Chandra unlocking mystery of 'dark energy'

[Vampiel]

This is a subject that I have been following for quite some time now. What are your thoughts on this 'dark energy'?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/18/dark.energy/index.html

I remember a post a while back were I mentioned the universe was expanding, and contracting.
According to scientists, these recent discoveries offer further evidence that the universe turned from decelerating expansion to accelerating 6 billion years ago when the mysterious force of dark energy took over and out-powered gravity, the force slowing the universe expansion down.
Or 'decelerating expansion'......

This is very interesting.... this dark matter is very puzzling.
X-ray measurements indicate universe could expand forever

[tantone]

You should check out the CERN particle accelerator. They're looking for two things:
- anti-matter (dark matter)
- the "God" particle (which some scientists believe is the catalyst to turn pure energy into matter)

Basically, the thing can duplicate--obviously on a smaller scale--the big bang. Very cool stuff.

[Johnny Fist]

The universe cannot simply expand forever. Nothing does anything forever.

[tantone]

There were some scientists a while back who said they had found some preliminary evidence that the universe was shaped like a soccer ball and was not infinite after all.

Who knows what's going to happen. I know I won't be here to see it.

[Johnny Fist]

Yeah, I read something about that in a book called Hypserspace before. Sorry, I forget the author at the moment. However, according to this guy, if the big bang is true then the universe would have somewhat of a spherical shape to it as it expands. He compared the expansion to the way a balloon pops. For a split second the air is released from the balloon and rushes outwards but is eventually disipitated by the surrounding atmosphere. In other words, it simply runs out of juice and comes to a grinding halt. According to this guy when that happens there is some sort of "back pressure" that forces the universe back into its original little ball of whatever until the energy is built up again and it explodes starting the whole process over.

He also touched on some interesting topics about the universe being infinte in dimension only, and how each dimension has a limited interaction with other dimensions. The limited interaction could possibly explain things such as dark matter.

[Codex]

So what's outside of the Universe if it's shaped like a football?

[Cyan]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
The universe cannot simply expand forever. Nothing does anything forever.

Is that true? or are you limited by your own logic? Time is a man made invention, the universe moves on without it. if space is contained, what outside the container? Numbers go on forever. Can you imagine what nothing is? really? can you? Can you concieve of something not having a beginning or an end?

So how can you say "nothing does anything forever"?

[Johnny Fist]

How can I say nothing does anything forever? Scroll up a little bit. I sited a book called Hyperspace as my source.

Thats how.

And time is not a man made invention. Without time all events would happen at once. The time is man made arguement is slacker nonsense for people who are late to work all the time.

[Happy Joe]

Geese.. look what hapens when you ignore cosmology for a while... they postulate dark mater and other neat things. I guess I've got some reading to do.

So what's outside of the Universe if it's shaped like a football?
This has more to do with the number of dimensions that you believe may be involved. (I think Einstein postulated 11 or maybe 20 some). Since we are 3 (or maybe 4) dimensional beings, and you can draw an analogy to the surface of a baloon or footbal being the universe (a 2 dimensional model of a 3 dimensional (or more) continuum), we can never see what is outside as that would involve perception of a dimension or dimensions that we are not equipped to percieve. We can only look along the surface of the football/baloon as we are not equipped to percieve the "out" dimension. (translation: no one knows)
You might like "Goemetry, Relativity and the Fouth dimension" by Rucker or Flatland, I think Flatland is downloadable from the Gutenburg project
http://promo.net/pg/
Enjoy!

Edit; I agree with Johnnyfist, time is not an invention, withiout time there could not be anything or if something existed, it could not be percieved since perception (as we know it) would be impossible. Methods of measuring time are manmade or conceved but time is not. Please do not confuse time with a clock.

[Cyan]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
How can I say nothing does anything forever? Scroll up a little bit. I sited a book called Hyperspace as my source.

Thats how.

And time is not a man made invention. Without time all events would happen at once. The time is man made arguement is slacker nonsense for people who are late to work all the time.

How do you know everything doesn't happen all at once? I can write a book and quote myself if that would make you feel better.

[Happy Joe]

How do you know everything doesn't happen all at once?
Because if everything happened at once you would know what my next post was.
Enjoy!

