It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ErosA433
Its interesting really that the Cosmological constant basically comes around because of integration. All that has done any mathematics knows that in pure form when you integrate you always end up with the possibility of the addition of a constant. Einstein placed it there for completeness... and he saw it as a failure. BUT yeah, turns out... well could indeed be Dark Energy
Since there's no math, and the analogy is so rough, there's very little to evaluate with your idea.
originally posted by: JohanikaDeVries
I don't have the connection for the physics knowledge I need now, so I can not write the equations.
I'm sure you know I think you're a valuable contributor on ATS giving accurate insights on science issues like these, and I generally agree with 99.99% of what you say, including all the excellent posts you've made to this thread. The above post is generally accurate too, but I find somewhat of a contradiction here: "Scientists have never expected to know what the universe is doing"...seems to be in contradiction with "They were always the options and expectation would be, if all is going to play nice and not cause any issues would be flat or closed."
originally posted by: ErosA433
Is a vast misquoting of what the article says, or maybe the content is wrong. Scientists have never expected to know what the universe is doing... the cosmological models always gave 3 options, open, flat, closed. They were always the options and expectation would be, if all is going to play nice and not cause any issues would be flat or closed.
Open is where the universe expands and continues to expand and begin accelerating
Flat is where the universe expands and eventually stops in a stable configuration
Closed is where the universe expands and eventually stops and contracts.
There was no preference, though most people would say, as i said above, that flat or closed appear more 'natural' but, the universe doesn't care what we think to be normal or not.
In the early 1990s, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the universe had to slow. The universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together.
When did you conduct this interview? There's a lot more to the story. Nobody was there to see what happened, but we have pretty good computers now that can run more complex models than ever before, and what those simulations seem to suggest is that what we see in our solar system are the "leftovers" that didn't either get pulled into the sun, nor flung out of the solar system. If those simulations are anywhere near correct, our solar system probably started out with many more planetesimals, then "proto-planets" than we have now, and the gravitational interactions were somewhat chaotic at times and not all orbits were stable. Some of the proto-planets likely collided, like Theia colliding with the earth which is thought to have formed the moon.
originally posted by: cooperton
I was interviewing an Ivy League physicists and asked him why the sun, due to its immense gravitational force, does not eventually pull all the planets closer to it and devour them. His explanation was that planetary orbits are all in a perfect equilibirum, and he equated it to a golf ball (a planet) twirling around the lip of the cup (the sun) ad infinitum.
This fact is mind-boggling, how such a meticulous solar equilibrium has been established to the point where nothing strays from its defined orbit. There is certainly something more to be discovered. Keep looking for answers and learn how to elaborate your ideas with already established physical laws.
originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: ErosA433
Wow that was an impressive reply. I asked for it.
I have to admit that I am ignorant of a lot of work Zwicky has done on galactic cluster movements. I will have to read up on it more when I get time and until then I don't feel I can adequately reply, you got me. Perhaps I can find the answers I am looking for if I look a bit harder.
Thank you for your time an effort.