Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Dark Energy Problem

  1. #1 Dark Energy Problem 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dark Energy

    I have thought about this 'energy' and find a more realistic other solution for this subject.

    It is being portrayed as a 'time dilation', rather than an added space expansion? Why the change?

    Well, I saw an illustration of why this was done.

    This research was based on observations of Supernova 1a
    magnitude wave patterns.
    These explosions are based on the white dwarf stars that are presumed to explode after accumulating some added mass equal to 1.44 solar masses.

    They are being touted as the best 'long distance' candles even though they have the largest 'error'
    margins of 8 different measurements of determining the distance to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

    Since WD's have different mass sizes and more importatly, have very large temperature variations that range from about 3000K to over one hundred thousandK, this seems to me why they have the largest error
    margins.

    So this 'time dilation' interpretation is derived from some magnitude wave patterns that appeared to be widened while the magnitudes were lower in magnitude relative to the distances.

    So I came to the conclusion that this widening was the result of the SN1a's 'local space motions of direction that created some of these widened wave patterns.
    If the SN is movinng towards us or away from us, there would be no wave widening because the source would be standing fixed in location.
    So this would be simply an observation of magnitude only.
    But if the SN is moving 'sideways' or vertically, then it would require an additional dimension to compensate for this LSM because the light is spread sideways or vertically to cause the wave expansion.
    So the magnitude would be slightly reduced and the wave pattern would be extended to cause an elongation of the wave to create the illusion that time was 'dilated'.
    So, IMO, this dark energy is an erroneous interpretation
    and just the result of an extended photo exposure
    because of the greater distances.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dark Energy is a Big Bang fudge. If the BB idea is correct, the universe started expanding faster several billion years ago and there was no rational explanation for it. So the idiots thought up an irrational explanation. Dark energy.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dark Energy is a Big Bang fudge. If the BB idea is correct, the universe started expanding faster several billion years ago and there was no rational explanation for it. So the idiots thought up an irrational explanation. Dark energy.
    I agree.
    Since there was no explanation for the cause of the expansion, they had to invent one.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    According to the so-called experts, 96% of the universe is dark energy or dark matter. Evidence is a few blurry blobs for DM and imagination for DE. They would have us believe that we cannot detect 24/25's of the universe. Nutters!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Who would be able to tell the difference between expanding space or shrinking matter ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Who would be able to tell the difference between expanding space or shrinking matter ?
    Well, ES is a vacuum in reverse. So there would be a universal 'blue shift' instead.

    And as far as shrinking matter is concerned, the only thing I can think of is 'old age' with our wrinkling skins.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Dark energy I would assume is the Dark matter equivalent to matter's energy


    So While dark energy seems to be a moron's theory it's simply a by product of a very ingenious theory that being dark matter Evidently you don't get matter without energy therefore theorizing Dark matter means you need the, albiet daft, idea of Dark energy
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Dark energy I would assume is the Dark matter equivalent to matter's energy


    So While dark energy seems to be a moron's theory it's simply a by product of a very ingenious theory that being dark matter Evidently you don't get matter without energy therefore theorizing Dark matter means you need the, albiet daft, idea of Dark energy
    Matter does not create energy.
    It is the 'intrinsic' forces within the matter that creates the energies.

    Dark Matter also does not exist. It is the 'separated' electric charges (electrons and protons) that give the gravity a boost .
    These separated charges do not exist in great numbers because the DM boost is only about 10x stronger that the gravity.
    In full concentrations, these electric forces are 10^36 times greater than gravity.
    So the DM is fiction just like the BBT.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Remark of caution: Although I am also skeptical about the existence of dark matter and dark energy, I have to mention that Cosmo's ideas do not represent the commonly accepted theories of cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3
    Creation consisted of population into the void of two types of energy strings. Open ended strings which bonded at harmonic nodes (three bonds give us the 3 diminsions within which we relate) after the inflationary period ended. Since there are 10 nodes on each string, there are seven more bonds that we can only conjuture. The bonds can be formed left-right or right-left, thereby giving rise to particule anti-particule. This brought on the destruction of most of our visible matter and left us with left handed particules. The binding continued up scale to produce quarks and leptons that are stable and bond to form atoms of mostly hydrogen.
    Closed loop strings are also bonded to each other, but due to their closed loop structure there is no left or right. Closed loop matter is dark matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    bondsoflife

    The 'string theory' is just a theory. There is absolutely no evidence for its support, although many seem to accept it as a 'epycycle' for the BBT.

