Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.

[BoJangles]

<font face="Calibri"><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3">Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.</font></p><em><font size="3">For the first time, <span style="color:#365f91">astronomers have clearly seen the effects of "dark energy" on the most massive collapsed objects in the universe using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory</span>. By tracking how dark energy has stifled the growth of galaxy clusters and combining this with previous studies, scientists have obtained the best clues yet about what dark energy is and what the destiny of the universe could be.</font></em> <p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" color="#800080">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216133438.htm</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3">Wow interesting finding, though the&nbsp;only thing I don&rsquo;t like about the article is its absolutist certainty, coupled with the lack of any clues to how they derived their data. I think this would be a huge thing if it were proved; personally type 1a super novas weren&rsquo;t doing it for me.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3">The results show an increase of mass in clusters over time aligns with the universe dominated with dark energy, but I want to know,&nbsp;how they&nbsp;differ and by how much? How did observations differ from that of the expected calculations of a universe without dark energy? ( this was more directed at the author of the article)</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3">Which leads me to another question, when someone uses a telescope or such or does research at a uni, do the public have access to that raw data? </font></p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="Calibri"><font size="3">Which leads me to another question, when someone uses a telescope or such or does research at a uni, do the public have access to that raw data?</DIV></font></font></p><p>Typically the data is private for some period of time, I believe somewhere around 6months-1 year(not too sure but somehwere in that ballpark), where the principal investigator and his team have sole access to the data.&nbsp; It often eventually will become public, especially big surveys. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

Cool bananas. Im&nbsp;might go find me some data to play with, dont ask me what ill do with it though <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Typically the data is private for some period of time, I believe somewhere around 6months-1 year(not too sure but somehwere in that ballpark), where the principal investigator and his team have sole access to the data.&nbsp; It often eventually will become public, especially big surveys. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I don't get how they would rule out ordinary expansion (objects in motion stay in motion) as the reason that galaxy growth slowed down over time.&nbsp; I guess I'll have to read the paper, but I doubt I'll be as pleased with it as your paper. &nbsp; I get the feeling that there was a leap to the conclusion that dark energy had to be involved, when simple expansion, and diffusion over time would probably easily explain why galaxy growth slowed down over time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't get how they would rule out ordinary expansion (objects in motion stay in motion) as the reason that galaxy growth slowed down over time.&nbsp; I guess I'll have to read the paper, but I doubt I'll be as pleased with it as your paper. &nbsp; I get the feeling that there was a leap to the conclusion that dark energy had to be involved, when simple expansion, and diffusion over time would probably easily explain why galaxy growth slowed down over time. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />The point of the "dark energy" placeholder is that the current expansion is greater than would be expected if gravity was the only operative force. If it was just gravity, the effects described would not have been noted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.For the first time, astronomers have clearly seen the effects of "dark energy" on the most massive collapsed objects in the universe using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. By tracking how dark energy has stifled the growth of galaxy clusters and combining this with previous studies, scientists have obtained the best clues yet about what dark energy is and what the destiny of the universe could be. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216133438.htmWow interesting finding, though the&nbsp;only thing I don&rsquo;t like about the article is its absolutist certainty, coupled with the lack of any clues to how they derived their data. I think this would be a huge thing if it were proved; personally type 1a super novas weren&rsquo;t doing it for me.The results show an increase of mass in clusters over time aligns with the universe dominated with dark energy, but I want to know,&nbsp;how they&nbsp;differ and by how much? How did observations differ from that of the expected calculations of a universe without dark energy? ( this was more directed at the author of the article)Which leads me to another question, when someone uses a telescope or such or does research at a uni, do the public have access to that raw data? <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Just a thought from a dark-energy-virgin.</font></p><p><font size="2">They say dark enrgy domiantes &nbsp;the universe. Could dark energy be just 'water'? I mean what&nbsp; 'empty space' to us is 'water' to a fish - a medium. Is 'space' flowing like water adding extra motion to motion by gravity? Assuming 'flow of space' is not uniform just like&nbsp;water-flow. </font></p><p><font size="2">I don't know what to believe with these observations and theories. I just jaw an article in Scientific American on quantum gravity, which concluded the universe would never die. Shouldn't that conclusion be the main reason to drop the theory as wrong theory?