[tantone]

So what's outside of the Universe if it's shaped like a football? Well, that's the billion dollar question, isn't it?

Time is a man made invention, the universe moves on without it. Whoa! Time is NOT a man-made invention. What do you think gravity is? It's a warping of space-time around any given object.

Time is NOT a man-made invention. We developed clocks to help us understand time, but it's not man made.

[Vampiel]

Im glad to see some other people here are interested in this type of science. Time does exist, we can tell that b/c we can see the past from 'old light'. I have a few more things I want to comment on, but dont have 'time' at the moment.:D

[Johnny Fist]

Ok, lets go one step further then. If an object is present in multiple dimensions, it can only interact with other objects if it shares the same dimensions.

For example, if an 8 dimensional object shares the same three physical dimensions as we do but possess an additional five dimensions we do not, we can interact with that object in three dimensions only.

Its the same as a two dimensional stick figure house and a stick figure man drawn on paper. The stick figure man could (in theory) enter the stick figure house. All of us three dimensional people could not enter the two dimensional stick figure house, yet we could see it because we share dimensions with it....the first and the second dimension. However, our existence in one more physical dimension keeps us seperated.

Dark matter could be a physical substance existing in a higher dimension. So could light. The whole concept could keep me running in circles for hours.

[tantone]

And what do you think Einstein's theory of relativity was all about?? You guessed it: TIME!

[herosrest]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
......In other words, it simply runs out of juice and comes to a grinding halt. According to this guy when that happens there is some sort of "back pressure" that forces the universe back into its original little ball of whatever until the energy is built up again and it explodes starting the whole process over.



l believe this phenomenon is referred to as throbbing and promises a painfull experience. :rolleyes:

There is incredible work done in these fields as new tecniques and tools are proven.

l find the great strides in our 'planets' history and cycles of its life
interesting.

[zybch]

I was under the impression that Dark Energy/Matter was made up because scientists couldn't account for a whole heap of matter in the universe and couldn't come up with a model that fit this observation.

So to make their calculations correct, dark matter was invented.
Its now being called 'energy' instead of matter, I wonder if thats because matter is generally regarded as things you can actually see, whereas energy isn't. Calling it energy is just a vain attempt to keep it alive for a little bit longer.

Just because something can be though up inside a scientist's head, doesn't mean it exists. There is no evidence that it exists as the stuff in question cannot be seen or detected in any way.

What is causing the expansion/contraction/whatever of the universe? who knows, we might never know but the scientists don't like that so they make up dark matter because it makes all of their sums add up correctly.
There has not yet been any detection of dark matter, until there is its pure fiction.

This is directly from nasa:
Dark Matter
Name given to the amount of mass whose existence is deduced from the analysis of galaxy rotation curves but which until now, has escaped all detections. There are many theories on what dark matter could be. Not one, at the moment is convincing enough and the question is still a mystery.

[Vampiel]

Heh, zybch you never fail to give me a laugh. Did you even read the article I posted? Basically most of what you said is completely wrong, even the basic's. What happened to your 150+ IQ?
Just because something can be though up inside a scientist's head, doesn't mean it exists
That's my fav., you had me on the ground with that one.

This subject is complicated so please stop confusing people (im sure someone will be confused by your post, not the people who know what this is all about). This is a little complicated and im about to head out, so im going to post my thoughts on it a little later in full and would like educated replies as to what you think.

[zybch]

Whats confusing?

What used to be called dark matter is now called dark energy.
A simple name change has affected how people see dark matter. Matter you can see and touch, energy you can't (thats how most people see it anyway). Thus the sciency people haven't as much of an obligation to bring back a jar of it because it isn't physical stuff any more, at least no more than a radio wave can be picked up and tossed from one hand to the other.

Nobody has been able to observe or detect it.
You surely can't have a problem with this. What has been seen are some unexplained motions of astronomical objects.
It may very well exist, but until this is proven and confirmed by several space/scientific agencies independently, then there is no proof, just something that is unexplained, a bit like god perhaps, lots of people believe but there is not a shred of proof till he shows up at a party and does the water-to-wine trick or something.

