hubble diagram should be. It does not matter to P&R that this kink in the straight line between the linked data sets could just as well denote some kind of an unresolved or persistent systematic error.

In an exercise of pure faith, this fudge factor alone, all by itself, is said to indicate acceleration¹⁸ because its sign is positive.

Yet, one could just as well apply an adjustment factor to the more “ancient” supernova data and bring this segment of the curve into alignment with that of the “younger” SNe Ia data. Then, the sign of the adjustment would say that the universe is decelerating, not accelerating. That the whole argument for acceleration depends on the arbitrary application of a manufactured fine-tuning factor is very disturbing.

With amazing hubris, both Perlmutter and Riess claim that theirs is the only good Hubble constant data that has ever been obtained¹⁹ . But, their magnitude modulus versus redshift data for SNe Ia were calibrated using data got from analysis of Cepheid variable stars. Earlier modern Hubble constant determinations were also got by using Cepheid variable stars. So, this data should be every bit as good. But, all previous determinations show that H_o is not constant and is decreasing with time, not increasing²⁰ .

Dark Energy

Now, the FE/FLRW model implicitly refers to the whole universe as if it is an homogeneous laboratory subsystem. The FE must allow that energy or thermodynamic work, w, can be done upon the universe and it can do work on its parent system, that is, there must be an "equation of state" using w as an independent variable. A form of this w is referred to as "some constant" as if it is an an arbitrary convenience, an integration constant or an eigenvalue. But, in the most critical case, it is not used this way. It is used within a form of the ideal gas law that identifies it as thermodynamic work, not just a dimensionless index or figure of merit.

According to the Friedmann equations, some interesting things happen to the FE when w takes on certain discrete values, but its identity is still "work". If ρ or rho is defined as a certain type of energy density, w can indeed become dimensionless and all quantities in this so-called equation of state are also dimensionless. But, if ρ is a mass density or a combined matter and energy density, it has the dimensions of energy or work. Any assumption that the universe could be considered to be composed of pure energy is a new assumption and is even less true to the ideal gas model.

This presumption that the universe must do work is used to conclude that a perceived acceleration in the rate of expansion means that there is such a thing as “dark energy” (DE). But, this system/subsystem implication is never mentioned anywhere by anybody. It is yet another hidden presumption.

DE purportedly follows from the idea that there must be a real discrete value for thermodynamic w. It is said that it must actually be less than zero because the above mentioned pressure, p, is putatively decreasing and has actually become negative in the recent epoch due to “acceleration”.

Negative pressure always implies external suction. Blatant explicit referral to an external influence must be avoided, however, since even amateur cosmologists will hesitate to infer that there is, in fact, an “outside” to the universe. So, “-p” must be internalized by characterizing it as a result of some kind of DE, not really a consequence of some kind of externally applied w.

That is, the so called “equation of state” (the stationary condition summary equation for this ideal gas) of the universe is derived from a form of pv = nRT (the ideal gas law), the use of natural units and basic thermodynamics. Simplifying the development of the idea, pv = w. Remember, if ρ is matter-energy density, then w is work, a kind of energy. And then pv is the work that is done on the gas or could be done by the gas if it got compressed or was allowed to expand to or from ambient pressure to zero pressure and to or from a finite volume to near infinite volume.

The parameter w is also the one that appears in the solution to the Friedmann equations for an ideal fluid where p = wρc². In natural units c = 1 and ρ = m/v (mass/volume), the mass of the universe being taken as m = 1. So p = w/v or pv = w, as above. Also, in order to use the ideal gas law at all, v = 1, the current and ongoing value for the putative volume of the universe in natural units.

The static ideal gas law says that v = 1 at all times. This is a gross distortion too, as is actually acknowledged by the FE when a so-called "scale factor", a(t), is introduced that is supposed to be time dependent. If v = 1 today, it cannot have been equal to 1 six or eight billion years ago, but this is what a simple, ideal gas timeless model must assume. Some have called the FE/FLRW model a “dynamic” model. But, the FE are anything but dynamic in nature but with an alien time dependency grafted on. No justification is given for this; no discussion about why it should be desirable to do this. It is another unstated presumption.

