A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 20th 11, 01:29 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity

Well, I'm not sure I believe these findings, it seems rather tenuous to
me. I don't see a strong proof against gravity (or rather anti-gravity)
here. But anyways, all sides need to be heard to make a decision.

Yousuf Khan

***

Dark energy is real, new evidence indicates - Technology & science -
Space - Space.com - msnbc.com
" A census of 200,000 galaxies may confirm that the mysterious force of
dark energy is what is pulling the universe apart at ever-increasing
speeds, a new study finds.

The results of the five-year galactic survey offer new support for the
favored theory of how elusive dark energy works — as a constant force,
uniformly affecting the universe and driving its runaway expansion.

The new findings contradict an alternate theory that gravity, and not
dark energy, is the force pushing space apart and causing it to expand.
That alternate theory challenges Albert Einstein's concept of gravity,
because it has gravity acting at great distances as a repulsive force
rather than an attractive one.

The galaxy survey, which looked at galaxies that were up to 7 billion
years old, used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer
(GALEX) and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in
Australia. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43097938...science-space/
  #2  
Old May 20th 11, 01:52 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity

On May 19, 5:29*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I believe these findings, it seems rather tenuous to
me. I don't see a strong proof against gravity (or rather anti-gravity)
here. But anyways, all sides need to be heard to make a decision.


This reads more like a repetition of a well known result using
something other than Type 1a SN's rather than a radical new
observation.

It'd help if they linked the actual paper or something, so people with
an education in the subject can read it w/o the lens of a broad
audience level writer.

[...]
  #3  
Old May 20th 11, 02:26 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Marvin the Martian[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour ofGravity

There are alternative theories to GR out there where the non-science dark
matter & dark energy hypothesis are not needed.

It would be a better use of the funds to quit looking for invisible stuff
(a hypothesis that cannot be falsified) and to determine which of the
alternative theories is correct.
  #4  
Old May 20th 11, 02:39 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Androcles[_43_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| There are alternative theories to GR out there where the non-science dark
| matter & dark energy hypothesis are not needed.
|
| It would be a better use of the funds to quit looking for invisible stuff
| (a hypothesis that cannot be falsified) and to determine which of the
| alternative theories is correct.
|
Won't happen anytime soon, GR is a religion built on the premise
that what you see is what is happening.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm





  #5  
Old May 20th 11, 01:15 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
herbert glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,045
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity

On May 19, 8:29*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I believe these findings, it seems rather tenuous to
me. I don't see a strong proof against gravity (or rather anti-gravity)
here. But anyways, all sides need to be heard to make a decision.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

* * * * ***

Dark energy is real, new evidence indicates - Technology & science -
Space - Space.com - msnbc.com
" A census of 200,000 galaxies may confirm that the mysterious force of
dark energy is what is pulling the universe apart at ever-increasing
speeds, a new study finds.

The results of the five-year galactic survey offer new support for the
favored theory of how elusive dark energy works — as a constant force,
uniformly affecting the universe and driving its runaway expansion.

The new findings contradict an alternate theory that gravity, and not
dark energy, is the force pushing space apart and causing it to expand.
That alternate theory challenges Albert Einstein's concept of gravity,
because it has gravity acting at great distances as a repulsive force
rather than an attractive one.

The galaxy survey, which looked at galaxies that were up to 7 billion
years old, used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer
(GALEX) and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in
Australia. "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43097938/ns/technology_and_science-space/


73 % of the universe is "dark energy" Its the energy that fills a
vacuum.(its the stuff between all stars and galaxies.) It is the
universe's greatest force,as it is pushing galaxies away from each
other at an accelerating rate.(thinning out the universe.) Yes dark
energy is in the space between all particles in the micro realm. Who
knows dark energy might be the ultimate energy used on Earth. Hmmm
I am trying to merge my "convex curve' and dark energy. There seems to
be no theory on "dark energy" Was it born from the big bang? Or did
it create the big bang Hmmm This just jumped in "Can we relate
dark energy with the "cosmological constant?" Can I bring spacetime
into the picture? Now dark matter is filtering into my imagination.
I'll try looking for that next. Should I look into the vacuum of
space? TreBert
  #6  
Old May 20th 11, 04:12 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour ofGravity

On 20/05/2011 8:15 AM, herbert glazier wrote:
73 % of the universe is "dark energy" Its the energy that fills a
vacuum.(its the stuff between all stars and galaxies.) It is the
universe's greatest force,as it is pushing galaxies away from each
other at an accelerating rate.(thinning out the universe.) Yes dark
energy is in the space between all particles in the micro realm. Who
knows dark energy might be the ultimate energy used on Earth. Hmmm
I am trying to merge my "convex curve' and dark energy. There seems to
be no theory on "dark energy" Was it born from the big bang? Or did
it create the big bang Hmmm This just jumped in "Can we relate
dark energy with the "cosmological constant?" Can I bring spacetime
into the picture? Now dark matter is filtering into my imagination.
I'll try looking for that next. Should I look into the vacuum of
space? TreBert


There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is. One theory is
that it's Einstein's Cosmological Constant -- well, not really
Einstein's version, because Einstein introduced it as a way to explain a
static unchanging universe (which was the assumption during his early
days), whereas the version we are talking about here is to explain an
expanding accelerating universe: i.e. the Cosmological Constant is used
as a force for change rather than Einstein's force for no change. The
only problem with the Cosmological Constant is that there is no
explanation for where it comes from, plus as its name implies, the force
is constant over time, right from the beginning of time it was there in
some form.

Another theory for Dark Energy is called Quintessence. Quintessence also
involves an energy set in motion within the universe from the early
days. The difference between this and the Cosmological Constant is that
it's not constant throughout the history of the universe. Quintessence
evolves and gets triggered at some point in time. According to the
theorists behind Quintessence, it gets triggered 10 billion years ago,
at a moment in time when matter begins to dominate the universe over
radiation. Because this energy is non-constant, it allows for atoms to
form, and then for stars and galaxies to form without being blown apart
by Dark Energy right away. Still no explanation of what this energy
field is made of.

Then there are theories about what this energy field is made of. The
most popular, and probably the only theory for this right now is that
it's made of the Quantum Mechanical Vacuum Energy. The only problem with
QMVE is that QMVE is 120 orders of magnitude *too* large to explain Dark
Energy. So now the work continues on how to explain why only a miniscule
portion of QMVE is being used to drive the whole universe apart, rather
than all of it. Basically it's a matter of massaging Quantum Theory
through its loopholes.

Yousuf Khan
  #7  
Old May 20th 11, 04:22 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity

On a sunny day (Fri, 20 May 2011 11:12:00 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in
:


There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.


Many years ago, before they even discovered it, I predicted in these groups that he universe would be pushing itself apart ever faster.
It is a direct consequence of a Le Sage type particle causing gravity,
especially when those particles originate within what we call 'the observable universe'.
It is simple.

I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein would have answered :
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again", is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great scientist to brush up the Jewish image
was also a mistake, as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
Q

  #8  
Old May 20th 11, 05:50 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Androcles[_43_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
| On 20/05/2011 8:15 AM, herbert glazier wrote:
| 73 % of the universe is "dark energy" Its the energy that fills a
| vacuum.(its the stuff between all stars and galaxies.) It is the
| universe's greatest force,as it is pushing galaxies away from each
| other at an accelerating rate.(thinning out the universe.) Yes dark
| energy is in the space between all particles in the micro realm. Who
| knows dark energy might be the ultimate energy used on Earth. Hmmm
| I am trying to merge my "convex curve' and dark energy. There seems to
| be no theory on "dark energy" Was it born from the big bang? Or did
| it create the big bang Hmmm This just jumped in "Can we relate
| dark energy with the "cosmological constant?" Can I bring spacetime
| into the picture? Now dark matter is filtering into my imagination.
| I'll try looking for that next. Should I look into the vacuum of
| space? TreBert
|
| There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.

There are several theories for what phlogiston really is too.



  #9  
Old May 20th 11, 06:40 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity

On May 20, 8:22*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 20 May 2011 11:12:00 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in
:



There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.


Many years ago, before they even discovered it, I predicted in these groups that he universe would be pushing itself apart ever faster.
It is a direct consequence of a Le Sage type particle causing gravity,
especially when those particles originate within what we call 'the observable universe'.
It is simple.


Here is the Union 2 SN1a dataset.

http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figur...n2_mu_vs_z.txt

Show us how your theory matches.


I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein would have answered :
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again", is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great scientist to brush up the Jewish image
was also a mistake, as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
Q


Imagine that, another anti-Einstein poster that *just happens* to be
an anti-semite.
  #10  
Old May 20th 11, 08:04 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
herbert glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,045
Default Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity

On May 20, 1:40*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 20, 8:22*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 20 May 2011 11:12:00 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in
:


There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.


Many years ago, before they even discovered it, I predicted in these groups that he universe would be pushing itself apart ever faster.
It is a direct consequence of a Le Sage type particle causing gravity,
especially when those particles originate within what we call 'the observable universe'.
It is simple.


Here is the Union 2 SN1a dataset.

http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figur...n2_mu_vs_z.txt

Show us how your theory matches.



I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein would have answered :
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again", is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great scientist to brush up the Jewish image
was also a mistake, as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
Q


Imagine that, another anti-Einstein poster that *just happens* to be
an anti-semite.


Dark Energy and my Convex space curve = space inflating TreBert ????
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark energy, gravity, gravity pressure, gravity bubbles, a theory [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 4th 07 12:03 AM
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect [email protected] Astronomy Misc 3 April 16th 06 06:40 PM
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 April 12th 06 08:03 PM
Sloan Digital Sky Survey astronomers measure role of dark matter,dark energy and gravity in the distribution of galaxies (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 January 25th 05 02:48 AM
Sloan Digital Sky Survey astronomers measure role of dark matter,dark energy and gravity in the distribution of galaxies (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 January 25th 05 02:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.