On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > he > [Einstein] > didn't notice that it was an unstable equilibrium - a very elementary > mistake. > I would humbly submit that when trying to figure out what 4-dimensional non-Euclidean Tensor calculus is telling you about physics nothing is very elementary, especially not in 1917. > > > But the holographic principle can yield a value close the the observed. > How close? In science if your theory predicts something that differs from the observed value by a factor of 2 that's generally considered to be pretty damn bad, and we're talking about 10^120. They may have come up with something closer than 10^ 120, but close? I don't think so; at least not unless they worked backward and invented a 120 digit number and inserted it ad hoc into the theory so things come out right. But that would be cheating because if you can't get more out of a theory than you put in it has no use, and a 120 digit number is a lot to put in. I don't think we're going to have a good explanation for Dark Energy anytime soon, but I hope I'm wrong. > > > Sean Carroll has considered this in his review article > https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004075v2 > That article is 17 years old, and Dark Energy is as big a mystery now as it was then. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