It was made up to help out with observations and calculations that were not explainable.
Again, this is not new or confusing. Its happens all the time. The numbers didn't add up, so the guys with the calculators stuck in 'cold dark matter' to account for the missing gravity and to make their sums add up.
Its like saying that 2+2=5 and that the extra bit is the cold dark matter that nobody can see or detect in any way. But that doesn't matter because our models said we should get '5' and we have!

[Vampiel]

Let me clear up a few things. First of all 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are different forms of the same thing. Sort of like matter and energy.

First of all dark energy has been observed. How? It has been observed that the universe is expanding, thats how, so what is pushing it to expand is called dark energy b/c something has be to doing it, something very powerfull to counter the effects of gravity. The problem is, what is this energy?

My theory is that it is actually anti-matter. We have observed anti-matter on a very small scale. We know that when it comes in contact with matter LIKE it that they counter each other out. What I think, is that it also acts as gravity, just the opposite of gravity b/c it has a positive charge instead of a negative, vis/versa. This seems very logical to me, yet of course there is no way for me to observe this theory.

How did I come to this conclusion? Well to answer that, first you have to understand the big bang, tantone pointed to a good web site that explains it in lamens terms.

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel02c.html
Here is the important quote from this link...
We don't yet understand why. Somehow a small surplus of matter appeared: for every billion antimatter particles, there were a billion plus one matter particles.
Could it be possible that the anti-matter/matter on such a large scale, de-tracted from each other, throwing each other to other parts of the universe. This would also explain that there was actually not a surplus of matter, it just de-tracted from each other, like a magnet, but the opposite. This is my theory on 'dark matter' (thats its actually the anti-matter to gravity).

Make's sense? What are your thoughts?

[Johnny Fist]

It makes perfect sense to me. Its like the whole yin and the yang thing. Everything has an equal opposite, so why shouldn't matter, gravity, etc, etc.

However, I like my theory about it being matter existing in higher dimensions that hours. It sounds way more complicated and like something that would have been on Star Trek TNG.

[zybch]

If there was an equal opposite, then we wouldn't be here. The matter and anti-matter would have existed in equal quantities in the first few moments of the big bang and have anihilated each other nice and cleanly.
But something went wrong and this didn't happen.
The mere fact that something wasn't perfect says a lot about the universe in which we live, not to mention the beings we share it with.

The postulate that both positive and anti matter were throw off in different ammounts to differents parts of the universe is nice and would explain a lot of things, however it seems like a desperate person's attempt to make a theory that explains some of the observed facts that are well known, while completely ignoring others that aren't.

What is very interesting is that the more we map the universe, the more it appears that most of the matter in the universe lies on the boundries of massive 'bubbles' of nothing, like the intersecting edges of a soap bubble. This very neatly fit in with certain theories, but can make some of the 'expanding uniformly' theories look a bit silly.

[Vampiel]

It's easy to critizice, especially when you did not point out what the
theory that explains some of the observed facts that are well known, while completely ignoring others that aren't.
are.

I am open to suggestions that explain why it would not be correct, but not critisism w/o any explaination to back it up. Esp. from someone that says dark energy has not been observed.

[Vampiel]

It would also explain why the universe seems to be expanding, and contracting.

[zybch]

Show me a photograph or radio telescope image of dark matter then :)

[zybch]

Astronomer : "OMG, there's some force at work we can't detect! Galaxies are spinning and moving out of control!"

Physicisy : "Good Lord! There must be something we can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch! Let's invent a whole host of particles and anti-particles that we can't detect or even prove are there"

Dark Matter / Energy Theory Prediction : "We won't be able to detect these particles, that's how we'll know they are there."


That really just about sums up dark matter and how it was 'discovered'. Its a way to get the observed actions of galaxies etc to all line up nicely. However, the current composition (by those that espouse the dark matter/dark energy theories) is:
4% Atoms (what we call matter)
23% Cold Dark Matter
73% Dark Energy

So realisticaly, looking for dark matter should be like trying to find miscelaneous lips and backsides in a hot dog, very very very easy, but it hasn't happened yet.

The big problem is that so much effort has been invested in theoretical development and modeling of cold dark matter scenarios, that they have surpassed the actual depth of observational evidence capable of proving or disproving the theory.