The “scale factor”, in natural units, is used to compute a Hubble parameter, H, and derivatives. H is equal to 1 only when time is equal to 1, meaning “the present”, when it is called H_o. H and a(t) are used for various other computations.

So, time dependence is introduced despite the contrary implication of timelessness in all the other hidden postulates, unstated assumptions and even some given definitions. “Self consistent” is not an adjective that can be used to describe the FE/FLRW model.

The scale factor concept is said to follow from the approximations of homogeneity and isotropism inherent in the CP. Nobody ever mentions exactly how it follows logically. They do not dare because it certainly does not so follow without still more hidden postulates and unstated assumptions. If more layers of approximations and assumptions are not to be so added, then the scale factor idea is really just another ugly ad hoc add-on.

Now, if the expansion rate is supposed to be accelerating, H_o is not constant, for one thing, and then

w = -p ,

as if suction is being applied to the universe.

But, since we must deem this to be impossible, we cannot allow even any contribution to p to be negative, then

w ≤ 0 ,

which, by its sign and the definition of w as work, says that this work energy (if there is any) must come from within the universe. From whence does it issue?²¹

To satisfy the conservation law, there must always have been an untapped and invisible reservoir of such “dark” energy. So, it must also have an impalpable, unmeasurable mass-equivalent. Except for the stack of assumptions that have been accumulated, this is said to solve “the missing mass problem”. Being unmeasurable is considered to be only a technicality.

But, technicalities are what science is all about. To sidestep this problem, it has been seriously suggested that the scientific method should literally be dumped²² .

When ρ is defined an energy density, w takes on certain discrete values, the FE resolve to some simple forms. These forms are deemed to be important. Yet, using these values, w > 0 for these simplified relations to hold. Then p < 0 and we are back to some sort of suction being applied to the universe from an external source. The contradiction is glaring.

A Simple Observation on Acceleration and DE

However, perhaps really being not this simple, but purely as a debate point, one might insist that by telescopically observing phenomena in the universe as far back in time as 8 to 10 billion years, for well over its half-life from Hubble’s Law, this current latter phase is seen to have taken quite a bit longer than the former. Yet, things are proven to have not really changed that much since then. The whole process has clearly progressed only marginally in over 8 billion years. Yet, up until more than 10 billion years ago, the changes must have been dramatic. These earliest spectacular changes took place in less than 4 billion years.

So, the whole process, including the expansion rate, must actually be decelerating. This is pure logic, an inescapable mathematical certainty. But, many cosmologists somehow insist that the expansion rate is indeed currently accelerating due to DE.

Some of these points may be contradicted by a good debater. But, any one of them will demolish the FE/FLRW. All of these critical points would have to be refuted simultaneously in an effective defense of the FE/FLRW and DE. This cannot be done without self contradiction.

It will be very bad for science if we have to backtrack again on such matters as accelerating Hubble expansion and dark energy. Scientists should be absolutely triple certain before they make even preliminary pronouncements to the Press.

But, as Lev Landau, the Nobel laureate physicist, said: “Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt.”²³

1 dummy - needed because wiki-text editor refuses to parallel the explicit citation numbers when they are numbered in parallel

2 The composition of the Friedmann Fluid is a mixture of ideal gases that includes the

   spacetime continuum. See Wikipedia, Friedmann Equations – Mixtures, also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 and references therein. 

3 Ideal Gas, see any good college or high school chemistry text or Wikipedia or

   http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html 

4 Albert Einstein The Collected Papers, vol. 6, Princeton University Press, 1997

  The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, DOC. 30

5 Hubble expansion, search “Hubble’s Law” or “Edwin Hubble” or see Wikipedia –

   otherwise, this is common knowledge or else see http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/hubbles_law.htm 

6 Friedmann equations - variables p and rho, see any detailed treatment of the FE or

   see Wikipedia

7 Spacetime as a superfluid – see ref. 3 and

  The Perfect Relativistic Gas
         T. Y. Thomas

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Mar. 15, 1964), pp. 363-367 (article consists of 5 pages) Published by: National Academy of Sciences URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/71996

There are literally thousands of internet search hits when a search is done on spacetime superfluid, spacetime ideal fluid, spacetime perfect fluid, spacetime ideal gas, etc.

