It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I've never seen someone try to explain dark energy as anything other than a feature of our universe. Instead of explaining dark energy as a mysterious force inside of our universe that is pushing out and inflating us, has anyone ever tried to explain it by postulating some kind of "vacuum" outside of the universe that is "pulling" us out?
Dark energy, as you almost certainly know if you're an avid pop-sci reader, is a "mysterious substance" (it's always called mysterious) which causes the universe to accelerate. ...
Dark energy is a weird case. The idea is that the pressure is negative — kind of like elastic — which means that the net gravity is repulsive. This being io9, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that dark energy is the closest thing that we have to anti-gravity. It's not anti-gravity, mind you, but if you have your heart set on writing it into your story, it's the best you're going to do.
Originally posted by KingAtlas
Good luck finding that answer.
For me Its hard t believe in dark matter, i mean just look at photons.
If dark matter is there then how can photons travel the distances they do, dark matter would make this impossible i think.
They say that it all travels through the dark matter because it *bends or *shifts the space/time in the spaces in between to create the space needed for everything. There for everything travels though it seemingly untouched and thats why it looks like nothing. So nothing looks like nothing because its something bending/shifitng spacetime...
In all seriousness though dark matter is just a new name for ether.
I am probably wrong. So, grain of salt.
What's to say physics isn't regional? Different laws for different areas.
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Seriously guys before the next person posts make sure you check this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
EDUCATE YOURSELVES!
Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Seriously guys before the next person posts make sure you check this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
EDUCATE YOURSELVES!
Are you a pro or a CON.
You seem to know, so give us your thoughts instead of directing us somewhere else to learn.
Kind of rude don't you think
Covariance provides a measure of the strength of the correlation between two or more sets of random variates.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I especially enjoy the occasional science news blurb about researchers "creating" a particle or two of dark matter in an accelerator somewhere, although there is no physical proof that any such thing has ever transpired.
Wow, we got an odd spike on that one! Let's investigate every possible cause of a spike in our monitoring equipment, and let's publish the most sensational possibility, okay?
Well, exactly. That's what has undermined the scientific community with increasing frequency, these brash claims and bold pronouncement that are based on weak-ass Science.
— Doc Velocity
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist: Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
This is why Einstein himself said his theories were incomplete.
Originally posted by oozyism
So you are claiming that Scientists have too much faith on Technology? Am I receiving your point of view correctly on this?
So I suppose you want to label anything we can't yet explain as "God Effect"? Get real son...
Does it make a difference if we call the unknown "GOD EFFECT", or create a BS name for it?
Most theories are correct in their own respect...it is the common link between them all, and a fusion of all theories into one coherent theory and formula physicists seek.
Even though quantum mechanics has been shown to be accurate on levels far above relativity. I still prefer Einstein's over the 2.(Not saying that I don't have a firm belief in both.)