Dark Energy

Post Reply New Topic

Hey,

If the Big Bang theory is correct then there is a center to the Universe. So, my first question is: Why can't they infer the position in space-time of this center (or have they done this already)?

My second question is: Just after the Big Bang, could many enormous Black Holes have been formed and could these then make-up the 'missing' amount of matter/energy (Dark Energy) that is apparent in the Universe.

Take care,
Kevin

If everything was ejected radially from one point, there would be nothing left at that one point. It would be expanding like a balloon. Everything would be confined to the space occupied by the balloon material... a big ball with nothing in the center. It would be thin but with a lot of surface area.

Our perception of this structure may not be accurate due to the warping of space-time. We cannot look into the balloon because of our linear perception of time. We look along the surface. No matter how far we look we cannot see the middle. The middle is not in our reality.

There was a 2-d map of the universe on a website listed on Digg a few weeks ago and it had a line on it at one point indicating that it was impossible to get past that line. The point of the big bang was well on the other side of that line. Why I do not remember.

that does not make sense.
if the big bang happened, then all the energy in the universe should make a huge sphere where the big bang is the center and the radius is the product of the age of the universe and the speed of light. the light from the big bang should be right at the very edge, and the oldest/fasting moving masses not far behind it. if u where to leave right now, and go at the speed of light towards the edge of this sphere in a straight line, the distance between you and the edge would never decrease. therefore the longer u wait to leave, the more space u cannot get to. we better get going!

Science is one person's opinion. The Big Bang Theory has some major problems. For what it is worth, dating seems to place the event on a Tuesday, fifteen bilion years ago. Before that, there was nothing.

No Matter, Energy, nor was there Time, or Gravity. Black, still, infinite, nothing. It had been like that for eturnity. The latest I have heard is starting at one pin point, the Universe formed in 0.0012 of a second, near it's current size. It was a burst of pure energy, but that would not have mass, so at some distance from center, it collidied with it's self, formed Hydrogen, which having mass, trailed behind the wave, forming a hollow beach ball of a Universe. It should be about 30 billion light years in diameter.

Gravity slowly pulled the cloud into centers, where it formed suns. Our sun is five billion years old, and will last another five billion. It is a common type, so the First Universe was destroyed five billion years ago, and it's remanants formed our Universe II.

We are still expanding. Perhaps a third of the light/energy from the skin of the beach ball is traveling toward the center point of origen, but at less than the speed of light, for we are moving away. It is all focused on one point. If gravity does affect EM waves, that too is slowing it. As it has been heading toward the center point for fifteen billion years, it may account for the 90% of the mass of the Universe, Dark Matter, that is missing. Another possibility is the radiation in other directions is also being pulled by gravity, slowing curving it, and bringing it back to the beach ball. No matter the angle of reentery, sooner or later it will be heading toward the center point.

As it is moving away from us, we can not see anything, but it shows up on measuring the gravity constant of what we can see. All the math has a 90% fudge factor, to make the other numbers work, 2+2=40.

Science is explaining everything as a result of natural processes. All of these Theorys rely on processes which do not fit the Laws of Phyics.

1000 Something caused a massive energy discharge fifteen billion years ago.
0100 A hollow beach ball, a shell, was formed.
1100 Something from nothing was created, at many times the speed of light.
0010 All of the energy of the shell is now being focused back to the center, 90% so far.
1010 Nothing is truely random, order prevades our perceptions. Math and Phyics work.
0110 It was Created, by a force beyond nature, something defined Supernatural.
1110 The growth towards order, intelligence, change, has been constant, and for the good.
0001 I perceive feelings of love, understanding, and a great teacher, when I view it.
1001 It is Lord of a very large house, all things flow back to it. It is the beginning and the end.

[quote="Inventor"]Science is explaining everything as a result of natural processes. All of these Theorys rely on processes which do not fit the Laws of Phyics. [quote]

according to the laws of physics, the physical (natural) world should not exist. Therefore the existence of supernatural origin is absolutely necessary to explain existence. We can only explain through nature things that occured after the big bang. Its origins however can never be explained, as the universe creating itself violates the law of cause and effect, that an effect cannot be its own cause.

Big band theory has been more or less disproven last i heard - something to do with red light shift & quarks that are older than the bigbang.

Is dark matter simply matter that doesnt reflect light in the visible (to humans) spectrum?

Bear in mind that our visible spectrum is just a minute fraction on a line that stretches either way, presumably to infinity. Also that the luminous matter that we percieve is only 0.00..1% solid. There could be effective lifeforms/dimensions outside of the frequency range available to the human senses - this is where the 'missing' energy is.