8 Majority of sensible matter (by volume) in the universe is hydrogen, H, or H2 and a

   little He – search “composition of the universe” – such as http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html  

9 Average matter density of the universe, search or see

   http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html  

10 Cosmological Principle as an approximation – almost any search on “critique of the

   cosmological principle” will reveal statements referencing this.

11 Wikipedia, the "FLRW Metric"

12 “Gas laws” do not work in the presence of “condensed phases” – search on these phrases – it is very difficult to find an explicit statement. However, if one searches on “inhomogeneous or heterogeneous equilibrium” one may get better results. One can write an equilibrium constant expression for the spacetime continuum and matter/energy phases in the universe. Clearly, the ideal gas model makes no room for such an addendum to its mathematical description of the universe. But, such an equilibrium expression would itself be a huge approximation because the universe is definitely not at equilibrium.

13 http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/cosmic/sheets_voids_info.html Cosmic Great Walls

14 George Ellis http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7184/full/452158a.html

15 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9804065 Snapshot Distances to Type Ia Supernovae -- All in “One” Night's Work Adam G. Riess, Peter Nugent, Alexei V. Filippenko, Robert P. Kirshner, Saul Perlmutter

16 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9901052 Constraining dark energy with SNe Ia and large-scale structure Saul Perlmutter (LBNL), Michael S. Turner (Chicago/FNAL), Martin White (UIUC)

17 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9807008 Results from the High-Z Supernova Search Team Alexei V. Filippenko, Adam G. Riess

18 Fudge factor or “adjustment” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0201034 Michael Rowan Robinson

19 P&R “The best Hubble constant data to date.” quote

20 http://www.lonetree-pictures.com/ The data for the diagram showing linear drop in the universe expansion rate with time is got from numerous observations of the Hubble constant obtained for various distances from earth. The data is converted to natural units. The original data easily can be got by searching on the term “Hubble diagram”.

21 Self contradiction is the hallmark of the FE/FLRW model. On one hand, the ideal gas model requires that the universe be bounded with variable volume and at equilibrium at all times. If there are to be changes, they must occur in infinitesimally and immeasurably small increments. An equivalent statement is that there must be no measurable turbulence. The universe is changing only at measurably large increments and it is notoriously turbulent.

On the other hand, for w to be negative leaving p as a positive quantity, implies that the universe is unbounded with a heretofore unrecognized internal or potential energy, contrary to the model itself. So, if contradictions can be overlooked, this really means that we must still be in a Guthian “false vacuum” state. Then, the whole universe must be describable by reference to a time dependent Schroedinger-like equation.

Physics will never accept that we have been and continue to be part of a purely quantum object. Nor will it accept that there are two, discrete equally valid sides to the coin of reality; quantum and relativity theories. The Holy Grail of a grand unified theory or a theory of everything must exist. It was Einstein’s dream, after all. “M Theory” must be real, say theoretical physicists.

Physics will never just “let it be”. Theoretical physicists will try to force relativity and quantum theories to meld into a single great façade simply because they can, not because it may afford us any higher degree of truth. It is mindless seeking for seeking’s sake. Theories that are so much harder to understand and to use really constitute no improvement. They simplify nothing while complicating everything. This is not what science should be about. It is not what art is about either. The essence of art is to know when to stop.