<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The point of the "dark energy" placeholder is that the current expansion is greater than would be expected if gravity was the only operative force. If it was just gravity, the effects described would not have been noted. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>The way I look at it, any ordinary sort of "expansion" (objects in motion stay in motion), combined with a finite amount of mass, would necessarily lead to a "slowing" of gravitational development over time.&nbsp; In other words, gravity isn't necessarily going to collect all the atoms in the universe together.&nbsp; Some of them will have enough momentum to keep moving away for other objects.&nbsp; I don't really see how a simple "slow down" of galaxies would necessarily be related to any sort of "acceleration" component, I would think ordinary "expansion", combined with the notion of finite mass, would necessarily seem to result in a slowing of galaxy developement over time.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't quite understand why an acceleration component would be necessary to explain that observation.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The way I look at it, any ordinary sort of "expansion" (objects in motion stay in motion), combined with a finite amount of mass, would necessarily lead to a "slowing" of gravitational development over time.&nbsp; In other words, gravity isn't necessarily going to collect all the atoms in the universe together.&nbsp; Some of them will have enough momentum to keep moving away for other objects.&nbsp; I don't really see how a simple "slow down" of galaxies would necessarily be related to any sort of "acceleration" component, I would think ordinary "expansion", combined with the notion of finite mass, would necessarily seem to result in a slowing of galaxy developement over time.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't quite understand why an acceleration component would be necessary to explain that observation. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Whenever you say "ordinary" or "simple" expansion (objects in motion stay in motion) it seems to imply something different from metric expansion. Is your simple expansion any different to an increase in the background metric that describes distance? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whenever you say "ordinary" or "simple" expansion (objects in motion stay in motion) it seems to imply something different from metric expansion. Is your simple expansion any different to an increase in the background metric that describes distance? <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>It really doesn't matter what how we define 'expansion'.&nbsp; It would seem to me that any way we look at it, the affect will be exactly the same.&nbsp; The distance between objects will increase over time, and the gravitational attraction will become weaker over time.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The finite amount of mass, combined with the increase of the distance between objects would necessarily lead to a slowdown of galaxy development over time.&nbsp; I don't see why an acceleration component would be required. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just a thought from a dark-energy-virgin.They say dark enrgy domiantes &nbsp;the universe. Could dark energy be just 'water'? I mean what&nbsp; 'empty space' to us is 'water' to a fish - a medium. Is 'space' flowing like water adding extra motion to motion by gravity? Assuming 'flow of space' is not uniform just like&nbsp;water-flow.</DIV></p><p>Be careful not to confuse "dark matter" with "dark energy".&nbsp; it's possible that water molecules exist in space and make up some of the "missing mass" that astronomers call "dark matter".&nbsp; Space however is a near perfect vacuum, and the molecules would be spread very far apart, and would not tend to act like a 'liquid' per se.</p><p>The universe is however mostly made of plasma and plasma is very sensitive to changes in magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields.&nbsp; These types of forces might be useful in creating a "current", or an "ebb and flow" inside of a mostly plasma environment. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know what to believe with these observations and theories. I just jaw an article in Scientific American on quantum gravity, which concluded the universe would never die. Shouldn't that conclusion be the main reason to drop the theory as wrong theory? <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure I follow you on this point. &nbsp; The only reason I can think of to drop a theory as a 'wrong theory" is because it doesn't jive with what we observe. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[jdweston]

<p>It was recomended to me to post this over here.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>T&rsquo;was the night before Everything</p><p>By Daniel Weston</p><p><br />T&rsquo;was the night before, (as if night mattered) <br />and all through the universe,<br />not a fermion was stirring, <br />not a quark or it&rsquo;s inverse.</p><p>Everything was nothing <br />yet in a moment later,<br />the size of a dot, <br />something - an energy radiator.</p><p>Then a phase transition, <br />caused a cosmic inflation,<br />that grew exponentially towards, <br />quark-gluon plasmatiation.</p><p>An excess of quarks as it cooled <br />In the first seconds,<br />by the time down to a billion K, <br />an annihilation dance beckons.</p><p>Time not to rest still way too hot, just not as hot as before,<br />particle energies drop, now the physics we can&rsquo;t ignore.</p><p>379,000 light years later<br />the electrons and then nuclei combine,<br />Still 11,000 plus degrees C, <br />now into atoms it finally sublimes.</p><p><br />Then slowly gravitationally attracted, <br />to nearby each others and more,<br />two, four, eight, a million,<br />soon sextillions and decillions galore.</p><p><br />Then speckles and sparkles,<br />like first falling snow,<br />gives a depth to space, <br />and a pattern to the glow.