I say 'could' but really, given the above it would be quite incredible (having accepted quantum physics) if those dimensions/entities didnt exist. I believe that dimensions/entities that are very close/overlapping our frequency range are occasionally witnessed with certain drugs/human neurotransmitters (eg DMT). Also a lot of folklore from different continents in the world concerning identical descriptions of reptilian humanoids makes sense if you consider them to be from a slightly overlapping frequency range.

i like ur use of binary... backwards.

That's what I was saying.

a) According to most big-bang cosmologists, everywhere is the centre; the centre was merely the pre-universal singularity and has expanded to form the entirety of the universe, like a bubble, or a balloon.

b, i) I heartily agree with some of the ideas expressed in this point & I think most professional cosmologists would like to do the same, but talking about what I could very easily christen super-duper-massive black holes, i.e. galactic mass black holes (mass > 5 billion suns, which is around the estimated mass of, say the Bootes dwarf, but only 5% of the mass of the milky way) I am guessing would be absolutely awful for ones career as a physical cosmologist, as it is based more on guesswork than the scientific method & it also comes across as being unimaginably absurd. The best evidence for such things are gravitational anomalies such as [l] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor [\l]

b, ii) Although the aforesaid gravitational anomalies may make up a component of the weight of dark-matter in the universe (in addition to non-luminous brown-matter, which interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum, but still remains invisible to our primitive telescopes as it does not directly emit photons), inferences based upon gravitationally locating where a lot of this mass exists leaves us with a portrait of a fairly disperse distribution, i.e. a distribution that is not clustered in various singularities. Thus, a lot of people have put a lot of effort into the idea of a particle, or a set of particles which do not interact with the electromagnetic force, and thus are invisible to us by electromagnetic detection.

b, iii) However, the concept of dark energy is not the same as that of dark matter, and is based upon Einstein's cosmological constant, which was the idea of the energy inherent in empty space. As such, it results in a very diffuse distribution of energy throughout the universe, which nonetheless remains gravitationally potent. The best candidates for dark-energy are things like super-partners, the hidden dimensions inferred by string-theory, axions etc etc, but I think the best contemporary way to describe it is the difference in mass (or more accurately, gravitational potency) between being "empty space" in the universe & being non-space outside of the universe, as I don't think we have the conceptual apparatus to scientifically describe the difference between the voids within our universe, and the voids without it.

The problem, moreover, is that cosmic inflation is conceived to happen superluminally. In other words, the speed of light seems to be a speed-limit placed upon matter travelling through the universe, even massless matter such as photons and neutrinos (although if it is possible for a relativistic situation in which some matter has negative mass, then it can move faster than the speed of light), but not, seemingly a limit, on the edge of the universe travelling into the non-universe. So yes, indeed, we had better get going.

Wow, well, where do I start (<-Rhetorical question!). Firstly, thanks for all of the interesting replies. It is clear that people have very different and yet - in my opinion - equally valid ideas on this subject.

-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

I like this point simply because it is something that I have felt could be possible too. I mean, it'd be very arrogant of us to think that we have discovered all forms of energy. For this reason, I think that people really need to look at the fundamental laws of physics that we have developed.

---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------




That's awesome - I never heard about that before.

Can anybody give me a good reason why enormously dense black holes WOULDN'T be capable of forming directly after the big bang? If there was one there, with a gravity potential beyond anything we could possibly imagine, could that then result in the entire Universe being structurally similar to a spiral galaxy. All matter in the Universe would then be rotating around the black hole at the very centre.

I have considered this before, although the academic line appears to disconcur. The largest structures in the universe, according to academia, are galaxy filaments and the supervoids inbetween. Beyond a scale of around 100 megaparsecs (The Northern Local Supervoid alone, however is about 240 megaparsecs in diameter, so I would dispute this figure), apparently the universe becomes homogenic, which astrocartographers since the 90's have referred to as The End of Greatness. The idea of our universe being a giant spiral with a super-duper massive black hole in the centre, being orbited by all other astronomical phenomena, is very logically appealing to the autist in me who wants to arrange everything into a pseduo-hierarchical order. Unfortunately, our perceptual apparatus, as a species, is so profoundly limited that I have to hold up my hands and admit I have no idea how the macrocosm is ordered.

Oh well. It's nice to speculate.

Good line! It DOES make so much sense though: Electrons 'orbit' nucleii; Moons orbit planets; Planets orbit stars; Stars orbit a galactic core; And galaxies sometimes rotate around in a galactic supercluster. So, everything appears to rotate around something else.


Anyway - yes - It's nice to speculate.

The Big Bang is under seige and is likely to collapse in the next 20-30 years. Dark matter and energy seem like a colossal FUDGE to me. See this article:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm