Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dark energy is real, say astronomers

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by cruddas
Could this be an alternate method to explaining what is being observed? Induced magnetic repulsion as looked at halfway down the page, it's an area of study that can be done in a lab.
According to the quote i referenced earlier, they don't have an explanation, so why would you say "alternate method"? Alternate to what?

And that source is pretty much a who's who of crackpots, From Searle who claims his antigravity device worked so well it flew into outer space so that's why he can't demonstrate it, to Don Scott who says the Grand Canyon was formed by electricity instead of the water that flowed through it. OK maybe Hannes Alfvén is the exception and wasn't a crackpot, but by his own admission he was unable to convince even one single prominent scientist of his redshift idea, so weak was his so-called "evidence".

But prove the idea and win the Nobel prize.

I doubt you can since that site is mostly complete nonsense.

edit on 12-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


I was not quoting you, I was quoting the OP and asking if the information to the link i provided could be viewed as an alternate answer than the current theory of this dark energy he made the topic about, And about the quote you referenced earlier, you give the strong idea that you do indeed believe they know exactly what they are talking about and then direct it to me and make it seem like i'm clueless, afterwards you let everyone else know your feelings about said link i provided, place it upon my shoulders to prove some of the ideas presented there and do a total 180 and call much of it "crackpots and nonsense".

It's difficult to have discussions and share thoughts when others make a ruckus on the forums.




posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Everyone should take a deep breath, and chill out.

1. I am not an astrophysicist, astronomer, mathematician, or any of those other big words. I just think this stuff is really cool, so I posted the story.

2. I am not very familiar with the "Electric Universe Theory", I have read about it, and seen some videos. It seems very interesting, but it has been a long while. I will have to look into it again before I can comment on it.

3. Carrots and Hermetics still have absolutely nothing to do with dark energy, so just stop.

4. I think a few people are confusing "dark energy" with "dark matter", two completely different things.

Thank you everyone for contributing.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Very interesting post, OP. S&F
I'm hoping the next-gen of microwave probes will help us determine if the proposed dark energy theory holds up or if we have to start looking further that. Either way, it's going to be cool as hell.
That's the beauty of science, you can't go wrong!

And the opposite of a carrot is a bunny, a bugs one.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
Everyone should take a deep breath, and chill out.

1. I am not an astrophysicist, astronomer, mathematician, or any of those other big words. I just think this stuff is really cool, so I posted the story.

2. I am not very familiar with the "Electric Universe Theory", I have read about it, and seen some videos. It seems very interesting, but it has been a long while. I will have to look into it again before I can comment on it.

3. Carrots and Hermetics still have absolutely nothing to do with dark energy, so just stop.

4. I think a few people are confusing "dark energy" with "dark matter", two completely different things.

Thank you everyone for contributing.


Had you read the link, you would not say all you said above. It's shows you do not want to take time out to read my thoughts, and frankly you are missing out if you truly " love this stuff" as you claim.

I'm in no way trying to offend your heart or intellect.

Be open when asking others about their view point because you will surely get it!

Your op discusses the love of dark energy/ dark matter which the link discusses in DETAIL the seen and unseen.

Thank you in advance ..... now will YOU " chill out " and PLEASE read the link!!!



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The two go hand in hand though my friend! Lol


Q: If we can’t see dark energy and dark matter, how do we know they exist? Almost all our information about the universe comes from light (electromagnetic radiation): Stars and galaxies shine; the moon and the planets are illuminated by the sun. If something does not shine, we have to look for its effects on other objects that shine and that we can see. For example, the force of gravity of a black hole changes the orbits of stars close to the black hole. By carefully measuring the orbits of these stars, we know that there is a black hole. In the same way, we know about dark energy and dark matter: We observe their effects on stars and galaxies. Read more here: www.charlotteobserver.com...=cpy


The first sentence tells us LIGHT/ electromagnetic radiation.

I offered a link of said Light.

I can offer many..... But one has to read to understand. Knowledge had is wisdom gained.
edit on 13-9-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jgold
Can anyone comment on the validity of the measurements observed by Santilli?

R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy,"
I would take any claim by Santilli with a grain of salt the size of a boulder.

First:
en.wikipedia.org...

In 2006, Brown University Professor of Engineering Joseph M. Calo wrote in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy that Santilli's article had "many serious misinterpretations, and misunderstandings of the 'data' presented", provided "absolutely no scientific evidence" to support HHO gas's existence and he described Santilli's Magnecules as “pseudo-science as well".
I do know enough physics and chemistry to recognize bogus HHO claims when I see them.

