Dark Energy

Post Reply New Topic

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

A great quote on this from Douglas Adams:

"In the beginning there was nothing. Then it blew up."

Here's an article trashing the big bang:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

This article bears most of the hallmarks pseudoscience. For a start it seems to lack a hypothesis which is at all testable or falsifiable. Indeed, it is interesting to see that Fred Hoyle's protege, Jay Narlikar is involved with these rather bizarre attempts to discredit the redshift & get Hoyle's steady-state universe back on track. The article (rather typically, for pseudoscience), towards the end, rather crankily talks about how the "establishment" is conspiring to shut up people whose views deviate from those of the "establishment", because the "establishment" has invested too much time and energy in the big bang. Yet it is Hoyle & Narlikar who, despite conceding defeat for a short-while in the 70's, are patching up their steady-state model, that they have spent their careers (in Hoyle's case, a 60-odd-year career) designing & embellishing.

Seems like poor old Fred is still sore because young Professor Hawking publically informed him that the quantity he was referring to converges.

Yes indeed. However, it does seem that conventional cosmology is painting itself into a corner, and fresh thinking is needed.

For example, there has been recent data from comets which contradicts theory at nearly every turn. It does not make sense to cling to ideas which contradict the observations.

I agree, fresh thinking is always needed. I would imagine that (as a rough and utterly non-scientific estimate) 80%, maybe even 95-99% of the details of the Big Bang cosmological portrait are pretty much completely "wrong". We still don't understand why gravity happens! The standard model probably needs a good deal of work. And extragalactic astronomy/ astrocartography is probably a darn-sight less well-developed than the standard model of particle physics or indeed general relativity.

Unfortunately a lot of people in the scientific community seem to be working from personal agendas to satisfy personal vendettas; i.e. trying to find data & evidence to prove their hypotheses to be correct, as opposed to trying to fit their hypotheses around the evidence which they encounter.

Well, there may be a centre of the Universe but we can't access it. Imagine that the Universe was the surface of a balloon - we'd live on the two dimensional surface of a three dimesnional balloon. If you blow the baloon up then there is a centre but it's in the third dimension which is inaccessable to us 2D'ers. Now add a spacial dimension and we're a three dimensional people living in a 4D Universe.
So there may be a place where the Big Bang happened but it's not visible or accessable to us.

No, the 'missing' matter isn't accounted for by black holes. We've got a good idea of how many black holes are out there. To have so many black holes that it would account for the 'missing' matter would mean a fundamental shift in the makeup of the Universe which is unaccountable via observations.
The whole Dark Matter debate is showing that we don't have a clear understanding of the Universe so there's a lot up for grabs at the moment.

Last edited by Astilius on 28 Feb 2007, 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i didn't understand yours at first. now that i read it knowing you where saying the same thing as me it makes more sense.

how does negative mass work? F=ma. if m was (-) then F=-|m|a and would imply that applying a force to this negative mass would accelerate it in the opposite direct of the force. So gravity would push it away from the center of the earth. If gravity was capable of pushing, and pushed all negative mass away, then wouldn't all positive mass bunch together (the universe) and all negative mass go flying out away from the universe... a bunch of solo negative masses not connected to each other? or would the gravity these negative masses emit, also be negative. then G=-G. and whats that formula again? I forget but i do remember G and m where multiplied, and divided by something squared, so the -G and -m would cancel out the (-)'s, and leave u w/ gravity just like our own universe. Then maybe their is another entire universe that has (-) everything to our universe, but as a system works the same.
And whats negative mass have to do w/ the speed of light? <thinks...> As you accelerate towards the speed of light, mass increases and time decreases (im pretty sure). so a negative mass increasing, would decrease in magnitude, get "lighter". the lighter a mass, the faster it can accelerate with the same force, so maybe you could use that to accelerate to a velocity faster then the speed of light.

Bang on about personal agendas in science. Now that $$ for science is scarce, people will do anything to grab a share, of telescope time, tenure, research grants etc.

Just think of how much further along we would be if people would "stick to the facts". I bet there are many stories of people with good ideas who weren't able to express them and get noticed at the right time.

Of course there are lots of cranks, as always, it is hard to tell the difference sometimes...! !