</p><p><br />When out on the edge,<br />a shutter, and chatter,<br />from the swirls and the collapses, <br />out-shed matter.</p><p><br />When, what to the deep <br />and the deeper should show,<br />But a star that lasts more <br />then a fleeting you know.</p><p><br />With a force super lively <br />and light way too bright,<br />They shine, fade, expand, <br />and explode with the might.</p><p><br />More and more the elements <br />by orbital came,<br />And they spun in layers, <br />and periodic by name!</p><p><br />"Take Hydrogen first! <br />and now Helium! too, <br />make Lithium and Carbon <br />to name just a few!</p><p>Now, Nitrogen!, Now Oxygen! Now Beryllium and Boron!,<br />Now more and more and more they flew on!</p><p>To the column of the group and rows of little balls,<br />Now fusion away! Fusion away! Fusion away all!"</p><p>And then, in a twinkling of stars, <br />and a swill of dust danced,<br />Galactic arms twist to a center, <br />that disappeared into blackness.</p><p>Pulled towards the hole, <br />with one last drift around,<br />Down the chimney the light went <br />with only a slight sound.</p><p><br />Gravity wins or does it really a few great minds must ponder,<br />Does something leak out and flatten the warp, they now all wonder.</p><p>Space-time bends and it twists, <br />but does it break or falter.<br />Can we ever know just one <br />everything equation or another.</p><p><br />With all this and that when you add all the parts,<br />the mass not enough to hold the whole thing should fall apart.</p><p>The numbers not-exact but checked time and time again by the add-ers,<br />There&rsquo;s only one answer (maybe), it's full of Dark matter!</p><p><br />Will it grow forever, <br />until it&rsquo;s runs out and lapses,<br />Just can&rsquo;t stay the same, <br />must at least relapses!</p><p>But what is the mass balance <br />and how will we know,<br />whether times runs forever, <br />or someday backwards to no.</p><p><br />We measured the shift rates and much to our surprise,<br />not only just away they all flew but still accelerating, we weren't very wise.</p><p>So we heard it exclaim,<br />I go &lsquo;perpetually out of sight,<br />"Happy forever to all, <br />and to all a very slowly dimming night!"</p><p><br />---30&mdash;&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just a thought from a dark-energy-virgin.They say dark enrgy domiantes &nbsp;the universe. Could dark energy be just 'water'? I mean what&nbsp; 'empty space' to us is 'water' to a fish - a medium. Is 'space' flowing like water adding extra motion to motion by gravity? Assuming 'flow of space' is not uniform just like&nbsp;water-flow. I don't know what to believe with these observations and theories. I just jaw an article in Scientific American on quantum gravity, which concluded the universe would never die. Shouldn't that conclusion be the main reason to drop the theory as wrong theory? <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>I haven't seen the Scientific American article, but I am rather skeptical.&nbsp; There has been no announcement of which I am aware of any mathematically consistent theory of quantum gravity being formulated, and it if there were such a theory it would be a BIG DEAL.&nbsp; All attempts to date to formulate such a theory have failed, badly.</p><p>I would not bet a lot on any conclusions that result from a non-existent theory.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> if there were such a theory it would be a BIG DEAL.&nbsp; All attempts to date to formulate such a theory have failed, badly.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Front page newspaper, leading CNN story big deal.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Front page newspaper, leading CNN story big deal.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Plus a trip to Stockholm.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I just think there are too many unknown's in the universe for scientists or astronomers to draw any conclusions at this point. 'Dark energy' may not even exist. I don't see how they can 'prove' any such existance. I mean it's true that (object in motion stay in motion), we can prove that. But the existance of a 'dark energy' cannot be proven at this point dispite the numerous articles I have read on the subject. There are numerous magnetic fields in the universe from various objects. Hell, look at Nebula's for instance. Very intense gravitational fields and god knows what else must be given off when several thousand stars are being developed in a relative 'small' area of space. What affect does that have on it's surrounding space, and to what extent? With all the various forces and 'mediums' in space, who's to say precisely what's affecting what. Also, the notion that space is a even vaccuum can't even be totally verified. What if that vaccuum is weaker in some area's then others? or stronger? Was the big bang an even explosion? There are just too many variables to consider before concluding the definate existance of a 'dark energy'. If there is definate 'proof', I would like to see it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...The universe is however mostly made of plasma and plasma is very sensitive to changes in magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields.&nbsp; These types of forces might be useful in creating a "current", or an "ebb and flow" inside of a mostly plasma environment. </DIV></p><p>What is this all about ?&nbsp; Apparently another attempt to inject EU nonense into a hard science forum.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure I follow you on this point. &nbsp; The only reason I can think of to drop a theory as a 'wrong theory" is because it doesn't jive with what we observe. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Precisely.&nbsp; You have made a very strong case for why the notions implicit in your first sentence should be ignored.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is this all about?