22 The scientific method should be dumped - quote

23 Lev Landau quote from

     http://www.nature.com/nindia/2008/080116/full/nindia.2007.54.html  

Kentgen1 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't copy this lengthy essay/draft article to article talk pages such as Talk:Friedmann equations and Talk:Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the relevant article. The appropriate place for essays and draft articles is in your user space. You can post then links to your essay/draft article page if you want to solicit feedback. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make the meaning of this clear: Wikipedia is not the place to post your own works, or your own critiques of published works. This has been explained to you already by other editors, so I'm giving you an official warning template for reinstating this on several talk pages that it's been removed from. Please stop doing this. There are plenty of other online venues where new ideas are welcomed, but that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Contribution

I am rewriting my proposed contribution to Wikipedia to eliminate synthesis or anything else that might be construed as original research or personal analysis. This process does not affect the overall gist of this piece at all because most of the “personal analysis” and “synthesis” can be documented and verified with reliable outside sources. I just did not do this because I thought that wiki-editors might help me document such sources. It’s a terribly tedious job if I rely solely on the Internet because hundreds or thousands of search hits have to be reviewed in order to find the necessary material. I may be better off at the University of Wisconsin Library at Eau Claire. Of course, I can search their collections via the Internet too.

When the rewritten work is done it will be seen that there will be no type of material that is not externally verifiable and documented, at least, on a preliminary basis. This means that, for this draft, I will sometimes annotate by means of a citation number referencing the fact that a citation is needed. I will seek editorial assistance in finding some of the references because I have done enough literature searching to know that such references should be available, but I haven’t the patience to review 6,973 or more Google hits for each one. But, there is, after all, much to be done to edit this work regardless of how well a first draft may be written. I would hope that most editorial contributions would be additive, not subtractive.

I need to get this article perfected to the point that it will indeed be accepted by editors as a first draft, however, not rejected outright. If and when I can reach this point, I will request the blessings of editors to place links to it on appropriate discussion pages. Then we can get a lot more assistance, I hope you will all help.

Perhaps the various editorial projects and task forces that Wikipedia has established might also help. But first, I shall continue to polish the article by documenting all statements that look like “personal analysis” and referencing all cases of apparent “synthesis” and converting “original research” to outside reliably sourced material.

So, the work will no longer qualify as a “critique” because such an article would necessarily involve synthesis. I would be more like a review. Maybe it would be more like a medley of mini-reviews on each of the four major subjects that it treats. So, perhaps the title needs work too.

Don’t we think that it could be a nice idea for Wikipedia to open up a category entitled “Critiques and Reviews” just for this type of article?

Kentgen1 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kentgen1. You have new messages at Christopher Thomas's talk page.
Message added 06:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Don’t we think that it could be a nice idea for Wikipedia to open up a category entitled “Critiques and Reviews” just for this type of article?"

Nope. See WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAPBOX. The place to publish those is in scientific journals and similar venus, not encyclopedias. While we may cover criticism (Criticism of Apple) and controversies (Evolution controversy) in our articles, we may not and do not ourselves generate criticism and controversies; we merely write about existing criticism, and existing controveries. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kentgen1. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I thank you for your frankness. I still have a few comments to make, then I will get to work on my impossible dream.

Take a look at a comment written on the discussion page by an anonymous wiki-editor on June 8 2003 concerning the lack of criticism or skepticism expressed in the accompanying FLRW Metric article. Editor Atonita’s response was that the FLRW metric is just a mathematical object and the implication was that therefore there is no way to logically criticize it or to express any skepticism. But, this is not true. The assumptions themselves are open to critique and the article should mention this, otherwise, as it stands, it violates the NPOV policy. To accept a technical article like this without comment is not neutral, it is tacit endorsement.

Atonita’s response to June 8 2003 also said that if there were, in fact, physical interpretations of the FLRW metric expressed in the article, then an expression of a degree of skepticism would be in order. But, in the Friedmann equations article, where physical interpretations of the FLRW metric are indeed made, there is not a trace of skepticism and almost no acknowledgement of their hypothetical status. The article is written as if the Friedmann model of the universe was scientific fact with no appeal.

This is not how “consensus” is supposed to work. In forming a scientific consensus, it must always be recognized explicitly that the consensus could be wrong. It was the lack of such an acknowledgement that made the job so difficult for scientists like Galileo who espoused the Copernican view over the geocentric model of the universe. Darwinian evolution is still having trouble overcoming the religious consensus of 200 years ago. Pasteur came to some grief for propounding the germ theory of disease which overturned the consensus of spontaneous generation. Some people say that no consensus ever dies; only their proponents do. But, we do not have the time to wait for this.

