Thread: Dark matter

Dark matter is invisible and has weight. It is said that it does not interact with any known particles. This doesn't seem to be an accurate form of matter at all, only that matter itself has energy. Curved space time has all the same principles, only opposite. Stretched space time aka gravity, reacts upon two objects with mass by warping space time relative to their mass and speed,so... What if dark energy is rolled up space time, and objects with mass are simply unrolling curled space time fragments left from the big bang, thus causing them to spread away from each other. All galaxies are spreading and accelerating from each other. The outer stars in galaxies spin at the same rate as the center stars, which can only make sense if their velocities are aided in some way. Gravity waves would need time to propagate their waves at the speed of light. Rolled space time would not only push space, but also reverse time in doing so. Galaxies in acceleration would also need this time variant as well as the space for increased distance. Anyone want to wrap their head around this theory?If space time can be stretched in all directions like a fabric, why cant it be compressed or rolled if you will? This would explain upper dimension anomalies such as the tesseract.

i haven't a clue as to what the question is.

Not surprising Chrispen. Tesla### has been posting and being blocked for unresponsiveness for a while now.

phew, thanks for that. thought i was having a seniors moment there for a while.

The question is, can the fabric of space time be formed, rolled, or compressed. Prior to the big bang, there existed an infantessimal small point of pure energy. No one really knows what this means, other than a rip or tearing of ten dimensions down to four. But what of space time? At this moment prior to the big bang, time is said not to exist. Yet here we are. If time did not exist as we know it, then how did time pass in order for the change to occur? Does space exist if there is no matter or at this phase, energy? What is weight? If not the pushing behind of space back on the second mass particle. Things don't move because they are pulled, they move because they are pushed....or sent. Space time Is linked as one. This means distance over time, and is governed by the speed of light. So once again, can space time be rolled? Compressed? Folded? And what effect on time would it have?

I believe Einstein was on to this when he spent his later years studying advanced geometry shapes like the Klein bottle, which turns in upon itself yet only has one side. Could he have been viewing space time in this way?

It is also stirring to note that dark energy is said to be the most common form of energy in the universe. Gravity waves, like fundamentally all waves, can overlap and amplify strength when intersecting at the right frequency. Yet it is a result, or a reaction in effect. Waves travel through a medium, like sound through air. Isn't space time a medium for gravity and it's effects? So...what if the medium is warped around itself?

is that you tesla2?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

is that you tesla2?

No, his English is too good. Tesla2 was almost incomprehensible. OK, Tesla333 is incomprehensible as well, but for different reasons.

Actually, tesla saw everything in threes. He even rented rooms divisible by three. Three pees on the side of his dinner plate. He was a genius yet there seems to be no women in his life. No thanks. Don't want to be the next tesla. But maybe the third is the way to go lol.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

The question is, can the fabric of space time be formed, rolled, or compressed.

No.

Prior to the big bang, there existed an infantessimal small point of pure energy.

Probably not. We don't know what, if anything, existed before the big bang. There are various speculations. I'm not sure that is one of them.

Anyone using the name Tesla can pretty well be counted on to be ignorable.

Hey, strange, I'm not incomprehensible. It's just that physics loves math and particle talk, but never outside the box. Is my hypothesis strange enough for the next view of things? Maybe it's too strange...

How is it that we don't know? Sure no one has a problem believing a neutron star can fill a thimble and weigh as much as a city from a gram, or that a black hole can devour millions of suns and it's planets, but bending space seems weird? Okay.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

Hey, strange, I'm not incomprehensible.

I think we should be the judges of that.

It's just that physics loves math and particle talk, but never outside the box.

I don't know where you get that idea. Physicists and mathematicians are always coming up with new, crazy and fantastical ideas. The thing is, they test them for feasibility. 99.99% get rejected at that point. If they seem plausible, they test them further. If they still stand up they might share them with others and let them attack and test the idea.

Is my hypothesis strange enough for the next view of things?

To be a hypothesis it needs to make quantitative, testable predictions. That is where the math comes in. Your verbal ... ummm ... "stuff" is not a hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

How is it that we don't know? Sure no one has a problem believing a neutron star can fill a thimble and weigh as much as a city from a gram, or that a black hole can devour millions of suns and it's planets, but bending space seems weird? Okay.

