swansont

Acceleration is not relative.

Then show the math that demonstrates a net acceleration on a particular mass if you have a uniform distribution of mass in the background. I did not make any claim about expansion.

You’re mis-applying the principle here. The shell theorem applies to spherical symmetry, but you don’t have a finite sphere in this case. You have to have all the mass enclosed within R to apply it. You can look at translational symmetry, too. If you have a uniform distribution of mass, you can choose any origin you want and get the same answer, so there can’t be an acceleration toward any point.

This makes no sense. There’s nothing to “add up” and there is only one R, which encompasses the universe.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say this makes sense. Does he offer up any testable predictions and experimental support? The bit I read looks very hand-wavy.

But there is no “outside” when considering the universe. You just need to make R bigger, and there is no effect.

Just a few days ago you claimed the opposite (“Yes, it would cause a net gravitational attraction and that would cause slowing of the universe expansion.”)

There’s no way to make an assessment without seeing the work and the comments

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please.

It’s your link. If you’re offering it as support you should understand it. And is the crux if the issue here. You are throwing around equations without understanding the physics.

But then what of an observer some distance away? Everything must accelerate toward them, because the choice of the origin is arbitrary. Which can’t be true unless the acceleration is zero.

This is contradictory. If the accelerations cancel, there is net scceleration. We don’t have a sphere, and there is no center. The premise is we have mass uniformly distributed over all space.

A single plate would feel no force. Symmetry tells you this, but also there’s no exclusion of any of the QM modes.

How? It would all cancel.

AFAICT this is proposing to use the same calculational approach for the cosmological constant as for the casimir effect, in terms of dealing with infinities, i.e. the renormalization.

Perhaps not. It wouldn’t cause lensing or any net gravitational attraction.

It appears clumped? If it was clumping easily it would be at the center. Who claimed it was perfectly uniformly distributed?

Top Google hit for daily covid cases is the New York Times, and it gives a graph of daily cases, along with the 7-day average

AFAIK that’s why. If the only channel is gravitational radiation, then the dissipation is very, very weak. All collisions would be basically elastic.

Super-earths are not the same as earth-like So they would be visiting the solar system, and we would be able to detect them if they weren’t hiding.

I don’t think complete reflection is physically possible. Reflection requires a momentum transfer, since the momentum of the light changes, and thus energy transfer. So if energy is lost from the incoming light, the reflection can’t be complete.

I am not aware of this interaction. Can you point to any peer-reviewed literature that says that the cosmological constant interacts with anything? That’s what you said. An equality that you wrote down as an assumption. The casimir effect requires conducting plates, which force a component of the electric field to become zero, something not true in free space.

If you assume they exist, then “they don’t exist” can’t be part of the thought experiment.

How does that work, physics-wise? It looks like you’re just waving your hands to get the answer you want. How does it “become” the cosmological constant? The casimir force can be derived by applying the conductor boundary conditions to the geometry. If L doesn’t matter then you don’t get that answer.

We have ethics for when we expect people to self-police, and others involved to make sure people toe the line. In sports we have referees, because ethics don’t enter into it. If you foul someone, there is a penalty. You have to decide if it’s worth it. The sport makes the penalties harsher in certain situations to reduce the incentive to foul.