I hope you will all help me accomplish my purpose, which is to restore the NPOV status of some Wikipedia articles concerning modern precision cosmology. I think it is important because I am a follower of Joseph Campbell who said that Mythology is the basis for the underlying philosophy of all civilizations and this philosophy is the driving force behind their vitality and, yes, even their viability. To the extent that all language is metaphor, we are building a scientific Mythology that may be more worthy than those of the past. Surely, everyone hopes so. And, we hope our civilization remains viable indefinitely.

Campbell says that a civilization that lets its Mythology die is itself already dead. He castigates modern society for not nurturing its Mythology and for neglecting its Heroes. But, I think that Campbell is wrong. We do not neglect our Mythology, we are building a totally new kind of Mythology based on science and technology. We invent media Heroes like Jonas Salk, Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, Linus Pauling and Albert Einstein.

Mythologies surrounding cosmogony abound. The story of origins is foundationally important to our own nascent Mythology. The FLRW metric, the Friedmann equations, the Big Bang, dark energy and dark matter are put forth to become part of our Mythology of universal beginnings. The story is still developing, yes, and there is still much debate. We have got to get it right.

The trouble is, Common Wisdom or the Consensus often cannot tell the difference between a Myth and a myth, between a really meaningful well told story and a useless media fabrication. Without skepticism expressed by outlets like Wikipedia, the fabrications may well triumph. Such myths shall truly die, perhaps taking our society with it.

Kentgen1 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Critique of the Universe - Abstract

CRITIQUE of the UNIVERSE

Friedmann Equations, FLRW Metric, Hubble’s Law “Acceleration”, Dark Energy

 . . .   ABSTRACT   . . .

The universe (U) has been described using an ideal gas model. The Friedmann equations based on the Friedmann/Lemaitre/Robertson/Walker metric (FE/FLRW), this ideal gas model, must also make hidden or unstated presumptions, referring the system to a “state” variable, w. So, an equilibrium constant, K(eq), may be defined. If U is at equilibrium, its processes should be thermodynamically reversible.

U homogeneity is summarized in the so-called “Cosmological Principle” (CP) approximation. CP says there are no relative concentrations of matter despite the existence of enormous heterogeneous components. It presumes that the homogeneous condition must have persisted throughout time. Moreover, CP says that everywhere one looks, in any direction and from any location, the average view is exactly the same and it always has been. This has been disputed.

Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess (P&R) each claim to have uncovered “evidence” for accelerating expansion and some sort of “dark energy”. They both must presume that the Hubble constant (Ho) remains forever truly so. Both use fudge factors indicating acceleration.

The model refers to U like a laboratory subsystem. Gas law “negative pressure, -p”, must be internalized by characterizing it as a result of some kind of DE, that is, negative w instead of negative p. This “-w” must refer to some kind of internal or potential energy. By the conservation law, there must be an invisible reservoir of such “dark” energy. Solving “the missing mass problem” arising in the FE, it is considered to be unmeasurable.

We observe phenomena in U as far back in time as 8 to 10 billion years, well over a half-life. So, the current latter phase is seen to have taken longer than the former, when changes were dramatic. Yet, things have not really changed that much since then. So, the expansion rate must actually be decelerating.

The mathematics is unsolvable if the uneven lumpiness of the real U is included. Over billions of years, condensed or compact gravitationally compressed matter can be expected to be active, it is not inert. Plus, a dispersed suspension within any kind of fluid containing more than one phase is expected to have altered bulk properties. This will be true regardless of any other type of its activity or inactivity. The percentage of additional phases may be very small, but detectable effects are also very small.

Earlier modern Hubble constant determinations, obtained for less distant celestial objects than were used by P&R, were got mainly by using the highly reliable Cepheid variable star technique. All such previous determinations show that H naught is not constant but is decreasing with time, not increasing. The FE/FLRW model is clearly inadequate.