Spacetime (*) curves. As described by the Einstein field equations. It doesn't "roll" or "compress" (unless you care to show the math that says it can).

(*) More accurately the geometry of spacetime curves. After all, spacetime isn't made of "stuff".

Alexa has a picture of Jesus whom I believe in, yet far out ideas are neglected by him. I don't know, but I wonder about space time and it's nature. Your the guy on the science forum, tell me why if not to imagine possibilities.

Einstein had to wait years before he could test the bending of light around a sun during an eclipse. So you want me to prove through math an effect that takes an energy wave of infinite power? Yeah okay. Here's the math. G. O. D.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

Einstein had to wait years before he could test the bending of light around a sun during an eclipse. So you want me to prove through math an effect that takes an energy wave of infinite power? Yeah okay. Here's the math. G. O. D.

As I said, ignorable.

Straight to the trashcan.

In a black hole, time does compress and does not pass. This is the reason you can stare at someone going into its event horizon and they slow down to a halt. Trees plenty to read as far as examples to that.

Look, maybe it's crazy. But a different solution often starts with a different view, if not every time. Get it? Time? Alright kinda lame.

Einstein should have won the Nobel pece prize for his work on general relativity, yet noon could grasp it, so they gave it to him on his principles of light paper which was equally genius. Now I don't pretend to be a guy like that, I mean come on. But I understand that talking about space time in any other way than we do now gets the ignorant out there again and again. It's the mathematician that I hope to draw in, not a bunch of one offs that just have no ideas themselves. Or do you? Love to hear new ideas...

Hey alexg, I love how your 2quotes are a paradox in itself. Philosophy good, but science only matters when proven? .? Do you see how possibility is the beginning. Picture it first I say

String theory is the best math out there, and it describes ten dimensions. All possibilities of all universes down to four dimensions, and the other six are so tiny they are trillions of times smaller than an electron. And you think I'm crazy?

I love how space can curve, but the second you say it can curve so far as to form a loop, everyone says youve gone too far. Why? What bends and cannot be over bent? Should go to my engineering forum. The first thing you learn in engineering is elasticity. After a certain point of no return, an objects elasticity becomes warped and it will never return to its original state. Someone out there may ponder this. If space and time can be warped, why not have an effect of some kind upon matter? What if the universe is looking in upon itself? Distance would only be perspective to grasp itself. Crap I'm going to bed, this is too much even for me.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

Einstein had to wait years before he could test the bending of light around a sun during an eclipse.

He had other data he could use to test the theory while he was developing it.

So you want me to prove through math an effect that takes an energy wave of infinite power?

At this stage you don't have to "prove" anything. Just produce a mathematical description with predictions that could be tested.

Yeah okay. Here's the math. G. O. D.

Idiot.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

I love how space can curve, but the second you say it can curve so far as to form a loop, everyone says youve gone too far. Why? What bends and cannot be over bent? Should go to my engineering forum. The first thing you learn in engineering is elasticity. After a certain point of no return, an objects elasticity becomes warped and it will never return to its original state. Someone out there may ponder this. If space and time can be warped, why not have an effect of some kind upon matter?

When we say that space "curves" we mean that its geometry changes, not that space is a physical substance that can be bent like an object. It is a figurative term and not a literal one. It refers to the idea that the rules governing the geometry of space are non-euclidean.

Ok I see that the geometry is the essence of space. Here's the hook, everyone agrees that the geometry bends. I was thinking about worm holes. If they fold space between two four dimensional geometries, then isn't what I'm saying plausible? Or are worm holes simply more theoretical nonsense that other physicists have imagined? I doubt it. When you fold two dimensions you get three. Fold four you get five. A tesseract is a four dimensional object we can only draw in three dimensions, so it doesn't seem real, yet it is a common upper dimensional geometric being. So there.

All theoretical warp drives are powered by the bending of space. And yet the few people that are commenting don't appreciate it's possibility.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

isn't what I'm saying plausible?

It doesn't sound like it.

When you fold two dimensions you get three. Fold four you get five.

Not necessarily. Four-dimensional spacetime curvature is intrinsic; i.e. it doesn't require (or create) more than four dimensions.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

All theoretical warp drives are powered by the bending of space. And yet the few people that are commenting don't appreciate it's possibility.

Don't appreciate that what is a possibility?

Curvature of space? More than a possibility, a very good explanation of how the universe works.
Warp drives? An interesting idea, but anything vaguely plausible requires things like negative energy or other implausible things.

