Dark energy doesn't exist

[nojocujo]

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/2/4<br /><br />Any comments?

 

[dark_energy]

I'm right here. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yeah, i believe at this point cosmologists really don't have a grasp on gravity and what it really is. the article is vague, but at least challenges the status quo. dark energy may be an indirect way of saying that maybe gravity after all does repel as well as attract, but they cannot reconcile this in the same package. that is, gravity itself may be the dark energy. <br /><br />

 

[dark_energy]

But isn't gravity just the curvature of space-time around some mass? I always thought it was that, not energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

according to Einstein, yeah. <br /><br />but why limit ourselves to him? <br /><br />

 

[nojocujo]

Einstein predicted gravitational waves and I see a change in the percieved change in the gravitational potential i.e. a repulsive pressure wave.

 

[kmarinas86]

The simplest Newtonian explaination would be to change the equation for gravitational potential energy.<br /><br />Before we go there, I would like to point out Bose-Einstein condensate. Bose-Einstein condensate forms when the tempature of the subatomic particles, and thus their kinetic energy is affected. Then the particles merge to form a super atom, depsite the repulsion of charges.<br /><br />I liken the expansion of the universe to the "repelling" masses, or positive gravitational potential energy in a way similar or related to the postive electromagnetic potential energy that protons of the nuclei have.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Due to the fact that supernovae explosions are implosions, the explosion of collapsing Bose-Einstein condensate was christened a "bosenova."</font><br /><br />However, the net force between protons is not outward except in unstable nuclei (where they may break bonds).<br /><br />If one takes the pioneer anomalous acceleration (m/s)/s and divide that by the speed of light (m/s) then he or she has a value that is close to the Hubble "constant"<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?q=%288.74*10%5E-10+m%2Fs%5E2%29%2Fc+in+%28km%2Fs%29%2FMpc<br /><br />(8.74 * (10^-10) (m / (s^2))) / c = 89.9583851 (km / s) / Mpc<br /><br />If pioneeracceleration=p<br />Gravitational <i>Potential</i>=U=-GM/r+pr<br />U=-GM/r+pr<br />U=(pr²-GM)/r<br />-v^2=(pr²-GM)/r<br />v^2=(GM-pr²)/r<br />v=sqrt((GM-pr²)/r)<br />v=orbital velocity<br />...<br />pr²+rv^2-GM=0<br />r=[sqrt(v^4+4pGM)-v^2]/(2p)<br /><br />Perhaps Gravitational potential <i>energy</i> determines how things appear whereas the r value in the last equation is the real (non-visual) value for the radius.<br /><br />The real distance from the earth to the

 

[silylene old]

Not surprised at all. Dark energy smacks all too much of the 'aether' theories of the 19th century. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Not surprised at all. Dark energy smacks all too much of the 'aether' theories of the 19th century.</font><br /><br />The comment is hilarious and all too true. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[Saiph]

never liked dark energy myself. Right now it's really viewed as a "blanket" term. We're seeing effects explainable by extra, unaccounted for (i.e. non-lumnous) energy. That is either actual energy floating around, or a shift in some form of potential energy (i.e. gravity is tweaked). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

What I really want explained is the apparent slowing and stopping of the expansion and then a resumption and an apparent accelerating expansion beginning 6 billion years ago. Sounds too much like a gravitational effect that is being misinterpreted. <br /><br />Any comments on the gravitational potential disappearing briefly during a supernova????? <br /><br />Type 1A being a basic premise for dark energy.

 

[nojocujo]

Another link!<br /><br />http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2102

 

[qibbish]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But isn't gravity just the curvature of space-time around some mass? I always thought it was that, not energy. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yeah, but for it to have any effect in the language of our science it becomes a form of energy (after all, what is energy besides force over distance). These words are nothing but self consistant inventions of the human mind. <br /><br />Incidentally, the quanta/messanger of this energy is the graviton.

 

[micro10]

( Dark Energy is the expansion of space in a greater vacuum warp of movement or Space and time )..Einstein theory of general Relativity was incomplete. I reported this years ago!..Where have you people been for the past 5 years in some sort of Cryo-Frozen state.( Yawn ) That was noble prize number 2 . "Who's keeping count"

 

[yevaud]

Fuel for the fire:<br /><br /><i>Cosmic microwaves<br /><br />The "concordance" model of the Universe proposes that over 70% is made up of dark energy, with around 25% composed of dark matter and only 5% of normal matter. In this model, dark matter is constantly being stretched by dark energy.<br /><br />In February, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Wmap) satellite took the most detailed picture yet of the cosmic microwave background - an image of the infant cosmos when it was less than 400,000 years old.<br /><br />In July, astronomers from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which aims to map out a million galaxies, published a research paper in which they superimposed their own galaxy-clustering data on Wmap's microwave data.<br /><br />They claim the results prove that dark energy must exist.<br /><br />But on Friday (12 December), an international group of astronomers claimed analysis of data returned from the European Space Agency's (Esa) XMM-Newton satellite observatory casts doubt on the existence of dark energy.<br /><br />The astronomers measured the quantity and energy of X-rays emitted by eight distant galaxy clusters. They say their results may imply that the density of matter in the Universe is very high, contradicting the popular concordance model.<br /><br />"To account for these results you have to have a lot of matter in the Universe and that leaves little room for dark energy," said Alain Blanchard of the Observatoire Midi-Pyrenees in France. </i><br /><br />BBC Top Ten Scientific Advances for 2003<br /><br /><i>Mini-galaxies may reveal dark matter stream<br /><br />11:52 12 January 2006<br />NewScientist.com news service<br />Maggie McKee, Washington DC<br /> <br />Two-thirds of the small satellite galaxies around Andromeda line up in a plane perpendicular to Andromeda's disc.<br /><br />Most of the small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way's near-twin, Andromeda, are lined up in</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

Micro,<br />Please define dark energy for me..<br />I see dark energy as a red herring...........<br />A magicians sleight of hand..... <br />Why??<br />Much of what defines dark energy comes from observations of violent events in our cosmos.... the observed redshifts have been given a cosmological interpretation instead of applying the events effects on local spacetime.......and the light created locally in that spacetime associated with the event. If dark energy is really the effects of gravitational waves associated with that event then please state that........ But that would mean it was repulsive gravitation energy and not dark.........<br />You won the nobel prize twice?

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">That was noble prize number 2 . "Who's keeping count" </font><br /><br />Only four individuals have been awared the Nobel Prize twice:<br /><br />Frederick Sanger (1918- ) Chemistry, 1958 and 1980<br />John Bardeen ((1908-1991) Physics, 1956 and 1972<br />Linus Pauling (1901- 1994) Chemistry, 1954; Peace, 1962<br />Marie Sklodowska Curie (1867 – 1934) Physics, 1903; Chemistry, 1911<br /><br />So welcome to SDC, Mr. Sanger. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>