To the extent that the FE/FLRW model is inadequate, the Big Bang Theory may be impacted. Many editors know this and they know that the Big Bang is a premier Wikipedia article. It is not surprising that they may wish to protect it. Some have probably had a hand in developing it in the first place.

For a fully documented and complete WIKIPEDIA sandbox (preliminary) version of this review or critique, please see the above entry on this Page entitled Critique of the Universe.

The above abstract refers to a contribution under construction that is meant to be a new free standing article or else a segment to be appended to the Friedmann Equations article or maybe to the FLRW Metric or perhaps to both. This proposed contribution has the working title “Critique of the Universe”.

In the full text contribution on my Talk Page, the references are numbered in “belt and suspenders” duplicate style because, at present, some of them contain a comment as well as a reference or else the reference is incomplete – being only a reference to Wikipedia itself – so the citation would need to be edited and upgraded. I hope I can attract some editors who might like to do this.

As more edits accumulate, the contribution will change, perhaps drastically. Some wiki-editors may want to delete the portions that they may consider to be in the nature of pure commentary. Fine. Some editors might perceive the need for referencing where there are no references at present. Good.

I have had trouble convincing some editors that the Friedmann Equations presume the ideal gas laws. Actually, it is the solutions to the Friedmann equations that are based on the ideal gas laws, not the equations themselves. But, when I refer to “The Friedmann Equations” I mean the FLRW metric, the Friedmann equations proper and their solutions. That is, I mean the whole body of mathematical development, including the solutions, for the metric and the equations alone are useless without solutions. My meaning should have been obvious, but these editors were more interested in pursuing semantic issues.

In my section on “Dark Energy” I prove that the solutions section of the Friedmann Equations contains equations that are clearly derived from the ideal gas laws. The FLRW Metric and the Friedmann Equations refer to a fluid that must be a “perfect fluid” having properties that are identical with the properties of a gas. This is about as close as these articles ever get to disclosing that they presume the ideal gas law which is sometimes referred to as the perfect gas law.

The articles are defective in that they contain no criticisms, no caveats, no cautionary dicta. They lack a critique. This violates Wikipedia’s own NPOV policy because, to the reader, it appears as if Wikipedia sanctions or tacitly accepts the statements and conclusions given in the articles as scientific fact, when they are just hypotheses. The FLRW are indeed just mathematical objects but, there are alternate mathematical expressions that do not require the same assumptions and do not lead to the same derived set of equations as a model.

The introduction to the Friedmann Equations says that the article needs to be expanded. Let us see if we can come up with some good ideas for such an expansion.

Kentgen1 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Brian J Ford e .jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Brian J Ford e .jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"MOND", Prelude to additional "Critique of the Universe"

There is a proof of the singular nature of black holes, but it is being ignored. This proof was mentioned in an old paper by astrophysicist Michael Rowan Robinson. It can be found in ArXiv, astrophysics sometime after 1998. I ran across it by accident and I do not remember the title or exact year of publicatiion. I emailed him to ask if he could remember the paper where he made the comment.

In his comment, he said that it has been suggested that black holes, precisely and only because they are relativistic singularities, must possess an hyperbolic gravitational field. A singularity, as a single point mass with infinite density, must have a gravitational field that also tends to infinity as one approaches the center. The 2D profile of such a field, therefore, must be hyperbolic. Normally, when an object exists in spacetime, it presents with an overall parabolic field profile according to Newton's Law of Gravity. Such a field will fall off as 1/r^2. But, a hyperbolic gravitational field will fall off much much more slowly as 1/r.

In 1983 Mordehai Milgrom announced that he had discovered a new twist in Newton's Law of gravity. He studied a statistically significant number of spiral and other types of galaxies that had redshift measurements made of the rotational velocity distribution of their component stars. When he plotted velocity of these stars versus distance from the center, velocity did not fall to near zero as it should have at large r. Newton's Law was wrong!