Einstein realized that something called dark energy was needed to balance general relativity. His actual formula was e=+ or minus mc squared yet every one leaves out the minus because of causality. An electron traveling forward in time is equal and indistinguishable from a negative anti electron moving backward in time....once again common knowledge. He felt then that dark energy was the greatest blunder he ever made. However, Michio kaki in his book beyond Einstein agrees that had he remained on this correct path, he may have unlocked greater mysteries.

They have proven the negative electron in the atom smashers, that's a fact. They've seen it, and it's documented. Warp drives bend space, from a curve.

There a lot of science in upper dimensions that clearly no one has looked at here. I think I'm speaking with ignorance greater than mine.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

Einstein realized that something called dark energy was needed to balance general relativity. His actual formula was e=+ or minus mc squared yet every one leaves out the minus because of causality. An electron traveling forward in time is equal and indistinguishable from a negative anti electron moving backward in time....once again common knowledge. He felt then that dark energy was the greatest blunder he ever made. However, Michio kaki in his book beyond Einstein agrees that had he remained on this correct path, he may have unlocked greater mysteries.

This is very confused. Einstein though that a "cosmological constant" was required to enable a steady state universe. When it was found out that the universe was expanding (as his theory predicted) he said "oops" and took it out.

Dark energy is hypothesized to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Yes, particles and anti-particles have CPT symmetry. I'm not sure how that is relevant.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

They have proven the negative electron in the atom smashers, that's a fact. They've seen it, and it's documented. Warp drives bend space, from a curve.

You don't need "atom smashers" to generate positrons (which is a positive anti-electron). They are generated in certain types of radioactive decay and are used in medical diagnosis: Positron emission tomography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They don't, as far as I know, have anything to do with warp drives.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

I think I'm speaking with ignorance

We can all agree on that

Of course what I meant to say is the positive electron, aka positron,it's not imponderable. The existence of it is fact.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

Of course what I meant to say is the positive electron, aka positron,it's not imponderable. The existence of it is fact.

Yes we know that. I'm not sure why you bring it up in a thread about dark matter, though...

You said negative energy is implausible. Positrons are the opposite of electrons, that is a form of negative energy. Anti protons, etc...it doesn't matter...it was all just an idea, perhaps worth flushing....but I'm not convinced by you yet. I do appreciate yor patience with me strange. Thanks for the input.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

You said negative energy is implausible. Positrons are the opposite of electrons, that is a form of negative energy. Anti protons, etc...it doesn't matter...it was all just an idea, perhaps worth flushing....but I'm not convinced by you yet. I do appreciate yor patience with me strange. Thanks for the input.

Anti-particles have positive energy. When a particle and anti-particle annihilate you do not get zero energy, you get the energy equivalent to both particles.

Eureka! Apparently everything I'm writing about is one of the busiest theories to enter this century! It's called loop quantum cosmology or lqc and has hundreds of published papers. It is crumpled up space time and is thought to be the particles of all matter and is a solution to the cosmological constant!

Originally Posted by Tesla333

Eureka! Apparently everything I'm writing about is one of the busiest theories to enter this century! It's called loop quantum cosmology or lqc and has hundreds of published papers. It is crumpled up space time and is thought to be the particles of all matter and is a solution to the cosmological constant!

Loop quantum gravity is not "crumpled up space-time", it is an attempt at quantizing General Relativity. It's basic premise is simply that below a certain scale space-time itself becomes discreet, i.e. is no longer continuuous. LQG makes no attempt at explaining the nature of elementary particles, that would be String theory.

Also, LCQ is science: it is based on mathematics and pre-existing theory. It can, in principle, make testable predictions.

Contrast that with, for example, someone throwing random buzzwords together in sentences without understanding what they mean.

Lqc theory IS described as space time not being nothing. It goes against this pre determined notion and that is why it is groundbreaking. It states that space time is found at the smallest point possible and Loops and twists around, collecting with other crumpled up pieces each called quanta. All energy and matter are formed from these pieces, and dark matter is not necessary to explain anything, or dark energy either. It's thought of as a chain, with crumpled up links. Tension created by matter, pulls on the crumpled up pieces, creating tension, while the links further away don't feel the same tension, as in a chain. The further chain links not feeling this tension are in accordance with the effects of dark energy and dark matter. This is the current theory, that space time is something and not just the geometry in which energy resides. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the theory put simply, and that's not arguable by buzz words, all of which I am the one hearing, not conveying. Now let's hear a few more lies...

