New method 'confirms dark energy'

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


If you don't think Science has been worshiped like Religion you might want to take a look at fraudulent Scheme of the People who think AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change). Is the major factor in Global Climate Change.

That is just hogwash and you know it.

Many people think Global warming (Climate Change) is the accepted truth and will not alter from their stance because they have been brainwashed by the So called Ministry of Truth (MSM)

IMO with all that has changed and the various times many Physics breakthroughs and new information found to be false/true.

I'd say its extremely treading on water for this study to blatantly come out and say they confirm dark energy.

reply to post by BornParadox


I've heard of that Theory before. I'll take a look at it. It sure sounds more plausible then the aberration of Dark Energy/Dark Matter.!

I've always thought there was more matter we weren't taking into account..... not just bayronic

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

All this study does is prove "dark energy" is pervasive. It doesn't prove it's uniform throughout the universe. I suspect that more study will show that it's not a "cosmological constant", but a function of volume and density. The "emptier" space is, the faster it expands. Galaxies and clusters shrink while voids balloon. That would explain the structure of the universe without having to invoke "dark matter" or "inflation", or any of that nonsense.

reply to post by Version100


Exactly nothing more than an ad-hoc i've seen so many articles been pushed in the last 10 years trying to prove dark matter and /or energy and nothing has come up with anything promising yet.

reply to post by TheUniverse


I know how major universities and research works, obviously funding is essential though I also know how obsessive and serious about their work most, especially top scientists are with regards to their work and proving or disproving theories.

Calling science a religion is silly as there are so many branches of science, many Universities, many scientists with varying ideas, trying to reach the truth on theories and all matters universal.

MSM reports with any validity are from reputable scientific publications where the content is scrutinised by reputable societies before going public with findings.

Some people choose to believe anything they hear, be it gov, MSM, tv or wherever, that is another matter.

We are talking real scientific research from VARIOUS researchers and scientists worldwide who have come to the same findings utilising various methods to confirm that dark energy exists.

While there are more things yet to be realised about the fabric of the Universe, this is something which at least relevant and will be part of the realisations of further knowledge.

There could also be, and most probably is, far more known to science that isn't filtered from MSM, and probably a good thing, as, as we often see here on ATS, there are so many people willing to jump to conclusions at the drop of a hat. One mention of a word which could have more than one meaning, and some people are all to willing to take it out of context and make any number of assumptions about it then creating nonsense threads about it and scaremongering etc for attention. The world doesn't need such reactions.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Major Universities and no matter how many Peer reviewed Scientist lend their reviews to the work at hand lends no more credence to it being true. I think to try and say that something of this scale in the Universe is Confirmed When we don't even know what it is yet is truly ignorant at best.

Read above posts for clarification there are many other theories that hold credence as well. They only have their own theories confirmed because that is what the evidence from their instruments and data has show to be true.

But it doesn't mean that the theory is actually true.

All this study does is prove "dark energy" is pervasive. It doesn't prove it's uniform throughout the universe. I suspect that more study will show that it's not a "cosmological constant", but a function of volume and density. The "emptier" space is, the faster it expands. Galaxies and clusters shrink while voids balloon. That would explain the structure of the universe without having to invoke "dark matter" or "inflation", or any of that nonsense.

In True science we must assume everything and accept nothing as truth.

reply to post by TheUniverse


I don't agree.

There are Universal truths and laws and facts. Science makes sense of these, and some sciences are exact. People spend many years learning and studying specific areas and they do know more than the average joe about these things.

Would you let an uneducated person operate on you?, or fix your vehicle? or fly a plane?

Just because you do not believe in something doesn't make science any less valid.

There isn't anything suggesting any scientific superiority of you over respected scientists, and the fact that I know science, and this research makes sense, means it also makes sense to take the research findings as more factual than your opinion.

Originally posted by Illustronic
When people tell me that relativity science is just a theory I tell them The Bomb works!

Present something provable and repeatable and you have yourself a debate. Simply stating something that has been observed and repeatably tested is wrong is largely void of mass, (doesn't carry much weight).

You should do a little more studying.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, did not agree with
relativity theory.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

All this study does is prove "dark energy" is pervasive. It doesn't prove it's uniform throughout the universe. I suspect that more study will show that it's not a "cosmological constant", but a function of volume and density. The "emptier" space is, the faster it expands. Galaxies and clusters shrink while voids balloon. That would explain the structure of the universe without having to invoke "dark matter" or "inflation", or any of that nonsense.

Take this statement into consideration and we can throw Dark Matter/Dark Energy out the window.

Do you gather my meaning?

The fact that they say they confirmed Dark Energy is highly ignorant at best! They have only proved a theory they haven't Confirmed anything.

I've seen too many of these articles over the years and they all claim to prove this and prove that about Dark matter and Dark Energy.

Time will tell.

reply to post by TheUniverse


there isn't proof of anything you said.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


So, they're saying dark matter/energy is a force, such as gravity?

Originally posted by DAVID64
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

So, they're saying dark matter/energy is a force, such as gravity?

from the words of :
www.space.com...

seeing as some people only believe certain science websites....

Dark energy is the name given to an unexplained force that is drawing galaxies away from each other, against the pull of gravity

reply to post by Version100


it has been confirmed.

www.space.com...

Now that the dark energy is confirmed, perhaps we should reexamine the concept of gravity: could it be that there is no gravity and that the pull effect is actually a push effect as a result of dark energy?

How is it confirmed exactly? all that has been established is that there is a force that is overpowering gravity.
This has been known for a long time. The term dark energy implies it is not known.

All of these unknown forces are simply the result of refusing to incorporate electromagnetism in the picture.
If galaxies clusters are plasma pinches in vast cosmic fillamentry currents, the natural result is long range attraction and short range repulsive forces. This can explain what is called the great river of galaxies, the great attactor and dark flow, and the very fillamentry structure of the galaxy clusters all without the need for invented forces.

All the physics required may well be occuring right here on Earth under our noses, in fact that is what the engineers are telling us. We are working within the wrong framework. It's only mathematicians that feel the need to create new forces of nature.

If this is confirmed, by scientific standards we should have experiments to support it yes? or did something happen to the scientific method? Unfortunately yes.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


We can't just utter its been confirmed the study didn't confirm that dark energy exists all it did is explain the pervasiveness of the Universe.

So you're almost implying that we should give up on further study into the matter when there is a more simple explanation for the expansion of the Universe such as.

All this study does is prove "dark energy" is pervasive. It doesn't prove it's uniform throughout the universe. I suspect that more study will show that it's not a "cosmological constant", but a function of volume and density. The "emptier" space is, the faster it expands. Galaxies and clusters shrink while voids balloon. That would explain the structure of the universe without having to invoke "dark matter" or "inflation", or any of that nonsense.

There are many assumptions noted in the article, too; if some are off just a wee bit then more cogitation by the cosmologists will be necessary.

Wouldn't one expect the early universe to expand faster? In the very earliest moments gravity had less time to act. Maybe the greater density counteracted that tendency, but that's for the cosmologists to say.

To be honest the study saying its confirmed energy is naive at best.

With all the unknowns about the Universe its truly ignorant for this article to come out confirming such things.

The article should read more like Dark Energy "Theory" possibly Confirmed and/or plausible

Originally posted by Larryman
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

I don't think it's so difficult to prove. Just build the 30-Tesla field strength super-conductor magnet disk, and spin it. Or do it with a spinning super-conductor plasma, like AlienScientist.com describes. The Dark Energy should be produced (according to Heim theory) from the magnetic field breaking open the (normally closed) extra dimensions of space-time, that Dr. Michio Kaku also speaks of.

edit on 5/19/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/19/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)

Unfortunately, the big energy conspiracy will never let us in on this. This is the only true "green" energy, and it doesn't matter if it's coal, solar, or natural gas, there's one thing they all agree on: they would never want us to know the unlimited power of free energy because no more ca$$$$h.

reply to post by squiz


I have posted articles on Plasma Cosmology before.

The facts are that the 'confirmation' of dark energy is required before further 'confirmations' are able to be made, ie. the nature of something in a theory has first to be confirmed before further hypotheses based on the nature of a theory's components first have to be established.

The 'confirmation' of dark matter doesn't negate Plasma Theories nor is it contrary to Electromagnetics, and should be taken in context to the 'bigger picture' of scientific theory testing and advancement.

An article you may find interesting:

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Astronomers know dark matter is there by its gravitational effect on the matter that we see, and there are ideas about the kinds of particles it must be made of. By contrast, dark energy remains a complete mystery. The name "dark energy" refers to the fact that some kind of "stuff" must fill the vast reaches of mostly empty space in the Universe in order to be able to make space accelerate in its expansion. In this sense, it is a "field" just like an electric field or a magnetic field, both of which are produced by electromagnetic energy. But this analogy can only be taken so far, because we can readily observe electromagnetic energy via the particle that carries it, the photon. Some astronomers identify dark energy with Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Einstein introduced this constant into his general relativity when he saw that his theory was predicting an expanding universe, which was contrary to the evidence for a static universe that he and other physicists had in the early 20th century. This constant balanced the expansion and made the Universe static. With Edwin Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the Universe, Einstein dismissed his constant. It later became identified with what quantum theory calls the energy of the vacuum.

www.dapla.org...

reply to post by squiz

If galaxies clusters are plasma pinches in vast cosmic fillamentry currents, the natural result is long range attraction and short range repulsive forces. This can explain what is called the great river of galaxies, the great attactor and dark flow, and the very fillamentry structure of the galaxy clusters all without the need for invented forces.

Yes this picture is what your referring to yes.

This would explain the filaments and rivers of galaxies per se. proving what you said in your post.

And/or adding credence to it.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b845ea1f3fb3.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is something new on Dark Energy:

"Variable dark energy could explain old galaxy clusters"
www.newscientist.com...

I think Dark Energy indicates the presence of intelligent alien space travel. An area of space having a high concentration of Dark Energy, would likely indicate their home star systems. I think this because... Extended Heim Theory (faster than light space travel) results in production of Dark Energy as a by-product - as stated in the Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser lectures and papers. My guess is that Dark Energy increases with age of the universe, simply because more and more alien civilizations develop and utilize EHT f-t-l to explore the universe, as time passes.