Of course it was. Milgrom's galaxies had supermassive black holes embedded within them. The central black hole and even also the associated matter in the disk induced a hyperbolic gravitational field in spacetime even very far from the center, that is, as r tended to infinity. A hyperbolic field will tend to zero only very very slowly at large r compared to a parabolic field. In fact, there is a near constant difference between a parabolic Newtonian field and a hyperbolic field generated by the same mass, as r tends to infinity. This near constant difference accounts for Milgrom's exceedingly small residual centripetal acceleration constant that he used to mathematically summarize his findings as an addition to Newton's Law. Hence, he called his model "modified Newtonian dynamics" or MOND.

He did not respect the implications of supermassive relativistic black holes in the nuclei of his galaxies. In 1983, most scientists hardly even knew of them. So, Dark Matter was proposed to account for the MOND effect. But, Dark Matter is unnecessary. Milgrom says no enormous clouds of hypothetical "weakly interacting massive particles" or WIMPs are needed to account for the MOND effect. True enough. But, not because Newton's Law needs to be updated. This has huge implications to the so-called Lambda/Cold Dark Matter model of the universe that is based on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric.

Science is missing an opportunity here. The existence of the MOND effect proves the nature of supermassive black holes as true singularities. One can mathematically prove that relativistic singularities must exist by means of the treatment of general relativity given by Schwartzchild. But, here is observational (experimental) proof that is as hard and undeniable as such proof ever gets. It is more important to find more ways to validate an all-encompassing theory like general relativity than it is to find ways to validate one particular favored model of the universe by inventing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) to fix the gaping holes. This is the true meaning of the MOND effect. See http://www.LONETREE-PICTURES.net for more.

Kentgen1 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

MOND (continued), Prelude to additional "Critique of the Universe"

A point mass having the size of many hundreds or even thousands or millions of suns will have a very different gravitational field from the normal star, planet or galaxy because its mass is not distributed in 3D space - it exists as a 1D singularity. Singularities do not possess the usual parabolic gravitational field that is assumed by Newtonian Dynamics. Such a Black-Hole field must have a shape that is infinitely deep as the origin or center of mass is approached since a Black-Hole has infinite density with all its mass compressed into a single point. An infinitely deep gravitational potential has the profile of a hyperbola, not Isaac Newton's parabola.

The gravitational attraction around a Black Hole must fall off with distance from the center as 1/r, r being the distance. Newtonian Dynamics assumes that the field is parabolic, falling off as 1/r^2. The fact of this difference is huge.

So, when the centripetal acceleration of stars in the periphery of spiral galaxies is computed, it does not agree with ordinary Newtonian Dynamics because the centers of most spiral galaxies contain super-massive Black-Holes. The mass of the galactic disk may actually contribute to the effective mass of the Black-Hole in the nucleus, making the 1/r relationship even more pervasive.

The acceleration difference between the 1/r versus the 1/r^2 relations, at large r, is virtually a constant, just as Mordehai Milgrom observed in 1983. The MOND effect is real.

But, the inference of "Dark Matter" is unnecessary to explain the MOND effect. There is no Dark Matter. No WIMPs or "weakly interacting massive particles" will ever be found in any particle accelerator now or in the future. The theories of subnuclear physics do not have to be rewritten to accomodate an odd new particle. General Relativity does not have to be revised. Newtonian Dynamics survives with only the ADDITION of a footnote. When a Black-Hole is involved, Newton's Law of Gravity must incude a term in 1/r as well as, perhaps (as in galaxies) one in 1/r^2. That is all.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter, MOND and more "Critique of the Universe"

The following comments are not speculative. The following comments are not my own personal opinion. They do not constitute my own original research.

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics from after 1998, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent, as claimed, and that they were in serious communication. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together (ref needed).

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae type 1a and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, they admit that they had to apply an "adjustment". This artificial factor was used by both groups to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points.

The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they both cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe (ref given in the main "Critique" article above). They might have applied the adjustment to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating.

There was a choice to be made. A cynic might hazard a guess as to why they made the choice that they did.

In college, we had to write laboratory reports on the experiments that we did in lab. We were warned against manufacturing data. Our professors all said that this kind of "fudging" is a big "NO NO". Ethical standards are not just for students. Still, as professionals who certainly are good scientists, Permutter and Riess no doubt think that they were perfectly well justified in applying their adjustment factor and did so in all honesty. But, the result is the same.