Empty word salad.

How come cranks never realize that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two entirely different things, and the only thing they have in common is the misleading word 'Dark"?

and that's not arguable by buzz words

So far as I can see it, the only thing that is not arguable in your last post is your utter ignorance of what LQG actually means.

I know we just met
And this is crazy
So here's my proof
It's gawd maybe

Sound familiar.

i don't know if people here have seen this before but it is a favourite of mine. a condensed history of DM.

The Dark Matter Rap

My name is Fritz Zwicky
I can be kind of prickly,
This song had better start
by giving me priority
Whatever anybody says,
I said in 1933
Observe the Coma cluster,
the redshift of the galaxies
imply some big velocities.
They're moving so fast,
there must missing mass!
Dark matter.


For nearly forty years,
the matter problem sits.
Nobody gets worried 'cause,
"It's only crazy Fritz."
The next step's not 'til
the early nineteen seventies,
Ostriker and Peebles,
dynamics of the galaxies,
cold disk instabilities.
They say: "If the mass
were sitting in the stars,
all those pretty spirals
ought to be bars!
Self-gravitating disks? Uh-uh, oh no.
What those spirals need is a massive halo.
And hey, look over here, check out these observations,
Vera Rubin's optical curves of rotation,
they can provide our needed confirmation:
Those curves aren't falling, they're FLAT!
Dark matter's where it's AT!


And so the call goes out for the dark matter candidates:
black holes, snowballs, gas clouds, low mass stars, or planets.
But we quickly hit a snag because galaxy formation
requires too much structure in the background radiation
if there's only baryons and adiabatic fluctuations.
The Russians have an answer: "Wr can solve the impasse.
Lyubimov has shown that the neutrino has mass."
Zeldovich cries, "Pancakes! The dark matter's HOT."
Carlos Frenk, Simon White, Marc Davis say, "NOT!
Quasars are old, and the pancakes must be young.
Forming from the top down it can't be done."
So neutrinos hit the skids, and the picture's looking black.
But California laid-back Blumenthal & Primack
say, "Don't have a heart attack.
There's lots of other particles
Just read the physics articles."


Who's right? It's hard to know, 'til observation or experiment
gives overwhelming evidence that relieves our predicament.
The search is getting popular as many realize
that the detector of dark matter may well win the Nobel Prize.


"The Dark Matter Rap"
-David Weinberg
Featured in Timothy Ferris' The Whole Shebang'

Originally Posted by AlexG

Anyone using the name Tesla can pretty well be counted on to be ignorable.

They're making a mockery out of my favorite mad scientist!

Originally Posted by AlexG

How come cranks never realize that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two entirely different things, and the only thing they have in common is the misleading word 'Dark"?

There is something else: They are both very lame hypothesis, does not present any new predictable phenomenon, are used as sorry excuses ad-hoc explanation to "not-fitting" pre-extisting thories...
They are also both badly explained by their supporters.

All in all, I also treat them as "word salad". But hey, some vegetables are surely good for health.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

There is something else: They are both very lame hypothesis, does not present any new predictable phenomenon, are used as sorry excuses ad-hoc explanation to "not-fitting" pre-extisting thories...
They are also both badly explained by their supporters.

Well, that would be your personal opinion. But regardless, there are other extensions of standard theories which do not require neither dark energy nor dark matter, yet fit observations. Try STVG for example :

Scalar

As things stand dark matter and dark energy are predictions made by current theories, and we shall see whether these predictions come true, or whether we will need to consider other extensions to GR, like the one above.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Well, that would be your personal opinion.

Well is it ? Silly me ! I probably was mislead by my ignorance into thinking that the basis for science is to build theories, backed-up by observations and leading to new observations/phenomenon. Where again did I read something about the illusion of knowledge...

Regardless, all other theories, that my poor taste tend to prefer, are much more scientific that:
-There is A LOT of something having mass but no interacting with electro-magnetic field. It's there you know...lurking in the dark
-There is EVEN more energy, and it push on things. For the details, close your eyes and believe....