[Vampiel]

OK... next,

Does anyone with knowledge have a comment on my theory? (yes I read yours Johnny)

[Vampiel]

Hey zybch show me a picture of gravity.

[zybch]

Running away are we? I could go into baryonic and non-baryonic matter, but this would probably overheat your poor little brain.

[zybch]

I can easily demonstrate gravity by dropping an anvil on your head, you CANNOT demonstrate CDM.

[Vampiel]

Here ill show you a picture of gravity...
http://www.space.com/images/mgs_earthmoon_030522_03.jpg
The moon revolves around the Earth b/c of... what is it? G r a v i t y

Here ill show you a picture of dark energy...
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0104/distantsn_hst.jpg
Explanation: A pinpoint of light from a star that exploded over 10 billion light-years away is centered in the panel at the lower right, a cosmic snapshot of the most distant supernova. The ancient stellar detonation was detected by digitally subtracting before and after images of a faint, yellowish, elliptical galaxy included in the Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image illustrated at the top and left. Remarkable in itself as the farthest known supernova, its measured brightness provides astounding evidence for a strange universe - one which eventually defies gravity and expands at an accelerating rate. The unseen force driving this expansion is attributed to "dark energy" and discovering the fundamental nature of dark energy has been called the challenge of this millennium.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by zybch
Running away are we? I could go into baryonic and non-baryonic matter, but this would probably overheat your poor little brain.
BAHAH running away, no it's called you cannot understand. I dont see any point in trying to explain it to you further.

[zybch]

Funny that your little 'explanation' says 'attributed to dark matter' rather than caused by it.
Even the experts can't prove that it exists beyond doubt, and yet you seem to think you can.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by zybch
Funny that your little 'explanation' says 'attributed to dark matter' rather than caused by it.
Even the experts can't prove that it exists beyond doubt, and yet you seem to think you can.
You obvisouly missed the point of my post. Im not trying to PROVE anything.:rolleyes: But I come up with explanations which you counter by saying, 'no it isnt' and not explaining why.

[Vampiel]

Of course it's easy to say 'dark energy' does not exist b/c it has not been proven (though it is a well accepted theory). Yet you cant explain why the universe in expanding, when gravity contracts.

[zybch]

I have never said that I can explain why the universe is expanding when gravity is supposed to attract.
But it would seem to make perfect sense if there wasn't enough gravity (ie matter, including CDM) to keep everything together.

If CDM was a repulsive force, the rapidly spinning galaxies would have spun themselves apart, but this doesn't happen.

Instead it is claimed that CDM kind of sticks them together, especially if it constitutes more than 90% of universal mass.
If this is the case then the universe shouldn't be expanding but be either static or contracting, or may do so in a future time which is not the current belief of cosmologists.
So, we have a pretty large contradiction about what CDM is actually doing. Some say it is an attractive force and is responsible for the higher than logically/mathematicaly possible spin that many galaxies posess, but they sometimes say in the same breath that its a repulsive force and responsible for the continued expansion of the universe and has overtaken gravity as the predominant force.

The only logical (and I use that guardedly) form of CDM might be brown drawf and cold, dead stars and other normal everyday baryonic matter that we just don't see with our telescopes or perhaps see right through. However, even this is a bit of a stretch if they occur in such numbers as to constiutute 90% of everything, especially when we can look back through time and space billions of years and not get our views blocked :)

[Prushka]

Vampiel...interesting topic

Now I know you are only talking theory, but when theory is treated as fact is when I have problems and so should you. Fortunately, I haven't seen that here

So far I would have to agree with zybch in that matter and anti-matter would cancel each other out due to 'enthropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics' given sufficient time and also the way these theories are presented by the experts.

Motion demands time...no time...no motion

It is not possible for time, mass, space, and energy to expand into non-existence; so it was either pre-existent or it doesn't happen.

Johnny Fist...would there still be the same problem with expansion into non-existence even if additional dimensions were added to the equation

[tantone]

If CDM was a repulsive force, the rapidly spinning galaxies would have spun themselves apart, but this doesn't happen WAY not true.

That's like saying that if gravity really existed, we wouldn't be able to break free of it's forces and venture into outer space.