Physicsforums contributors agree with Wikipedia that Santilli is spewing crackpot nonsense regarding HHO:
www.physicsforums.com...

In addition, he meets several of the warning signs of Bogus Science in this article:

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

Lastly I can't find any of those journals listed in the list of ~17,000 journals that PhysicsForums uses as valid sources. They won't even let you post articles from those journals at physicsforums.com. I'm guessing those journals either have low standards and/or are not peer reviewed.

P.S. Your links don't work, perhaps due to an extra period at the end? I'm sure I could find the correct links if I wanted, but I only mention this to suggest that you check your links on your future posts, within an hour of making the post so you can fix it if necessary.
edit on 13-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by cruddas
 

Your post asked:

Originally posted by cruddas
Could this be an alternate method to explaining what is being observed?

If you don't want to hear the answer, then don't ask the question. This is a discussion board so if you ask a question on the board it's open for answers.

You should be thanking me for trying to steer you away from a disreputable source.

You're welcome.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by cruddas
 

Your post asked:

Originally posted by cruddas
Could this be an alternate method to explaining what is being observed?

If you don't want to hear the answer, then don't ask the question. This is a discussion board so if you ask a question on the board it's open for answers.

You should be thanking me for trying to steer you away from a disreputable source.

You're welcome.


You did not give me any sort of answer at all, just your own opinion about a site that you claim to be non reputable, if you truly do have experience in the field of plasma cosmology then that's good, but if you just do not believe the EU ideas over the standard you cannot claim that anything they offer is crackpot or nonsense, those are just alternate ideas to be looked into.......if anyone ever wants to make such an attempt.

Is that how ideas are discussed here? Called psedoscience, fring physics, and ideas of madmen who do not have a clue? And any interest in them must be squashed right away?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


After your persistent badgering, I decided I should deny my ignorance and read through the link you posted.
I now understand your stance on my OP. So I retract my previous statements.

While it is very interesting, it seems just another way of trying to explain everything. I'm not sure having an explanation is necessary or relevant. Either way, it helped me think of things in a broader context, and I have come to some interesting self realizations. I might make a thread about it.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



From Searle who claims his antigravity device worked so well it flew into outer space so that's why he can't demonstrate it


And so it did. (It was only 12" across by the way)

Why do you keep your eyes tight shut? The Electric Universe theory does not need dark matter/energy. This is an invention of conventional science to attempt to explain what they don't understand.

You cannot progress if you are not prepared to investigate alternatives. Simple preaching the mainstream dogma must make for a very dull life.

edit on 14/9/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
You cannot progress if you are not prepared to investigate alternatives. Simple preaching the mainstream dogma must make for a very dull life.
This is the wrong thread to suggest dogma, since dark energy is a very anti-dogmatic concept.

Before 1998, this wasn't even on the scientific landscape. If all science did was stick to dogma, they would have denied dark energy, which they did at first, in fact even the researchers who collected the data refused to believe their own analysis, so surprising were their results. And for the next 5 years there were replication observations taking place to confirm or reject the 1998 dark energy reports, during which time the jury was still out to some extent.

But there was more confirmation after about 5 years, and now the topic of this thread is that there is even more confirmation that it wasn't just some kind of measurement error. So this is really exciting stuff, which has proven the opinion of virtually every scientist before 1998 wrong, as none of them expected this result. This is probably one of the most dramatic finds in recent history to me, but it's not the only one.

If you think real science is dogmatic, you obviously know very little about it. Just look at this topic that no scientist believed in 1997. Real science is plenty exciting. It's pseudoscience that's boring, because none of it is real. I like reading pseudoscientific claims for entertainment purposes, and I'm also interested in the psychology of why some people choose to believe complete nonsense, with no evidence.

Searle didn't even have the courtesy to make fake antigravity videos, like Hutchison did! He should at least have made a fake video of his antigravity invention flying off into outer space as he claimed it did.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by cruddas
 


This isn't an electric universe thread, though there are some on this site and the central concept that the sun is powered by electric current rather than fusion has been completely trashed. There's no evidence for the current and they even admit it, and there's plenty of evidence for the fusion. So yes I do know quite a bit about what's on that website.

Do you know who Billy Meiers is? He made some UFO hoaxes and was caught.

Going to that website and looking for valid scientific information is a bit like claiming that Billy Meiers made another UFO video, but unlike all his other fakes which were proven fake, this one is real.