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

As things stand dark matter and dark energy are predictions made by current theories, and we shall see whether these predictions come true

Haaa science at last. Is there way to be pointed to them and the experiment forseen ? I may learn something new. MOND and the likes are already old, I am bored...

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Regardless, all other theories, that my poor taste tend to prefer,

Such as...?

MOND and the likes are already old, I am bored...

MOND as originally proposed doesn't work, that's why other extensions are considered, like the one referenced.

I probably was mislead by my ignorance into thinking that the basis for science is to build theories, backed-up by observations and leading to new observations/phenomenon.

That's precisely what GR does - it predicts the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain what we observe. What remains to be done is now is to check if the prediction is true, i.e. find the dark matter particle.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Regardless, all other theories, that my poor taste tend to prefer,

Such as...?

MOND and the likes are already old, I am bored...

MOND as originally proposed doesn't work, that's why other extensions are considered, like the one referenced.

Markus ! Do you realize that you've done what the cranks on this forum call a backward flowing in time ? You successfully insert a question before I answer it. Or was it me answering a question yet to be asked ?
Anyway you also sent me me into another paradox, which is I do not do multi quoting, and I have just done that

Joke aside (if it is possible on this forum), I suspect that you want me to propose my theory...
Sorry but I use the current one, I mean the top 1 waiting to be supersetted, that is: general relativity.
If galaxy or any other thing accelerate, they do it very much like the apple that pretendly aim for the brain of Newton, trying very hard to silent him.

They just follow the smallest path in the space-time geometry. I can explain to you why apple tend to fall toward a particular place, but not why galaxy does not, and seems to backward fall, from NOWHERE IN PARTICULAR.
I am also under the impression that scientist, should be the one explaining how "some energy" is able to do this mighty feat. I know Einstein did the opposite with the cosmological constant, a bad and had hoc fix on a nice theory, and publicly regret it.
Do we need a negative cosmological constant, an why call it dark energy ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

That's precisely what GR does - it predicts the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain what we observe. What remains to be done is now is to check if the prediction is true, i.e. find the dark matter particle.

I am sorry but do you mean General Relativity by using GR ? That is the first time I read that Einstein also postulate dark matter... now I am curious...

Originally Posted by Boing3000

I am sorry but do you mean General Relativity by using GR ?

Yes, GR means General Relativity. I am sorry, I'm just so used to that abbreviation.

Do we need a negative cosmological constant, an why call it dark energy ?

The thing that Einstein regretted was his use of the cosmological constant to obtain a static universe, not the constant itself.
Dark energy and a non-vanishing cosmological constant are really the same thing, because that constant can be interpreted as vacuum energy density :

That is the first time I read that Einstein also postulate dark matter... now I am curious...

He didn't. However, when we look at the observable universe we see that its expansion is accelerating - this corresponds in GR to a non-vanishing cosmological constant, which in turn corresponds to vacuum energy. It is called "dark energy" because we do not yet understand the origin of that energy, which is an issue of quantum field theory.
It is similar for dark matter - we see galaxy rotation curves and gravitational lenses which are explainable in the context of GR only by the presence of mass which doesn't interact with the EM spectrum. Therefore, in order to explain what we observe around us, GR predicts the presence of both these phenomena.

Or do you have a good alternative explanation for this, which is a gravitational lens without any visible matter to cause it :

http://www.windows2universe.org/the_universe/Lensing.html&edu=high

This may surprise you, but I am not a big fan of dark matter either; however, I accept that at the moment it would be shortsighted to reject the concept altogether.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

This may surprise you, but I am not a big fan of dark matter either; however, I accept that at the moment it would be shortsighted to reject the concept altogether.

I am not surprised. That is also my position, but I voice it clearly from the start. They are concept, not even theories, one of the many paths to investigate for adding value to science.

What is disturbing is that many scientific people (not you) brag about them (like the big bang) like if they where theories. Like there was some set of equations that would allow to make hard computation/ new experiment.
They are hypothesis (no set of equation), fits SOME of ACTUAL experiments (like gravitational lensing) or cosmological background (for big bang), and are not even self descriptive (why dark matter aggregate differently then EM matter), or what inflation is exactly (for big bang).

Given this inflationary trends in the 'official' scientific language, I am not surprised that the dude next door thinks that he can do better, and post it own hypothesis not backed up by anything. He is just two years ahead of 'official' opinion, in the loss of value of scientific meaning.

