Dark Energy

[alokmohan]

I aws reading that darkenergy is wrong concept.Accceleration of universe is due to leakage of gravity.

 

[rogers_buck]

Increasing pressure (dark energy) or decreasing gravity could both result in an expanding universe. Its analagous to putting more air into a baloon, or decreasing the air pressure outside the baloon.<br /><br />Gravitons leaking to an adjacent brane/universe could cause the balance to tip to inflation. Just one of may possible explanations under investigation.

 

[nojocujo]

Anyone have any opinions on dark energy? One of the major discoveries of the century?

 

[newtonian]

nojocujo - Yes. <br /><br />Sorry no one else responded yet.<br /><br />Dark energy, if it exists, as I suspect it does, would simply be a form of energy we have not yet directly detected.<br /><br />The following verse is consistent with the discoveries:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:22) 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell. . .<br /><br />Verse 26 shows star's existence is due to God's dynamic energy, and this is in plural in Hebrew - i.e. plural forms of energy.<br /><br />It comes as no surprise that a form of energy difficult for us to detect is being used by God to cause the stretching out of the heavens.<br /><br />I have some questions, though:<br /><br />How fast does dark energy travel or radiate?<br /><br />I suspect it is FTL (faster than light).<br /><br />Does dark energy interact with dark matter with some other formula than e=mc^2?<br /><br />In view of the observed effects of dark energy on the acceleration of expansion, which causes an unexpected value for dark energy - can we extrapolate from this a specific formula for the interaction of dark energy with dark matter such that it explains the observed value of dark energy? <br /><br />BYW- I tend to think outside the box.

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">Anyone have any opinions on dark energy?</font><br /><br /><br />It may be a trick of geometry, an illusion of sorts. Gravity was once thought to be a force which instantaneously reached though space and pulled objects. We now know that it is more accurate to describe it as a distortion of space-time, and objects simply follow this distortion in space. Likewise, dark energy may be slightly different than first thought. Instead of a being some mysterious force, in may be a crumpling of the spatial fabric in a higher spatial dimension. <br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - Interesting.<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />"Gravity was once thought to be a force which instantaneously reached though space"<br /><br />True.<br /><br />However, hasn't it been recently proven that gravity is limited by the speed of light?<br /><br />And haven't inflationary models positing early FTL (faster than light) expansion also gained some ground due to added data?<br /><br />In that case, couldn't some of the mass of our universe outdistanced some of the gravity of our universe?<br /><br />And couldn't that add to the velocity of said matter?<br /><br />In other words, dark energy + the effect of escaping some of the gravity of our universe.

 

[jatslo]

It has not been proved that gravity is confined to a speed limit.

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - OK, that would be a good topic for a new thread.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I thought that an experiment was done a few years ago (or less) involving the sun bending gravity which was consistent with gravity at the speed of light?

 

[jatslo]

Gravity curves the fabric in space-time, which is not empty locally, and the light follows that curve. Think of space-time as a medium that conducts light... It is complicated. The universe is a singularity with infinite curve. Dark energy is particles and/or waves that are traveling above and below your relative position, which you refer to as an event horizon. As technological advances improve the event horizon will shift further away, and what was previously invisible will become visible: both in quantum and the final frontier.

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - Interesting model - i.e. dark energy above and below the space-time fabric - if I understood you correctly.<br /><br />Curved space - hmmm - I know gravity causes a curve.<br /><br />However, I thought recent data indicated our universe is "flat" in the sense that space-time does not curve back on itself.

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - see my thread in ask the astronomer section of the speed of gravity for the 2003 experiment that supposedly proved the speed of gravity is c.<br /><br />The link is:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm<br /><br />For critical analysis, and questioning this interpretation, see:<br /><br />http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/119.html<br /><br />Note that more experiments were pending and this is more than 2 years later.<br /><br />Have you noted more recent data confirming or critical of the gravity speed = c model?

 

[jatslo]

Were cool, because you’re right. Gravity travels at (c); I say that speed or velocity is infinite or finite. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Viscosity is the delimiting factor. I would not be so quick to discredit Newton. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

It is a geometrically sound equilibrium that does not require a anti-anything. Get me in a lab and I will show you how to make artificial gravity. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">However, I thought recent data indicated our universe is "flat" in the sense that space-time does not curve back on itself.</font><br /><br />That the universe is flat is implied by Big Bang cosmology, the observed baryonic mass of the Universe, and how the Cosmic Background Radiation is thus interpreted.<br /><br />It is the Big Bang cosmology which impiles that the universe is flat. This is a case where a theory implies the <i>interpretation</i> and <i>correlation</i> of the data. If the Big Bang cosmology is not the "truth" then we should be free to examine other possiblities other than a flat universe.<br /><br />A flat universe implies that dark matter and dark energy fulfill the requirements needed for "Omega=1" which also implies their existence. Galactic Rotation curves and current interpretations of gravity imply dark matter. It is a physicist's ideal for the amount of dark matter and dark energy that molds our galaxies to be such that Omega=1. Negative pressure necessarily affects the geometry (and curvature) of space-time in the same way how positive pressure does. Current physics assumes that negative pressure can coexist with positive pressure in the form of a cosmological constant which permeates all space. But we know what happens when you mix two substances of different density, they go under suspension, they do not form homogenous solution. Complementaries and opposites cannot occupy the same position.<br /><br />Two premises:<br />1) (Big Bang & CBM />> Flatness) & Observed Mass >> Dark Matter & Dark Energy<br />2) (Current Interpretation & Observed Mass & Redshift) />> Redshift values and Observed Mass predict differing Galaxy Rotation Curves >> Anomaly >> Dark Matter

 

[jatslo]

I don't even know where to begin: Velocity affects time, Mass, and length, as do speed and gravity, and I imagine that a strong magnetic field will affect things similarly as well. What does a short length and increased mass look like, and what does something long and less massive look like? Is this vector or scalar quantification?