</DIV></p><p>Scientific fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently another attempt to inject EU nonense into a hard science forum.Precisely.&nbsp; You have made a very strong case for why the notions implicit in your first sentence should be ignored.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>My dear DrRocket, it is 100% demonstrateable via "hard science" that plasma can be moved and influenced by the presense of magnetic and electromagnetic fields.&nbsp; Compare and contrast this emprical truth with "dark energy" that has never moved even a single atom in a controlled "hard test" of concept. &nbsp;&nbsp; Don't even go there.&nbsp; I made a simple comment, giving *magnetic fields* top billing even.&nbsp; Get over it.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was an innocent, and factual statement about the behaviors of light plasma.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970</p><p>And another thing....</p><p>You never found a single flaw in this presentation of "dark energy" being caused by EM fields.&nbsp; For all you know EM field are in fact the driving force behind "dark energy" and the acceleration of our physical universe.</p><p>This idea is not "nonsense" any any way, shape of form. EM fields *have* been mathematically linked to observations associated with "dark energy".&nbsp; EM fields can be used to "predict" the movements of objects here on the ground and in deep space.&nbsp; Your objectiion is absolutely unwarranted, particularly in this specific case and this phenomenon where a complete mathematical presentation of the idea has already been presented in a "hard science" forum, and that mathematical presentation remains utterly and completely unchallenged by you or anyone else. </p><p>I love how you don't whine when someone mathematically "explains' a redshift phenomenon by use of a violation of the Coperincus principle, but you call another mathematical explanation "nonsense" when it does *not* violate this tenent, *and* it enjoys "emprical" support in a lab.&nbsp; Why didn't you ask to have that other non mainstream idea to be moved too?&nbsp; It's not a mainstream idea either, and the math and physics behind that idea is far more flimsy that the paper I provided you with on "dark energy"? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Scientific fact.My dear DrRocket, it is 100% demonstrateable via "hard science" that plasma can be moved and influenced by the presense of magnetic and electromagnetic fields.&nbsp; Compare and contrast this emprical truth with "dark energy" that has never moved even a single atom in a controlled "hard test" of concept. &nbsp;&nbsp; Don't even go there.&nbsp; I made a simple comment, giving *magnetic fields* top billing even.&nbsp; Get over it.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was an innocent, and factual statement about the behaviors of light plasma.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Sure, plasma can be. But there is no evidence that it is related to the expansiion of space (not objects in it) that dark energy is postulated for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well, that's pretty much it.&nbsp; Mister Mozina, you were instructed to not continue posting Electric Universe themes in these hard-science forums.&nbsp; Apparently you seem to believe we were just kidding.&nbsp; This was not a joke and we were not fooling around.&nbsp; The next EU subject posted by you will lead to severe action.&nbsp; Are you clear on this?! <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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970And another thing....You never found a single flaw in this presentation of "dark energy" being caused by EM fields.&nbsp; For all you know EM field are in fact the driving force behind "dark energy" and the acceleration of our physical universe.This idea is not "nonsense" any any way, shape of form. EM fields *have* been mathematically linked to observations associated with "dark energy".&nbsp; EM fields can be used to "predict" the movements of objects here on the ground and in deep space.&nbsp; Your objectiion is absolutely unwarranted, particularly in this specific case and this phenomenon where a complete mathematical presentation of the idea has already been presented in a "hard science" forum, and that mathematical presentation remains utterly and completely unchallenged by you or anyone else. I love how you don't whine when someone mathematically "explains' a redshift phenomenon by use of a violation of the Coperincus principle, but you call another mathematical explanation "nonsense" when it does *not* violate this tenent, *and* it enjoys "emprical" support in a lab.&nbsp; Why didn't you ask to have that other non mainstream idea to be moved too?&nbsp; It's not a mainstream idea either, and the math and physics behind that idea is far more flimsy that the paper I provided you with on "dark energy"? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Fer crissake, did you even bother to read the paper or did you just look at the section headings ?</p><p>The AUTHORS challenge the paper.&nbsp; It is speculative and requires data to support or refute it.&nbsp; They are attempting to explain the accelerating expansion of space with vector field formulations, only one example of which is classical electromagnetism.&nbsp; And they postulate that the source of an electromagnetic field might be INFLATION, which we know sends shivers up and down your spine.&nbsp; </p><p>They are simply making responsible speculations, and await further review and experimental data to evaluate their idea.&nbsp; It is hardly a firm derivation from established physics.</p><p>Most importantly, this paper offers absolutely no support whatever for your ridiculous EU ideas.&nbsp; EU remains an absurd distortion of physics and belongs in The Unexplained.&nbsp; It is not&nbsp; and will never be anything more than a discredited footnote in science.&nbsp; Give it up.&nbsp; This forum is not the place for such a discussion.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.... <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>I pasted this from this article. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/36372969.html</p><p><br />"The simplest explanation," says David Spergel (Princeton University), "is that there's energy associated with empty space," as Einstein proposed and particle physicists have long speculated. In other words, Spergel quips, "even nothing weighs something" &mdash; and the weight of nothingness has a negative value.</p><p>What does he mean by weight with a negative value?</p>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I pasted this from this article. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/36372969.html&quot;The simplest explanation," says David Spergel (Princeton University), "is that there's energy associated with empty space," as Einstein proposed and particle physicists have long speculated. In other words, Spergel quips, "even nothing weighs something" &mdash; and the weight of nothingness has a negative value.What does he mean by weight with a negative value? <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p><font size="2" color="#ff0000">What does he mean by weight with a negative value?&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2">I think, repeat I think, he meant 'anti gravity'. Mass (gravity) pulls in other mass , negative mass (anti-gravity) pushes away mass. </font></p><p><font size="2">I still think my speculation is better. Space is flowing like water with non-uniform speed and taking all galaxies along with it. After all everything in this Uni is in motion, why not the space?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I pasted this from this article. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/36372969.html&quot;The simplest explanation," says David Spergel (Princeton University), "is that there's energy associated with empty space," as Einstein proposed and particle physicists have long speculated. In other words, Spergel quips, "even nothing weighs something" &mdash; and the weight of nothingness has a negative value.What does he mean by weight with a negative value? <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Dark energy is a place&nbsp;holder for a phenomena that is not understood.</p><p>There is now a significant body of obsrvational data that suggests that not only is the universe expanding, but also that the rate of expansion is increasing, despite an earlier general expectation that the rate of expansion following the Big Bang would decrease due to the attractive force of gravity.&nbsp; The issue then arises as to what is causing this acceleration in the rate of expansion.</p><p>One way to model the accelerated expansion of the universe is with the addition of a "cosmological constant" to the Einstein field equations of general relativity.&nbsp; The addition of such a constant, often called "lambda", reflected as such in the "lamda cold dark matter" or "Lambda CDM" model results in such an accelerated expansion, but does not provide an explanation for the existence of this factor.</p><p>In general relativity, the curvature of the space-time manifold that we call the universe results from the equality of the curvature tensor with the stress-energy tensor -- this basically treats space-time as an elastic medium like a rubber sheet with curvature resulting from elastic deformation due to stsress.&nbsp; One component of that stress-energy tensor is pressure.&nbsp; The pressure component of the stress-energy tensor can explain the cosmological constant, but then one must explain the origin of that pressure term.&nbsp; A possible explanation for the pressure term comes from the nature of the vacuum state as modeled in quantum field theories.</p><p>Quantum field theories treat the vacuum as a ground state of the field, and not simply as "nothing".&nbsp; There are energy fluctuations in that vacuum field and they are potential sources of a pressure term for the stress-energy tensor of general relativity.&nbsp; So a possible explanation for a pressure term that results in a cosmological constant that might cause the accelerated expansion of the universe comes from consideration of the quantum vacuum -- and that is translated into shorthand in explanations in the popular press as "nothing weighs something with a negative value".</p><p>One needs to recognize that this is all a bit speculative, that quantum field theories and general relativity are not yet formulated so as to be compatible with one another, and that we don't have a solid explanation for dark matter or the accelerated expansion of the universe.&nbsp; It is intelligent speculation, but nevertheless it is just speculation and not&nbsp; yet an explanation. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kg]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....&nbsp; The issue then arises as to what is causing this acceleration in the rate of expansion.One way to model the accelerated expansion of the universe is with the addition of a "cosmological constant" to the Einstein field equations of general relativity.&nbsp; The addition of such a constant, often called "lambda", reflected as such in the "lamda cold dark matter" or "Lambda CDM" model results in such an accelerated expansion, but does not provide an explanation for the existence of this factor.In general relativity, the curvature of the space-time manifold that we call the universe results from the equality of the curvature tensor with the stress-energy tensor -- this basically treats space-time as an elastic medium like a rubber sheet with curvature resulting from elastic deformation due to stsress.&nbsp; One component of that stress-energy tensor is pressure.&nbsp; The pressure component of the stress-energy tensor can explain the cosmological constant, but then one must explain the origin of that pressure term.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />How close was Einstein's "cosmological constant" to what is needed for today's model for accelerated expansion.&nbsp; Is it just a matter of&nbsp;putting Einstein's constant back in to general relativity or is the "Lambda CDM" model allot different than Einstein's&nbsp;