The theory clamins that dark matter exists and is at hard at work expanding everything at ever-increasing speeds. It never claims that it's a force which doesn't have an equal and nothing excapes its grasp. If, at any given point in space-time, the force of gravity is stronger than the force of dark-matter, then gravity wins. If the force of gravity is weaker than the force of the dark matter, the dark matter wins.

A spinning galaxy, now most of which are theorized to have a black hole at the center (explaining the extreme gravitational pull keeping everything spinning), holds itself together because the gravitational force is stronger than that of the dark-matter. However, as you look at the VAST distances between galaxies, the gravitational force is so minute in comparison that dark-matter is able to overcome it.

[Sun]

interesting thread, although i am not that good in science, the dark matter, when i first came to know abt it, i always thought was some kinda boundary or "The End" kinda stuff, beyond that there is absolutely nothing.

Which makes me think that there could be more than one universe...

Two universe colliding against each other and creating a big bang me thinks thats how universe was made from two parent universes....

whole different topis....

although i feel if there is a black hole that exists, we would be inside one anyday

Some say there is one black hole in our own Milky way...although dormant in behaviour.

The top ten mysteries was quiet a good read.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/topmysteries_2003_021226-1.html

[Vampiel]

This is what I am thinking in summary. Gravity is the result of mass attracting each other. What my theory is... watered down, is that since anti-matter is the opposite of matter, then anti-matter would detract from each other instead of contract toward each other.

However, of course some types of mass (magnets) it is possible that it detracts from each other. (hence some type of anti-matter attracts each other)

To me this makes sense and would explain alot .

First of all, it explains one of the missing parts of the big bang, in-line with pyshics, there actually was the same amount of matter/anti-matter created.

Secondly it explains why there is not anti-matter just floating in our face, since in this theory it would cancel out the other theory in the big bang that 'matter won'.

Thirdly it explains why the universe is expanding so rapidly, yet contracting (b/c of gravity, black holes, etc...) It's gravity/anti-gravity fighting each other.

Also it explains the missing part from when I first posted as to why it seems some of this 'dark matter' is attracted to each other.

This seems so simple, I would really like to see if there are any recources to if anyone did test's on how anti-matter reacts to each other. I noticed that they have not dont any test's that would counter my theory or agree with it here....
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/history/AM-history01-d.html
But does antihydrogen behave exactly like ordinary hydrogen ? To answer this question CERN decided to build a new experimental facility: the Antiproton Decelerator

The anti-hydrogen is the key here b/c hydrogen is what makes up most of matter, hence it makes up alot of gravity. Does anyone know if they have a follow up to this research?
http://info.web.cern.ch/info/Press/PressReleases/Releases2002/PR09.02Eantihydrogen.html
These breakthroughs at CERN are important milestones on the way to trapping, accumulating and cooling antihydrogen. Cold antihydrogen will be a new tool for precision studies in a broad range of science. Most fundamental will be the comparison of the interaction of hydrogen and antihydrogen with electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Any difference between matter and antimatter, however small, would have profound consequences for our fundamental understanding of Nature and the Universe.
This article is 2 years old and I guess they dont have the results yet b/c they would have listed it at there main web site im sure.

[tantone]

Thing is, black holes are very real. Scientists can detect the signs of the existence of black holes.

Something I found interesting about them is that they do eventually die out and disappear. As they suck everything in, they emit a type of energy. Once it gobbles up everything within its gravitational influence, it keeps emitting this energy until, eventually, there's nothing left of the black hole. It's only around as long as there's stuff for it to eat.

[Vampiel]

Also remember before you say "well they would have noticed that" of how much mass it takes before you really notice a gravitational pull, so the same goes with anti-matter. BUT by studying the anti-hydrogen, they may be able to pick it up, well just have to wait and see. Again this is just a theory from my head, but it will be interesting what there findings turn out to be nonetheless.

Ive searched google thouroughly and cant find a conclusion to there research.

It would be a bullet against this theory if they said they act the same, but not cancel it out b/c matter in huge amounts begins to have noticable gravitational pull, and we just dont have these amounts of anti-matter.

[tantone]

Think of gravity like this:

You have a waterbed mattress which represents space-time.

You place a very small object--say, a glass marble--on the mattress and it makes a very small indentation. Anything that comes close enough to be affected by that waping of the mattress surface will be pulled inward.