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - I agree we're cool - though I would be more inclined to attribute that to the fact we are in late October!<br /><br />Newton expected more to be discovered. Good scientists do not expect all details of their models to be absolutely correct - humility is the key.<br /><br />Back to my point, though: could the limit of gravity be causing an effect interpreted as dark energy?<br /><br />I.e. gravity from FTL expanding matter beyond most of our universe's gravity pulling matter near the visibility horizon to catch up?<br /><br />That's my personal model, btw - I have no links to other's exploring this possibility - and I am well aware this could be totally incorrect. Then again....<br /><br />BTW - the latter effect is not direct - no direct effect of anything limited to c (I do not know if dark energy is limited to c - it may well propagate faster than c) would be possible.<br /><br />However, overlapping light cones can cause a dominoe effect that ultimately would effect beyond each reference points light cone or visibility horizon.

 

[jatslo]

You cannot see over the horizon; therefore it is dark. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Gravity is not your only champion or ruler of light and dark. Things missing electrons are dark. Things that are super hot and cold are dark. Things that are vector quantities of macro and micro magnitudes are dark. Things under or over extreme pressure are dark. etc<br /><br />Opaque is a better word, I think.<br /><br />Flat, round; its a infinite mess of chaos.

 

[Slate]

Let me see if I’ve gotten all this correct.<br /><br />There was once a singularity<br /><br />At some point in the distant past (roughly 14.5 Bil years ago) this singularity expanded from a single point of infinite density to something somewhat smaller then an atom.<br /><br />A few mili-seconds later and this our early universe expands again to roughly the size of a grape fruit this expansion occurs at a rate faster then C but as space time is not confined to C there is no problem.<br /><br />At some point during this expansion gravity puts the brakes on and slows the expansion down<br /><br />Gravity propagates at C <br /><br />I realize this is an extreme simplification of the big bang but is it an accurate picture of what the current model for the big bang represents?<br />

 

[jatslo]

Space-time is infinite, and I do not know where we are precisely; however, the fabric in space-time is winding up and down from infinite vantage points in space-time as we speak, and the desire to reach equilibrium is the driving mechanism. There are two equilibriums; one is internal; the other is external, whereas equilibrium is a somatic tension free environment. From a biological standpoint: Equilibrium is life, equilibrium is death, and you must choose; therefore, to live life immortal in the promised land as equilibrium a human must accrete as much as they dissipate, or meet your maker.<br /><br />You need to apply what you learned to solve death, because you are human too. We don’t know what death is, because we cannot see past the horizon; however, we know what it is like to live in a free society absent of somatic tension. Live life immortal in the Promised Land (the universe as we know it), and maybe someday we can resurrect our lost loved ones from the abyss of space-time.<br /><br />-infinity + infinity + humanity = humanity

 

[newtonian]

Slate & jatslo - space-time is not infinite unless future time is infinite, in that our universe is finite in my opinion.<br /><br />It will, however, eternally expand - but that ultimate infinite expansion is entirely time dependent. At any point in time our universe has expanded a finite distance (in 3-d and also 4-d space-time).<br /><br />The origin had a specific mass and density [not infinite if the point (compare singularity) existed in 3-d - if not one must explain the origin of 3-d] which translates into the current density which is very close to omega=1. Omega=1 is the critical density point between eternal expansion and eventual collapse of our universe.<br /><br />Dark energy, whatever that is, is causing acceleration of expansion which seals the eternal expansion.<br /><br />There is current research, and a recent Scientific American article, concerning the point where the slowdown you refer to stopped and acceleration began again.<br /><br />I will be researching this after sleeping and working.

 

[nearzero]

Dark Energy or matter is unonwn. What has been concluded so far is that Dark Energy is preasent and that it takes up a high percentage of the universe? The only was to try and present the idea of what it is explained in two parts:<br /><br />First: anti-matter<br /><br />Second: the only part left out of general relativity, the downward pull of gravity in space-time. Once the UFT is defined by the graviton will be able to move forward on these ideas.<br />

 

[jatslo]

(...past) < (present) < (future...) = time

 

[newtonian]

nearzero - You lost me!<br /><br />What is UFT - unidentifiel flying teacups?<br /><br />To accompany the saucers?<br /><br />Or is it Unified Field Theory?<br /><br />Please post more detail!

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

some of it are teapots..<br /><br />chasing some teacups.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

---Isaiah 40:22) 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell. . . ---<br /><br />This also proves that the earth was round before we humans have thought about it..<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>