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.

 

Are physicists just making up dark energy?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

CON





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?


PRO





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.


Is dark energy invented to explain the unknown?

If so, why don't they just say GOD until they find out what really causes this acceleration in the expansion of the Universe?

What difference does it make.

That is what this thread revolves around:

Does it make a difference if we call the unknown "GOD EFFECT", or create a BS name for it?



Thoughts welcome in regards.

oz





[edit on 11-8-2010 by oozyism]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Yes, dark energy is an ad hoc fabrication, created to serve as a crutch to a flawed theory of light. It all starts with Hubble's observation that every galaxy seemed to exhibit a spectrograph in the red end. They theorized that in the great distance and time it takes for those light waves to cross the universe, they must be being "pulled apart" by space itself. Stretching the waves, lowering the frequency and thus making their light appear more red than when it started its journey.


The problem is, this requires that the more distant an object is, the greater the redshift. But there are many photographs of deep space that show objects that are clearly in the same vicinity with wildly different redshift afflictions. Quasars (which traditionally are the furthest and youngest objects in our universe, no less than billions of light years away) have been seen actually forming from the centers of relatively nearby galaxies. These baby quasars have extremely high redshifts, while their parent galaxies have much lower ones.

The conclusion is clearly that red shift alone can not be used as a gauge of distance. This changes EVERYTHING about modern cosmology, that's probably why it's taking so long for the more reputable scientists to speak out.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Thats what a lot of scientists do,

they make theories and then spend the next 50 years and countless millions of grant dollars trying to prove it....



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

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.


I think by dark matter, you are referring to dark energy. I can see it is an accidental mistake therefore making it obvious to others what you are referring to.

Dark matter has already been proven, and created here on earth and we have technology to store it also.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
OOOM my bad sorry mind was elsewhere haha
anyways you know what im saying not gonna waste time editing all that



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
It's a "mysterious" field. All the different classifications(higgs,dark energy, aether) could be the same, or could be different forms of cosmic energy. There is more than one kind of electricity, and obviously more than one for of cosmic energy. Everyone is probably noticing different fields, but since we can't(or won't) accurately study them we can't distinguish between them. Sure they have different effects, but no one knows if they are truly different causes or just a cause with many effects.

Considering the pulling idea, we wouldn't perceive a difference because it's the same effect. For that matter how do we truly know gravity "pulls" us towards the Earth, or "time" isn't backwards for us and entropy is backwards. With our imperfect senses we wouldn't be able to fully comprehend that we are a strange occurrence in the universe.

We only have a small flake of information compared to the iceberg that is the universe. What's to say physics isn't regional? Different laws for different areas.

Just a few thoughts lol



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DavidN
 




What's to say physics isn't regional? Different laws for different areas.


That got my attention, but then I was think, evidence suggest everywhere in Universe that we have observed and received data from, has the same laws.

Think about this for a second:

Every time we observe the universe, we can see it expanding right? What if it is our observation which is causing the expansion? Meaning there is a law which has our observation in the equation, that every time we observe the Universe it expands and even accelerates.

That is just a wack idea for wack people to buzz about lol..

Ultimately what my point is that we never take ourselves in the equation, think that we are too insignificant to be part of any Universal laws.

Thinking is good.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Seriously guys before the next person posts make sure you check this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDUCATE YOURSELVES!



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Yeah, I've seen these stories for the past couple of months about dark energy being a hoax. And I'm amused.

I mean, dark matter and dark energy only exist on paper, anyway, just like black holes and wormholes and gamma bursters and quasi-stellar objects only exist on paper.

Nobody has ever seen or recorded or proven the existence of ANY of this claptrap. LOL

So, what is the controversy in exposing dark energy and dark matter as fiction? It's convenient fiction, as is the vast bulk of our "reality"...


— Doc Velocity



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

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


I am pro dark matter and energy.

And from what I have seen from various sources some who don't even understand the topic at hand usually act like they know more about it than the people who have.

But it's just an observation...

Mostly because every single hypothesis that has been submitted about sciences is reviewed, checked for referencing, and made to be consistent with other theories that have been constantly proven.

To the comment about the redshift and quasars.

I am sure if someone would attempt to do the math they would find that the quasar phenomena could be shown by inputting covariance into Einstein's theories of relativity.


For those who don't know covariance was one of the main things Einstein wanted to include into his equations.

This is why Einstein himself said his theories were incomplete.

mathworld.wolfram.com...


Covariance provides a measure of the strength of the correlation between two or more sets of random variates.


Though he also mentioned in a few of his papers why it might not be needed. But it is my OPINION that covariance should be included.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Well I guess experienced physicists consider it the best fit hypothesis for now. They've done the math and out of the few thousand spread across the world's universities, labs and workplaces...there's a cautious consensus.

But hey...it's only theoretical physics.

Probably a bunch of guys on an internet forum will nail it...



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

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


So you are claiming that Scientists have too much faith on Technology? Am I receiving your point of view correctly on this?

I tend to agree because I'm not that deep in to science, although I like reading about it. I tend to agree that too much pressure is put on scientists due to investment made by others on them. If you spend millions of dollars on technology which supposedly helps explains this and that, and those explanations helps create new technology etc etc. If that technology fails, then there will be a huge pressure on scientists to even take in to consideration false data to show that time, money and effort wasn't wasted.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Learn the difference people...

wilstar.com...


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.




[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
This is why Einstein himself said his theories were incomplete.

Yeah, and I keep seeing these headlines wafting around the Internet that assert "Einstein's Theories Toppled By Quantum Mumbo Jumbo and A Banana Sundae"

Yeah, right. Except that Einstein was describing macro physics on a cosmic scale while Quantum Mechanics are describing the freaky subatomic world.

I'm GLAD Einstein left his work incomplete and open to revision. The only way to call his work "complete" would be to account for every variable into infinity... Which would be more like a Godly task than a mere mathematical task.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

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?

Well, more than merely placing all their faith in technology, scientists are getting a public reputation these days as exploiters and politically-driven opportunists who will SAY whatever is required to achieve a desired effect.

And, yes, they DO rely too much on their limited technology and not enough on their own common sense and awareness.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


The fact that one man created such a theory that has stood the test of time and describes in such a way that it is, relatively, easy to understand is beyond me.

Mostly because while Einstein's theories have been used for about a century now, Quantum Mechanics has been changed a few times.

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.)



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   


Does it make a difference if we call the unknown "GOD EFFECT", or create a BS name for it?
So I suppose you want to label anything we can't yet explain as "God Effect"? Get real son...

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 




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.)
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.

[edit on 11/8/10 by CHA0S]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join