Now, place a very large object--like a bowling ball--on the mattress and note the VERY large indentation is creates. That warping of the surface extended far beyond that of the marble, so it will have an affect on a much larger area thus probably many more objects.

If objects are all moving outward from a single location, they should remain at a constant speed (Newton's 1st Law) until another force acts on them. Since we know everything is speeding up, some force must be acting on them to cause this. It's not gravity.

[Vampiel]

I didnt say gravity, I said anti-gravity.

[tantone]

I was more replying to:
Gravity is the result of mass attracting each other

[Johnny Fist]

Originally posted by tantone
Thing is, black holes are very real. Scientists can detect the signs of the existence of black holes.

Something I found interesting about them is that they do eventually die out and disappear. As they suck everything in, they emit a type of energy. Once it gobbles up everything within its gravitational influence, it keeps emitting this energy until, eventually, there's nothing left of the black hole. It's only around as long as there's stuff for it to eat.

If thats the case then what happens to all the matter that it absorbs (for lack of a better word)? It cannot simply just disappear into nothing.

[tantone]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
If thats the case then what happens to all the matter that it absorbs (for lack of a better word)? It cannot simply just disappear into nothing. As a matter of fact, that's essentially what happens. Energy is constantly emitted from a black hole (the only thing that actually leaves a black hole) during it's life. As long as there's something for the black hole to eat, it will stay alive. It continues to emit energy even after there's nothing left for it to pull in, and this causes it to lessen in size and intensity until, eventually, it just disappears.

Energy is not "nothing." Think about chemical reactions (yep, all the way back to college, or high school, chemistry). Every equation bust be equal on both sides. Some are endothermic (requires energy for the reaction to take place) and others are exothermic (giving off energy as a byproduct of the reaction--emits the leftovers). Could be heat, could be light, could be radiation; energy takes on many forms.

Turning physical matter into energy is very common principle. You yourself are a prime example. Not every milligram of what you eat and drink is expelled from your body, only the waste products are. You turn that into energy to function. It may visually appear to be nothing, but it's not nothing.

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by tantone
I was more replying to:
OK, wasnt sure. It's clear now.

[Vampiel]

Energy is everything in one form or another.

[zybch]

Originally posted by tantone
WAY not true.

That's like saying that if gravity really existed, we wouldn't be able to break free of it's forces and venture into outer space.

The theory clamins that dark matter exists and is at hard at work expanding everything at ever-increasing speeds. It never claims that it's a force which doesn't have an equal and nothing excapes its grasp. If, at any given point in space-time, the force of gravity is stronger than the force of dark-matter, then gravity wins. If the force of gravity is weaker than the force of the dark matter, the dark matter wins.

A spinning galaxy, now most of which are theorized to have a black hole at the center (explaining the extreme gravitational pull keeping everything spinning), holds itself together because the gravitational force is stronger than that of the dark-matter. However, as you look at the VAST distances between galaxies, the gravitational force is so minute in comparison that dark-matter is able to overcome it.

But even taking into account the black holes believed to be at the centre of most galaxies, there still isn't enough mass to account for the speed at which the majority of galaxies spin. A black hole has a relitativley small (we're talking in galactic terms here) sphere of influence though.
DCM proponents theorise that the missing mass is made up of dark matter, however the other group of CDM fans claim that CDM is causing the universe to expand.

You can't have it both ways.
If CDM is an anti-matter then it will have an anti-attractive magnetic field (as far as normal matter is concerned), it will never attract anything that isn't also an 'anti'. This doesn't fit in with the galactic ideas of CDM holding things together because of its extra mass.

If it has the ability to exert pressure on normal matter and hold galaxies together at their higher than possible rotational speeds, then the universe expanding idea is wrong, the universe, being packed tight with CDM should be collapsing, not expanding.

I simply believe that there are some as yet, undiscovered laws of physics that only operate over massive areas. Either that, or the laws we take as absolute, aren't completely accurate and when refined some more will explain the expansion and spin stuff quite well.

The red-shift 'fact' is beginning to be looked at again as there are several other observed things that would explain why all stars seem red shifted (thought to indicate that they are all moving away).
If the redshift=universal expansion theory is rethought or re-jigged in the future, it will make a massive number of observations made up till now invalid. The universe's age won't be as long and its size will be smaller.