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND effect (modified Newtonian dynamics) - ref given above - does not acknowledge that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei (ref). Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such fields decline as 1/r or hyperbolically (ref), not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity (ref).

The difference between the black hole hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of unfalsifiable "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the ad hoc construction of the Dark Energy ediface to account for putative "acceleration".

So, given the doubtful nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) - ref - ? The easiest way is to postulate that the universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern. The signal strength, statistical distribution and identifiable extra contributions (as from the SZ effect) to the CMB implies that our current inventory of matter and energy in the universe accounts for only about 4.5% of its total mass. So, 100%/4.5% = 22.2, that is, the mass of the universe must be around 22 times bigger than we can tell from our limited perspective here on Earth.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive than conventional wisdom admits, and if General Relativity is correct in predicting the existence of Black Holes as singularities, this accounts for the CMB characteristics, the red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and the SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy.

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

It should be pointed out that there have been many monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man (ref) and Cold Fusion (ref) come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience (ref) which may still be going on today!

Dark Energy, Dark Matter, MOND and still more "Critique of the Universe"

This goes to the whole question of the exclusive use of a single model of the universe that depends on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. The consensus interpretation of the Lambda/cold dark matter model must clearly be flawed if it leads to the conclusion that the scientific method must be scrapped in order to save the model (ref). Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ad hoc "add-ons" that are trying to find theoretical justification. Dark Enegy, in particular, is being called a supernatural or "unfalsifiable" hypothesis because no experiment can possibly directly challenge it (ref), just like the existence of God hypothesis.

Heretofore, all hypotheses must adhere to the scientific method (ref), "the SM". Now, in order to admit Dark Energy, cosmologists insist that SM must be tinkered with and an unfalsifiable hypothesis allowed for the first time in history. If we do this, the Pope can re-ascend to the Throne.

All of the indirect "overwhelming evidence" for expansion rate acceleration and Dark Energy can be just as well applied to the concept that our inventory of matter and energy in our local universe is inadequate and that the mass of the global universe is at least 22.2 times as large as has been supposed (100%/4.5% = 22.2). The total mass of the universe has been and still is open to question. The Matter/Energy that we can inventory accounts for only 4.5% of the total needed to "flatten" the anisotropy pattern that is seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation or "CMB" (ref). This proposed revision in the "total mass" and the General Relativity (GR) concept of the black hole hyperbolic field will save not only SM, but the Friedmann Equations and the FLRW metric themselves too! 

The "inflaton particle" from which the universe may have sprung was the mother of all black-holes (MOAB). As such, it must have possessed an hyperbolic gravitational field that existed timelessly according to Alan Guth's quantum principles (ref). During the instant of inception of the differentiated universe that we can now detect, this hyperbolic field must have begun to degenerate. Space with time came into existence during this instant. The implication here of the prior existence of a sort of meta-universe is not explicitly acknowledged in any of the scenarios we read, but it is nonetheless an unstated assumption. 

This space-time bubble's surface traveled up the MOAB's hyperbolic field gradient at a velocity hundreds or thousands of times the speed of light. This is Allan Guth's "Inflation". Matter/Light could keep pace with the inflation of space-time only as long as its temperature was several exponential decades of degrees Kelvin. As soon as Matter/Light began to condense and the fundamental forces began to differentiate, the inflation era ended (ref). The collapse of the infinite density hyperbolic field began. This hyperbolic field has been collapsing by means of a time-dependent process ever since. It is this ongoing transition from a hyperbolic black hole gravitational field to a parabolic Newtonian gravitational field underlying the global universe that is being mistaken for acceleration and Dark Energy (ref).

This is not speculation. This is not my personal idea. This is but one example of a different logical meaning of Allan Guth's inflation theory (ref)and General Relativity according to Schwartzchild (ref) and many others. When guided by correct meta-logic, mathematical physicists will be able to validate this or some other theoretical interpretation of GR, the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. Then, with the demise of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, the scientific method will be saved (ref).

Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau (ref)