Even if his latest UFO video is real, he's destroyed his credibility already so nobody will believe him, and that website has the same problem. They have made so many claims which have already been shown to be unsupported by evidence, that even if they happen to make one that turns out to be true now, nobody will take them seriously because their credibility has already been destroyed by their previous claims.

Sorry if you don't understand that or don't like it, but that's the way it is. If someone wants to believe the next Billy Meiers thing isn't a hoax and of you want to believe the next claim on that site isn't false, nobody's stopping you, go right ahead. I'm just warning you what you're getting yourself into, but feel free to disregard the warning as you see fit, it won't hurt me in any way...I'm only trying to help.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by MamaJ
 


After your persistent badgering, I decided I should deny my ignorance and read through the link you posted.
I now understand your stance on my OP. So I retract my previous statements.

While it is very interesting, it seems just another way of trying to explain everything. I'm not sure having an explanation is necessary or relevant. Either way, it helped me think of things in a broader context, and I have come to some interesting self realizations. I might make a thread about it.

Thank you.


Awesome, glad to hear it and sorry for being persistent. I really felt like if you indeed love this kind of stuff and ponder it often as I do, you would enjoy the link.

As above so below and as below so above. There is always an unseen and a seen. Love this stuff!!! Lol

Thanks for your patience with me!!! Xoxox



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by MamaJ
Of course it's real. Everything has an opposite.


What is the opposite of a carrot?


A dark-carrot of course...

See I can be as smart as astronomers too.

If you like we can call it an anti-carrot! Then there is the big carrot theory, and the theory of carrotivity.
edit on 14-9-2012 by shamanix2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2012 by shamanix2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by cruddas
 

Do you know who Billy Meiers is? He made some UFO hoaxes and was caught.


Not to go off topic but was really he was caught?

I remember seeing some interviews with him & Dr. Steven Greer (yes, I know, what a coincidence).

I actually didn't know his stories we're hoaxes.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shamanix2012

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by MamaJ
Of course it's real. Everything has an opposite.


What is the opposite of a carrot?


A dark-carrot of course...

See I can be as smart as astronomers too.

If you like we can call it an anti-carrot! Then there is the big carrot theory, and the theory of carrotivity.
edit on 14-9-2012 by shamanix2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2012 by shamanix2012 because: (no reason given)


No one actually answered that ludicrous question correctly. Carrots don't have opposites in the way your asking. Asking whats the opposite of a boat is really contentious.

The opposite of matter is anti-matter. That answers that smart ass question.
edit on 16-9-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by MamaJ
 

reply to post by KurdishKing
 


While your willingness to contribute is appreciated, Hermetics and carrots have nothing to do with dark energy.
So I ask you to move your conversation else where or remain on topic.



I am on topic please check. i was excited about this and i am sure this is not off topic.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by shamanix2012

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by MamaJ
Of course it's real. Everything has an opposite.


What is the opposite of a carrot?


A dark-carrot of course...

See I can be as smart as astronomers too.

If you like we can call it an anti-carrot! Then there is the big carrot theory, and the theory of carrotivity.
edit on 14-9-2012 by shamanix2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2012 by shamanix2012 because: (no reason given)


No one actually answered that ludicrous question correctly. Carrots don't have opposites in the way your asking. Asking whats the opposite of a boat is really contentious.

The opposite of matter is anti-matter. That answers that smart ass question.
edit on 16-9-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)


Lol, it's been all fun!

Light energy is opposite of dark energy, right? Lol



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by KurdishKing

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by MamaJ
 

reply to post by KurdishKing
 


While your willingness to contribute is appreciated, Hermetics and carrots have nothing to do with dark energy.
So I ask you to move your conversation else where or remain on topic.



I am on topic please check. i was excited about this and i am sure this is not off topic.



Please continue, I'm listening. :-)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 

Hermeticism is off topic in the science and technology forum, unless you want to start a thread showing the scientific evidence for the magical and religious beliefs:


This article is about the magical and religious movement stemming from the teachings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.
It's probably not even on topic in a separate thread since by definition it's not scientific, but it's definitely off topic in this thread which is about "Dark Energy".

This doesn't mean it's not interesting, as I studied hermeticism for a while. But unless you can point to some scientific evidence connecting it to the dark energy evidence scientists have presented, you haven't demonstrated it's on topic. And since I've studied it myself, I'm pretty sure there isn't any science behind it.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join