A lot of this research has very little funding because the powers that be (the ones with the research money) don't want to be seen to be upsetting current cosmological theories put forth by Hubble, Hawkings and others of their stature.
Many of Einstein's theories have been disproved or modified, why should anyone believe that the theories of today won't suffer the same fate?

[Vampiel]

Originally posted by zybch
I simply believe that there are some as yet, undiscovered laws of physics that only operate over massive areas. Either that, or the laws we take as absolute, aren't completely accurate and when refined some more will explain the expansion and spin stuff quite well.Many of Einstein's theories have been disproved or modified, why should anyone believe that the theories of today won't suffer the same fate?

Wow did you think that up yourself? Thats an amazing breakthrough. I figure since you have a 150+ IQ you could contribute more than that.

[zybch]

I see we are back to using 1/2 quotes again.
What I believe was quite plainly put in the paragraphs you decided not to quote, simply that CDM, while not actually proven to even exist, is being hailed as the answer to all of cosmology's unanswered questions, and it will clean and disinfect your toilet as well!

UFO? Nah, thats just CDM.
How about the mystery of the pyramids? CDM did it all I'm afraid.
What about electorial vote rigging in Florida, was CDM responsible for that too? Absolutley!

It was conceived simply to make the equations work. Probably like school kids being taught that the structure of an atom is a heap of electrons spinning at various distances around a nucleus made from protons and neutrons.
It makes it easier to understand while being quite inaccurate.

[Vampiel]

Thats a nice explanation, 'no thats not what it is' to bad you dont have a better explanation for what it is. These are theories, not uneducated blabbering.

[tantone]

Many of Einstein's theories have been disproved or modified, why should anyone believe that the theories of today won't suffer the same fate? Are you always full of brown stuff? :rolleyes: Politics, science, ANYTHING! You never fail to amaze me in your ignorance.

Show me where the above quote is true. Einstein's theories have been proven time and time again, but have only recently been called into question on VERY VERY VERY small scales and for VERY VERY VERY small particles (muons for example).

Which is where Hawking comes in. He's looking for a theory of everything, not just in a smaller scope like Einstein.

No wonder you hate Bush so much. It's because you're JUST like John Kerry and never state anything of importance or fact--you spew circumstances and nothingness until people are just confused at what comes out of your mouth, or off your fingertips in the case of this forum.

[tantone]

you spew circumstances and nothingness Hmmmm. Quite like the common misconception of black holes. Of course, that would make you a necessary part of the cosmos--which you are. We all need someone to to make us look smarter. :t

Thanks for filling that void zybch (um, how do you pronounce that? Is it the female dog thing as the last part?)

[Prushka]

zybch...Thought you're 2nd to last statement was well stated...that is if compliments are allowed in this forum!

tantone...the black hole energy emission sounds interesting...is there a means of detecting it and what is used?

vampiel...when you're not being caustic, you have points to ponder :r

[zybch]

Originally posted by tantone
Are you always full of brown stuff? :rolleyes: Politics, science, ANYTHING! You never fail to amaze me in your ignorance.

Show me where the above quote is true. Einstein's theories have been proven time and time again, but have only recently been called into question on VERY VERY VERY small scales and for VERY VERY VERY small particles (muons for example).

Which is where Hawking comes in. He's looking for a theory of everything, not just in a smaller scope like Einstein.

No wonder you hate Bush so much. It's because you're JUST like John Kerry and never state anything of importance or fact--you spew circumstances and nothingness until people are just confused at what comes out of your mouth, or off your fingertips in the case of this forum.

Most of Einstein's theories are still intact, and it is only through much of his work that others have had the 'leg up' they need to further their own studies. However quite a few of his theories are now being questioned and a couple are just flat out wrong.

For instance, the speed of light is universally known to be a constant (around 300,000 Km/s), but recently it seems that this may not be the case, that its actually been slowing down.
Link (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54394,00.html?tw=wn_story_related)
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/)
Now if this is correct, and it seems likely, then the whole theory of relativity which Einstein is best known for, is inaccurate and must be rethought. Einstein was not credited with stating that the speed of light is always the same, but all of his relativity theories are based upon that premise.