That is the idea

type it anyways i am interested in this.
so far i gathered that some fundamental force is equally spread out across the universe and will someday pull every peace of matter, broken down to the subatomic level, apart and spread it over the entire universe equally? i picture this almost like graph paper.

i learned about gravity in physics. the reason gravity wont make a magnet fell off ur fridge is because ur magnet has so little mass, so it is very light.
a plant orbiting a star, both are SOOOOOOOO massive (the star being unbelievably big compared to the planet, witch is also unbelievably big). so the gravity pulling the 2 together is proportional to the product of their masses.
F=GmM/R^2 so the difference in force the sun has on you, and the earth would be by a factor of the ratio between your mass and your earths mass. thats why the suns gravity cant lift you off the surface of the earth.

the force of gravity between two bodies is: F=GmM/R^2
force = the gravitational constant of the universe, times the mass of one body, times the mass of the other body, divided by the distance between them, squared.
this means the bigger the two bodies are, the stronger the gravity. the farther away they are, the weaker the gravity.
so, in simple terms:
the earth is big. the sun is big. the gravity between them is strong.
the earth is big, but a fridge magnet is small. the gravity between them is week.

I posit that the curvature of space is straightening out, causing the universe to expand. Originally, the curvature was very tight; you didn't have to go very far in a straight line to end up back where you started. With all matter/energy affecting all other matter/energy including itself, gravity was a negligible influence. Black holes were impossible. As the curvature opened up, gravity gradually became more influential, but matter/energy was still dispersing.

As the curvature opened up, gravity started causing macro-stranding in the matter/energy. We still see this in strings of galactic clusters. Black holes were still impossible due to the proximity of all other matter/energy.

As the curvature got straight enough, matter/energy became sparse enough that gravity became king in areas, allowing for black holes. At this point, the distance between where you are and where you are at the other end of the universe is increasing faster than the speed of light. Thus the most distant galaxies appear to be going incredibly fast away from us in all directions.

That's the relative view of everyone else in this universe, too. And God is the god of them all.

The Universe is less than a speck of dust, beyond is infinate nothing.

Once, fifteen billion years ago, all was nothing.

Nothing becoming the Universe is not a natural process.

Since it appeared the Universe has followed a natural order.

All can be explained by known forces.

for ten billion years DNA could not have existed,

the first problem was the materials did not exist,

the second problem, no place it could survive,

DNA can not be formed by random means,

It must all exist at once to replicate,

we are all of one DNA,

It is less than five billion years old.

It could not be created by a natural process.

Ten billion years to produce matter where live could survive,

then life created, to grow and fill many places.

The ground was prepared, then seed planted.

Both science and religion want worship without question,

I question the Universe, it tells me as much as I can understand.

It is everything that exists, it created me,

I can observe and enjoy, that is my purpose,

infinate nothing eh. just like there is an infinate amount of dancing raccoons on ur head right now?



How? Why do u think this? Why could there not have been all the mass/energy in the universe, in a dif form?



Why is it a not natural process?? What makes it so not natural?? Maybe its simply physics.



natural order? u mean the laws of nature where applied to every bit of the universe? meaning no miracles and whatnot?



But not all has been explained by known forces. Some physicists say there are more forces when we have measured.



Why not?



u mean the materials DNA is made of, or mass in general? Mass is just another form of potential energy.



No place DNA could survive? DNA does not live eh.



Why not? It could be a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance everything so happened to be in the right place at the right time to make the first DNA.



Or maybe the first, randomly generated DNA, was partly replicated, and then that partly replicated, mutations and whatnot, and then the basic common ground of all dif types of life where created.



U sure about that?



Why? DNA could have existed in previous run of the universe after a previous 'big bang'. assuming the universe collapses on itself, and then another 'big bang' happens.



WHY???? what reason do u have to think this? what number of possibilities do u have to ignore to say this?



u mean to produce planets?? There are a lot of different theories about this.



Many planets, or many places on Earth??



So some1 magically put down soil and planted trees?



No. science says "question everything." religion says "believe me, or u will die a firey death and live(while dead) in eternal suffering"



I agree with that. We can only understand so much. I think it was the Greeks who believed that humans where capible of understanding everything, it was just a matter of figuring it out. The reason i don't believe that is, how could a blind man discover colour? He wouldn't even know to 'look' for it, well unless some1 told him. But there is no1 to tell us.



Like the universe is everything, and u r just 1 of many products of the universe?? I guess that makes sense.



Why do u have to have a purpose? What makes out ability to observe and enjoy important to anything but ourselves?