    My science is NEW Science that is based on the current Laws of physivs that is being ignored and considered as
    irrelavent by the current establishment BB'ers.

    I have to admit that Dishmaster is right that my science is not being accepted by the established education system.
    But these same scientists also refute a great scentist of the current ed system named Halton Arp that has provided real evidence that also refutes the EoS idea of the BB'ers .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Most scientists are just followers, going through the processes they have been taught. Many have never had an original thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'll agree. I have noticed in a lot of the people who major in physics at my college a tendency toward personalities that like following a pre-described process, rather than wanting to invent new processes. They seem to like solving puzzles more than asking questions.

    Those people would never want to throw out an old theory after they'd invested all the effort needed to learn its mathematics, because to them, understanding the puzzle is the whole point. I don't think they care what's actually happening underneath it all. They just like putting equations on the board, and solving them.
    They like it for its own sake.

    In a matter like "Dark Energy" we're so far out on the edge of speculation that there's hardly any point in trying to figure out a well constructed theory just yet (we need to keep observing). But, they need a puzzle to solve on the chalk board, so they'll make up some formulas anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4
    I wouldsee dark energy emited by dark matter to be a effect that is einstein's cosmological constant. no? technically dark matter is not dark energy. dark matter is the thing the unvierse and every multverse is made out of dark energy is the resulting affect on matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by iseldoff
    I wouldsee dark energy emited by dark matter to be a effect that is einstein's cosmological constant. no? technically dark matter is not dark energy. dark matter is the thing the unvierse and every multverse is made out of dark energy is the resulting affect on matter.
    Math is nothing but a sub science. Visualization is the best way to solve problems .
    Telescopes are 'technical' visualizations just as illustrations and etc.

    Galileo was a math professor but preferred to do his own research so he created his own telescopes so he could see for himself to confirm Copernicuses theory.

    Kepler also relied on observations to solve the planetary orbital drifts from
    circular movements.
    Newton relied a lot on Kepler's and Galileo's work.

    Einsteins mass/energy formuls is not credible.
    He left out an important component and that is the 'frequency' of the light.
    Light has different energy levels because of the differences with the frequency
    variations.
    Mass, in itself also has great variations.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Remark of caution: Although I am also skeptical about the existence of dark matter and dark energy, I have to mention that Cosmo's ideas do not represent the commonly accepted theories of cosmology.
    I'm interested Dishmaster - how skeptical are you? Are you a supporter of MOND ideas or some other explanation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Remark of caution: Although I am also skeptical about the existence of dark matter and dark energy, I have to mention that Cosmo's ideas do not represent the commonly accepted theories of cosmology.
    I'm interested Dishmaster - how skeptical are you? Are you a supporter of MOND ideas or some other explanation?
    Indeed, I find the approaches like the "relativistic MOND" called TeVeS of Bekenstein interesting. And the newtonian approach of MOND already can describe a lot of phenomena quite accurately, at least as good as Dark Matter. The "Dark Matter" reminds me of the infamous ether that was invented to allow wave propagation in vacuum. But honestly, I know too little about all the details that I can really make a solid statement about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4
    how can you say math is a sub science. 1+1 will aways = 2 no matter were in the universe you are this :-D and this :-D will always = this math is universal and undeniable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dark matter relies on gravity ending at the edge of a solar system. If it doesn't and we live in a sea of gravity of varying density (whether inside or outside a galaxy), then redshifts for speed are far slower than believed and stars in our galaxy are moving at a leisurely pace instead of a for some reason, lunatic pace that should eject them.

    Dark energy relies on the idea that everything a star emits (other than EMR) also ends at the edge of a solar system and that space cannot be full of star debris, so that very distant Type 1A supernovae appear fainter through the cosmic haze.

    Both DM and DE relies on gullibility and the unwillingness to question some crazy theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by iseldoff
    how can you say math is a sub science. 1+1 will aways = 2 no matter were in the universe you are this :-D and this :-D will always = this math is universal and undeniable
    Modern science made great strides after the Copernican theory was proven.

    Copernicus relied on observations. Gallieo did likewise.
    Kepler did likewise.

    The main sources of science are 'observations' of the solar system and the
    Universe.
    Math is used mainly to 'predict' the future or to fine tune what is already known.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4
    you contradict your self cosmo you say that math is a sub science and pretty much there for unreliable yet you say that is it used to predict and fine tune. if math is unreliable for the use of galactic phisics then how can it be used to fine tune or predict anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Modern science made great strides after the Copernican theory was proven.

    Copernicus relied on observations. Gallieo did likewise. Kepler did likewise.

    The main sources of science are 'observations' of the solar system and the
    Universe.
    Math is used mainly to 'predict' the future or to fine tune what is already known.
    This is very wrong. Observations alone do not tell you anything. They always need an underlying model in order to interpret them. And these models need math in order to verify the quantitative results. With observations alone you can describe a phenomenon and make a claim of possible interpretations. You are very well aware that Galilei's observations support both the geocentric and the heliocentric models, aren't you. And Kepler actually employed math when he established the laws we now all know. So, it's always a combination of both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by iseldoff
    you contradict your self cosmo you say that math is a sub science and pretty much there for unreliable yet you say that is it used to predict and fine tune. if math is unreliable for the use of galactic phisics then how can it be used to fine tune or predict anything.
    Keplers math was the result of 'fine tuning' the nature of the planetary orbits.
    These orbits were presumed to be circular but the slight deviations from the circular orbits is what Kepler was working on to determine 'why' that was so.

    Newtons math was based on Galileos experiments with gravity and acceleration plus Keplers math.
    So this all was preceded by observations and experiments.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Observations alone do not tell you anything. They always need an underlying model in order to interpret them. And these models need math in order to verify the quantitative results. With observations alone you can describe a phenomenon and make a claim of possible interpretations. You are very well aware that Galilei's observations support both the geocentric and the heliocentric models, aren't you. And Kepler actually employed math when he established the laws we now all know. So, it's always a combination of both.
    What? Ha ha.
    Are you saying that a picture is 'less' infomative than the 'word' that math represents?

    You must be aware of the old saying that 'A picture is worth a thousand words?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Are you saying that a picture is 'less' infomative than the 'word' that math represents?

    You must be aware of the old saying that 'A picture is worth a thousand words?
    It depends, how you interpret an image. What do you see in the following pictures?


    Do you see circles in the first? Are there black dots in the second image? What do you see in the third picture? Faces or a vase? These are just simple examples demonstrating that it is our minds that interpret the images.

    Another example: The experiment of Eratosthenes, who measured the size of the Earth. The result of the experiment was the size of a shadow (i.e. the picture). If you assume that the Earth is a sphere, you can calculate the radius of the Earth. But if you assume the Earth to be flat, you get the distance to the sun. So I say, an image alone tells you nothing. It depends on the context and the imagination behind it.

    And according to Kepler: Only him introducing a mathematical model proved the heliocentric model to be correct, because it only works well, if you use ellipses instead of circles for the orbits. If you still assume circles that were taken for granted because of their perfection (no math), the geocentric model works much better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Remark of caution: Although I am also skeptical about the existence of dark matter and dark energy, I have to mention that Cosmo's ideas do not represent the commonly accepted theories of cosmology.
    I'm interested Dishmaster - how skeptical are you? Are you a supporter of MOND ideas or some other explanation?
    Indeed, I find the approaches like the "relativistic MOND" called TeVeS of Bekenstein interesting. And the newtonian approach of MOND already can describe a lot of phenomena quite accurately, at least as good as Dark Matter. The "Dark Matter" reminds me of the infamous ether that was invented to allow wave propagation in vacuum. But honestly, I know too little about all the details that I can really make a solid statement about it.
    Yes I was quite drawn to MOND ideas too. Dark matter seemed a bit of an 'epicycle' to me. I wonder, have you heard of the bullet cluster? What do you think of it's significance o this issue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Yes I was quite drawn to MOND ideas too. Dark matter seemed a bit of an 'epicycle' to me. I wonder, have you heard of the bullet cluster? What do you think of it's significance o this issue?
    Yes, I heard of that. Apparently, they say that the fact that the distribution of the visible mass is displaced from the centre of gravity is a direct evidence for Dark Matter. So I looked up a few recent works on this and found that TeVeS or Relativistic MOND cannot alone explain this result. However, it seems that it is not all that simple, because two main protagonists of the MOND/TeVeS school have a different opinion. So, I guess, the race is still undecided. The problem here is that while MOND is still fairly simple, any more complex theory like TeVeS is highly mathematical and can only be thoroughly understood with a solid background of General Relativity and the mathematical methods involved there. This is, where I have to rely on people who do, which is quite annoying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Yes I was quite drawn to MOND ideas too. Dark matter seemed a bit of an 'epicycle' to me. I wonder, have you heard of the bullet cluster? What do you think of it's significance o this issue?
    Yes, I heard of that. Apparently, they say that the fact that the distribution of the visible mass is displaced from the centre of gravity is a direct evidence for Dark Matter. So I looked up a few recent works on this and found that TeVeS or Relativistic MOND cannot alone explain this result. However, it seems that it is not all that simple, because two main protagonists of the MOND/TeVeS school have a different opinion. So, I guess, the race is still undecided. The problem here is that while MOND is still fairly simple, any more complex theory like TeVeS is highly mathematical and can only be thoroughly understood with a solid background of General Relativity and the mathematical methods involved there. This is, where I have to rely on people who do, which is quite annoying.
    Yes I am in exactly the same situation. My research into it has kinda had to come to a stop, because I don't know enough of the background theory it's based on. So I intend on waiting until I do, or for more evidence before being very committed about it. However, it does seem like MOND and TeVeS are starting to suffer from the same 'epicycles' problem which initially led me there in the first place. Thanks for the links.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Are you saying that a picture is 'less' infomative than the 'word' that math represents?