The famous E=MC2 was published in a 3 page paper titled "Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend On It's Energy Content?". This paper had no footnotes or a single reference to support it.
Einstein just assumed (something no scientist should do) that C (speed of light) was constant. Talk about bad science!
Any scientist today would be crucified for releasing a paper like Einstein did.

Einstein is also quoted as saying that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Do a search on 'Quantum Entanglement.
You can take 2 entangled particles away from each other, lets make it 600,000kms apart, then look at (change) one of the pair. The other will react instantly, not in 2 seconds which is how fast it would take light to move between the pair.
Link (http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/teleportation.htm)
So much for einstein's 'nothing can travel faster than the speed of light".

If light speed were to be slowing down, it would perhaps go a long way to answering universe expansion and other problems without relying on mystical CDM.
But so long as stupid people keep einstein up on his golden throne and not even entertain the posibility that he may have made mistakes or incorrect assumptions, then stupidity rules.

Not sure how this relates to GW Bush though. As far as confusing things, you have basically just said that Einstein wasn't completely correct. Why would Hawking be working on a unified theory if what Einstein came up with was correct?

Lastly, I have to say that quoting yourself is pretty pathetic, especially when you don't attribute it to anyone :)
I can't think of anyone so insecure and desperate to make a point that they would quote themselves, LOL, you crack me up :)

[tantone]

stupid people keep einstein up on his golden throne Last I looked, there were no theories attributed to zybch.

I quoted myself because I wanted to elaborate on a specific thing that I didn't want to edit back into the post. I'm glad I make you laugh. It's rewarding knowing that I can make the tards of world giggle.

Einstein's theory was more specific to celestial bodies. Where people note that Einstein's theories fail are when they apply those theories to other objects--atomic particle for example. Enter Hawking. He believes that there is a more broad, general theory behind everything.

[zybch]

True, but his theories are now incorrect and becomming moreso as VSL theories are more fully understood. It doesn't matter that its now becomming more accepted that light speed is slower than it once was, he based his relativity theories on eroneous assumptions without checking them to the best of his ability first.
Even so, you'll not ever hear me saying that he didn't do a fine job, just that if he was alive today we'd be getting different answers closer to the definitive truth.

Einstein gave science 2 main theories, the Theory of Relativity for big things and the Thoery of Special Relativity for small things, because he wasn't able to find out how to combine them both.

Hawkings is attempting to reconcile them both into a single theory, lets hope he does before his Motor Neurone disease kills him.

[Vampiel]

Watch out, tantone might call you an idiot for not spell checking every word in your post on sysopt.com. Even worse, he might call you a liberal with no discipline.

[tantone]

You Liberal with no discipline! :t

[Prushka]

zybch...You can take 2 entangled particles away from each other, lets make it 600,000kms apart, then look at (change) one of the pair. The other will react instantly, not in 2 seconds which is how fast it would take light to move between the pair.

These anomalies are fascinating...you peeked my interest in quantum mechanics once again...now if I can only borrow your memory for detail

[tantone]

Ya mean piqued?

You know, in the end, there may not really be one theory that explains the rules for all things.

[zybch]

But it would be really nice if there was.

I'm not sure that science will ever get there though.
Theres a big difference between a couple of atoms and a quasar spinning around every couple of seconds.

[mireland]

but I'd still like to know what was there BEFORE the universe???? Answer THAT wise acres! :D

[porsch1909]

This is when intelligent discussion went on in OT :rolleyes:

[Baddog]

This is when intelligent discussion went on in OT :rolleyes:
http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/haha.gif
That was before Mireland And JM crawled in.

[mireland]

http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/haha.gif
That was before Mireland And JM crawled in.


cann it doggy breath... :r

[mobo57]

http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/haha.gif
That was before Mireland And JM crawled in.
Bad news, they been around longer than that...

[mireland]

Bad news, they been around longer than that...


you shut up too... :D

[werz]

I once had an epiphany, where I understood how everything was connected to everything else on every size and scale.
I still remember the flash of brilliance, and I said out loud, thats it!
Then I immediately forgot what had been revealed to me.

[mobo57]

I hope you washed your hands afterwards...