I will probably be more skeptic about dark energy. You need to bend space/time, so any E<=>M will do. But mass will be problematic, because it should disperse according to its own influence, like matter(the lighter ones) of galaxies. But it is not, there is no direction, and so it is "energy". Let's not wonder about what E stands for actually. Let's just call it that.

I can also be the dude next door:I would be more impressed by a theory that say the space is also a inflationary currency. There is just x% more of it per unit time.

Good grief.

I need a youtube clip to really convince me.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

Good grief.

I need a youtube clip to really convince me.

Secret teleportation government project, must see

They are concept, not even theories, one of the many paths to investigate for adding value to science.

I wouldn't quite put it that way, but am in agreement in general.
I do not reject dark matter and dark energy ( they do work if they really exist, which would be perfectly acceptable to me ), yet I would be happy if it turns out that these concepts aren't needed after all. I think we just need to give that some more time - science is still progressing, there are many things yet to be learned.

What is disturbing is that many scientific people (not you) brag about them (like the big bang) like if they where theories. Like there was some set of equations that would allow to make hard computation/ new experiment.

Well, in a way they are valid enough models, but I really would like to see final experimental confirmation before embracing the concepts as physical facts. I think that is a reasonable expectation.

or what inflation is exactly (for big bang).

I have not yet studied this in-depth, so I am not in a position to comment on this at the present time.

I will probably be more skeptic about dark energy.

This one will be hardest to explain and experimentally verify. Again, I have not yet studied QFT in detail, so it is hard for me to form my own opinion. I need more time, yet I would not reject the concept altogether either.

Is "dark matter" simply molecular hydrogen? Molecular hydrogen is notoriously difficult for astronomers to detect.

There are a number of reasons to rule out anything that is composed of baryons (protons & neutrons). Chief among these is that there is a measured ratio of hydrogen to other elements that we have from a number of sources that we have good reason to trust. Another is the behavior of things like the Bullet Cluster (hydrogen clouds would move differently). Another is the cosmological parameters measured by the type Ia supernovae and by the anisotropy of the background radiation. These measurements point to a limited amount of baryons and a larger amount of matter.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

There are a number of reasons to rule out anything that is composed of baryons (protons & neutrons). Chief among these is that there is a measured ratio of hydrogen to other elements that we have from a number of sources that we have good reason to trust. Another is the behavior of things like the Bullet Cluster (hydrogen clouds would move differently). Another is the cosmological parameters measured by the type Ia supernovae and by the anisotropy of the background radiation. These measurements point to a limited amount of baryons and a larger amount of matter.

Paul Marmet was a Canadian physics professor at the University of Ottawa and a former president of the Canadian Association of Physicists. He died in 2005. This is a short piece he published in 2000. What do you think?

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

Given that the guy seems not to understand the standard cosmological model, that article should seem like a bust before we even do more than skim it. Why? Because of this crazy line: "The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang."

But even if the molecular hydrogen could maintain the observed optical depth while introducing a redshift, it could not also produce the same observed changes in redshift over cosmological eras. The change in the energy densities over cosmological time leads to changes in the expansion which leads to changes in redshift. The molecular hydrogen provides no reason for a change in redshift over cosmological time. It also cannot account for nucleosynthesis, for the observations of the background radiation anisotropy, or for many other cosmological features.

Same question Dr Marmet asked in '95. Science has a strong aversion to this one. As to the refuting evidence, again a pub with Valentijn as coauthor offers 2012 molecular hydrogen. Here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1998.pdf

As to the refuting evidence, again a pub with Valentijn as coauthor offers 2012 molecular hydrogen. Here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1998.pdf

But the only evidence offered to support molecular hydrogen is the 1999 paper by Valentijn himself.

Originally Posted by Tesla333

I love how space can curve, but the second you say it can curve so far as to form a loop, everyone says youve gone too far. Why? What bends and cannot be over bent? Should go to my engineering forum. The first thing you learn in engineering is elasticity. After a certain point of no return, an objects elasticity becomes warped and it will never return to its original state. Someone out there may ponder this. If space and time can be warped, why not have an effect of some kind upon matter? What if the universe is looking in upon itself? Distance would only be perspective to grasp itself. Crap I'm going to bed, this is too much even for me.

But it can be bent back into its original position my bending it the opposite direction an equal period of time as it was bent in the first place?