    You must be aware of the old saying that 'A picture is worth a thousand words?
    It depends, how you interpret an image. What do you see in the following pictures?


    Do you see circles in the first? Are there black dots in the second image? What do you see in the third picture? Faces or a vase? These are just simple examples demonstrating that it is our minds that interpret the images.

    Another example: The experiment of Eratosthenes, who measured the size of the Earth. The result of the experiment was the size of a shadow (i.e. the picture). If you assume that the Earth is a sphere, you can calculate the radius of the Earth. But if you assume the Earth to be flat, you get the distance to the sun. So I say, an image alone tells you nothing. It depends on the context and the imagination behind it.

    And according to Kepler: Only him introducing a mathematical model proved the heliocentric model to be correct, because it only works well, if you use ellipses instead of circles for the orbits. If you still assume circles that were taken for granted because of their perfection (no math), the geocentric model works much better.
    That is easy to answer without any confusion.

    This is resolved by considering the time of day?
    During daylight, the 1st is interpreted as squares and circles during the night.

    The 2nd one, squares during the day and bars during the night.

    The 3rd, two faces during the day and at night, a garden flower pot.

    The BBT is based on the galactic redshift obsevations.
    So, the implied interpretation is that we are in the center of the universe.
    This is a virtual 'impossibility' since the Geocentric theory was falsified.
    So, Doppler 'had' to be ruled out.
    So whats the alternative? The expansion of space? Wow, a vacuum expanding?

    I got the solution from Arps RS Anomaly! The Anomaly is a result of different levels of radiation. So the redshift obviously was linked to the light.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The idea of a universe full of material somehow appearing as a singularity is as crazy as it inflating/expanding when everyone but an idiot knows singularities are ultimately stable.

    If material could come from a multiverse, why would it appear in such a form?

    Example of big bang logic: We don't float off into space because invisible demons are holding us down. Proof of these invisible demons is that we are not floating off into space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by iseldoff
    I wouldsee dark energy emited by dark matter to be a effect that is einstein's cosmological constant. no? technically dark matter is not dark energy. dark matter is the thing the unvierse and every multverse is made out of dark energy is the resulting affect on matter.
    Math, like all logic is limited by the assumptions that you base it on. In other words, if your assumptions are flawed, then even infinity perfect logic will not save you from arriving at a false conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by iseldoff
    you contradict your self cosmo you say that math is a sub science and pretty much there for unreliable yet you say that is it used to predict and fine tune. if math is unreliable for the use of galactic phisics then how can it be used to fine tune or predict anything.
    A case in point.

    Einstein assumed uniform distribution of matter throughout the universe in order to arrive at that conclusion. His math was probably pretty good, but based on a thoroughly false assumption.

    The universe's matter density is clearly tapered, not uniform. A galaxy has less matter density than a solar system. A galaxy cluster has less matter density than a galaxy. A super cluster has less matter density than a cluster.

    There's no reason to think that this tapering doesn't continue ad infinitum out to the farthest reaches of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The idea of a universe full of material somehow appearing as a singularity is as crazy as it inflating/expanding when everyone but an idiot knows singularities are ultimately stable.

    If material could come from a multiverse, why would it appear in such a form?

    Example of big bang logic: We don't float off into space because invisible demons are holding us down. Proof of these invisible demons is that we are not floating off into space.


    LOL. HAhaha.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •