Dark Energy really is an Energy, not a different behaviour of Gravity
Yousuf Khan
me. I don't see a strong proof against gravity (or rather anti-gravity)
here. But anyways, all sides need to be heard to make a decision.
Yousuf Khan
***
Dark energy is real, new evidence indicates - Technology & science -
Space - Space.com - msnbc.com
" A census of 200,000 galaxies may confirm that the mysterious force of
dark energy is what is pulling the universe apart at ever-increasing
speeds, a new study finds.
The results of the five-year galactic survey offer new support for the
favored theory of how elusive dark energy works — as a constant force,
uniformly affecting the universe and driving its runaway expansion.
The new findings contradict an alternate theory that gravity, and not
dark energy, is the force pushing space apart and causing it to expand.
That alternate theory challenges Albert Einstein's concept of gravity,
because it has gravity acting at great distances as a repulsive force
rather than an attractive one.
The galaxy survey, which looked at galaxies that were up to 7 billion
years old, used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer
(GALEX) and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in
Australia. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43097938/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Eric Gisse
> Well, I'm not sure I believe these findings, it seems rather tenuous to
> me. I don't see a strong proof against gravity (or rather anti-gravity)
> here. But anyways, all sides need to be heard to make a decision.
This reads more like a repetition of a well known result using
something other than Type 1a SN's rather than a radical new
observation.
It'd help if they linked the actual paper or something, so people with
an education in the subject can read it w/o the lens of a broad
audience level writer.
[...]
Marvin the Martian
matter & dark energy hypothesis are not needed.
It would be a better use of the funds to quit looking for invisible stuff
(a hypothesis that cannot be falsified) and to determine which of the
alternative theories is correct.
Androcles
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
news:Ufmdne3C3PWjXkjQ...@giganews.com...
that what you see is what is happening.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
herbert glazier
73 % of the universe is "dark energy" Its the energy that fills a
vacuum.(its the stuff between all stars and galaxies.) It is the
universe's greatest force,as it is pushing galaxies away from each
other at an accelerating rate.(thinning out the universe.) Yes dark
energy is in the space between all particles in the micro realm. Who
knows dark energy might be the ultimate energy used on Earth. Hmmm
I am trying to merge my "convex curve' and dark energy. There seems to
be no theory on "dark energy" Was it born from the big bang? Or did
it create the big bang Hmmm This just jumped in "Can we relate
dark energy with the "cosmological constant?" Can I bring spacetime
into the picture? Now dark matter is filtering into my imagination.
I'll try looking for that next. Should I look into the vacuum of
space? TreBert
Yousuf Khan
> 73 % of the universe is "dark energy" Its the energy that fills a
> vacuum.(its the stuff between all stars and galaxies.) It is the
> universe's greatest force,as it is pushing galaxies away from each
> other at an accelerating rate.(thinning out the universe.) Yes dark
> energy is in the space between all particles in the micro realm. Who
> knows dark energy might be the ultimate energy used on Earth. Hmmm
> I am trying to merge my "convex curve' and dark energy. There seems to
> be no theory on "dark energy" Was it born from the big bang? Or did
> it create the big bang Hmmm This just jumped in "Can we relate
> dark energy with the "cosmological constant?" Can I bring spacetime
> into the picture? Now dark matter is filtering into my imagination.
> I'll try looking for that next. Should I look into the vacuum of
> space? TreBert
There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is. One theory is
that it's Einstein's Cosmological Constant -- well, not really
Einstein's version, because Einstein introduced it as a way to explain a
static unchanging universe (which was the assumption during his early
days), whereas the version we are talking about here is to explain an
expanding accelerating universe: i.e. the Cosmological Constant is used
as a force for change rather than Einstein's force for no change. The
only problem with the Cosmological Constant is that there is no
explanation for where it comes from, plus as its name implies, the force
is constant over time, right from the beginning of time it was there in
some form.
Another theory for Dark Energy is called Quintessence. Quintessence also
involves an energy set in motion within the universe from the early
days. The difference between this and the Cosmological Constant is that
it's not constant throughout the history of the universe. Quintessence
evolves and gets triggered at some point in time. According to the
theorists behind Quintessence, it gets triggered 10 billion years ago,
at a moment in time when matter begins to dominate the universe over
radiation. Because this energy is non-constant, it allows for atoms to
form, and then for stars and galaxies to form without being blown apart
by Dark Energy right away. Still no explanation of what this energy
field is made of.
Then there are theories about what this energy field is made of. The
most popular, and probably the only theory for this right now is that
it's made of the Quantum Mechanical Vacuum Energy. The only problem with
QMVE is that QMVE is 120 orders of magnitude *too* large to explain Dark
Energy. So now the work continues on how to explain why only a miniscule
portion of QMVE is being used to drive the whole universe apart, rather
than all of it. Basically it's a matter of massaging Quantum Theory
through its loopholes.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
<dK2dnZPLir1YGUvQ...@giganews.com>:
>
>There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.
Many years ago, before they even discovered it, I predicted in these groups that he universe would be pushing itself apart ever faster.
It is a direct consequence of a Le Sage type particle causing gravity,
especially when those particles originate within what we call 'the observable universe'.
It is simple.
I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein would have answered :
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again", is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great scientist to brush up the Jewish image
was also a mistake, as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
Q
Androcles
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dK2dnZPLir1YGUvQ...@giganews.com...
| On 20/05/2011 8:15 AM, herbert glazier wrote:
| > 73 % of the universe is "dark energy" Its the energy that fills a
| > vacuum.(its the stuff between all stars and galaxies.) It is the
| > universe's greatest force,as it is pushing galaxies away from each
| > other at an accelerating rate.(thinning out the universe.) Yes dark
| > energy is in the space between all particles in the micro realm. Who
| > knows dark energy might be the ultimate energy used on Earth. Hmmm
| > I am trying to merge my "convex curve' and dark energy. There seems to
| > be no theory on "dark energy" Was it born from the big bang? Or did
| > it create the big bang Hmmm This just jumped in "Can we relate
| > dark energy with the "cosmological constant?" Can I bring spacetime
| > into the picture? Now dark matter is filtering into my imagination.
| > I'll try looking for that next. Should I look into the vacuum of
| > space? TreBert
|
| There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.
There are several theories for what phlogiston really is too.
Eric Gisse
> On a sunny day (Fri, 20 May 2011 11:12:00 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
>
>
>
> >There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.
>
> Many years ago, before they even discovered it, I predicted in these groups that he universe would be pushing itself apart ever faster.
> It is a direct consequence of a Le Sage type particle causing gravity,
> especially when those particles originate within what we call 'the observable universe'.
> It is simple.
Here is the Union 2 SN1a dataset.
http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/SCPUnion2_mu_vs_z.txt
Show us how your theory matches.
>
> I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
> He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
> If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein would have answered :
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
> Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again", is really really bad.
> He had no clue, and died without one.
> That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great scientist to brush up the Jewish image
> was also a mistake, as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
> Q
Imagine that, another anti-Einstein poster that *just happens* to be
an anti-semite.
herbert glazier
Dark Energy and my Convex space curve = space inflating TreBert ????
hanson
9 years in college, <jow...@gmail.com>, wrote:
- Dutch Uni Prof Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-- Yousuf Khan > <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Yossie wrote:
There are several theories for what Dark Energy really is.
>
I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein
would have answered : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again",
is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great
scientist to brush up the Jewish image was also a mistake,
as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science
with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Gisse-the-Jew-page-281>
||EG said|| "I am not Jewish"
||EG said|| "I don't give a shit about Einstein."
||EG said|| "I don't give two shits about Einstein"
||EG said|| "Who cares what Einstein suggested"
||EG said|| "I like the dismissal of Einstein's theories"
Imagine that another anti-Einstein poster, Pante,
that *just happens* to be an anti-semite.
>
hanson wrote:
You appear to be a loaded Erictum again, aren't you.
Erictum, you are so cracked up & disoriented that you
don't know any longer which is what, and worst, you
forgot who you are!
>
What is so Anti-Einstein & Anti-Semitic that Pante said
which you, the Erictum didn't say before Pante said it?
>
What is so Anti-Einstein & Anti-Semitic that Pante said
which Einstein said about himself, long before you silly
Shaggitz got born and your Beytsim fell off?
>
--- Erictum, here is some re-orientation for you:
>
In his own words, ... just a year before he folded
his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the
bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Italian friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >
>
So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy
career-journey which concludes, long last, with what
most enlightened folks have suspected for a long time,
if not outright from the start, that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====
>
Einstein flagellated himself & came clean (1) , unlike
you, after he was used by the Zios for their own, to
them noble political agenda. (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
>
GR/SR is a useless crock o'shit, save it being
"a Base", an "al Qaida", for Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter.. although AE said
not to do that.
So why are you doing it on the one hand but not on
the other one? Looks like you worship your Erictum
best and more, don't you... ahahahaha...
>
That and your habit, obesity and especially your
attitudes, Erictum, will propel you one day into the
noble position of you becoming a bathroom sanitation
engineering apprentice in some small observatory.
I'll be rooting for you. TFTL... ahahaha... ahahahansobn
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
Nobody cares about what you have to say. Piss off.
hanson
"Erictum Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> got pissed off
& said he was a "Nobody" because of this and wrote:
[snip all, unread.]
>
hanson wrote:
Well, you must learn to read, Erictum.
It's your own words. See here again:
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
hason summarized: drivel, blather, anti-semitism, blah, stupidities,
blah, blah, etc...
hanson
in his lair at alt. morons, hoping, yearning & waiting
for my wisdom that he wants to hear over and over
again. Here it is:
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
Whatever you say, fruitloop.
hanson
Anti-Semite "Erictum Gisse" the BSc grad-failure after
9 years in college, <jow...@gmail.com>, sits there
in his lair at alt. morons, hoping, yearning & waiting
hear over and over again. Here they are:
Chris.B
> sob
sob? SOB?
Dugh?
Read all about it! Hanson destroys all previous, cast-iron
predictability with an, end of the world as we know it, "sob" in his
latest copy-and-paste, scientrifficule character assassination!
We know he was only stating the bleedin' obvious but is this a
momentous sign of change? Is Hanson horribly afraid of judgement day?
Has Hanson finally sussed that emptying his potty all over the forums
does not bode well as an automatic pass to the Pearly Gates night
club? We may never know...
Has the only surviving, old fart who actually claims to know what day
it is, used his gawd's great powers to end Hanson's literary career in
mid paste? Or is he merely taking the piss out of the mentally
religious everywhere?
To be continued.... read tomorrow's exciting episode!! ;-)
With free give-away sachet of completely natural, totally organic,
Napoleon hat cleaning suds! Even removes dried potty soiling!
Whatever. :-)
hanson
Yo, Chris Hitler, thanks for the typo-corr-hint.
I am please to see that you follow every single
word of mine. Erictum should learn from you.
I'll be rooting for you. TFTL... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> Professor Pante wrote:
>
> I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
> He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
> If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein
> would have answered : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
> Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again",
> is really really bad.
> He had no clue, and died without one.
> That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great
> scientist to brush up the Jewish image was also a mistake,
> as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science
> with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
Please allow Yours Truly to remind everyone whether if he/she is a
true scholar of physics or another Orwellian-ill-educated Einstein
Dingleberry that fall in the following ridiculous traits:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
Newton discovered the law of gravity in which if the gravitating mass
is positive, gravitational force is attractive. The reverse, although
never been observed, must be true. That is if the gravitating mass is
negative, the gravitational effect must be repulsive or antigravity.
<shrug>
Later on, it was discovered by Poisson that the gradient of the
Newtonian gravitational potential is equivalent to the mass density.
In free space, this mass density is zero. However, it does not take a
genius to figure out if the mass density is negative, gravitational
effect becomes repulsive. Poisson was the very first person to
suggest antigravity but knew better not to. Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was just so fucking ignorant that this
nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar had no hesitation to claim
negative mass density in vacuum in which the giants before this
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew better not to go there.
<shrug>
Now, the self-styled physicists are getting hard-ons whenever Dark
Energy (negative mass density in vacuum) is mentioned. What the fuck
does negative mass mean? The only plausible answer is ignorance.
After all, they are still worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar as a god. Anything this nitwit, the
plagiarist, and this liar uttered just bedazzaled the hell out of
these self-styled physicists. That is called Dingleberry
worshipping. <shrug>
Moving on to GR, the silliness embraced by the self-styled physicists
exponentially amplifies. The Schwarzschild metric was discovered by
Hilbert not Schwarzschild. Both metrics are mathematically legal
solutions to the field equations that are static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild’s original solution
does not allow for the existence of black holes. Let’s look at the
Schwarzschild metric before the integrating constant is identified
through the boundary requirement of satisfying the Newtonian law of
gravity. There are more integration constants, but for the purpose of
this discussion, they are ignored.
** ds^2 = c^2 (1 + K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 + K / r) – r^2 dO^2
Where
** K = One of the many integration constants
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Notice this particular solution predicts just about everything from
gravitation to antigravity. There is no definitive reasoning to pin-
point this particular integration constant as the following besides
through this boundary condition that emphasizes hind sights are always
20/20. <shrug>
** K = - 2 G M / c^2, Newtonian compatibility requirement
This point collaborates with Professor Ponte’s astute observation of
how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar reasoned.
<shrug>
john
lost in mathland
Don Stockbauer
>
> - Show quoted text -
For every pound of nonsense in your brain your soul has to travel an
extra 6.8 light years when you die.
hanson
-- john <ve...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
--- Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
---- Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
----- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
hanson wrote:
Einstein, in his own words, just a year before he
folded his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Italian friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >
>
So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy
career-journey which concludes, long last, with what
most enlightened folks have suspected for a long time,
if not outright from the start, that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====
>
he was used by the Zios for their own, to them then
noble political agenda. (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
>
GR/SR is a useless crock o'shit, save it being
"a Base", an "al Qaida", for Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter.. although AE said
not to do that.
>
I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein
would have answered : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again",
is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great
scientist to brush up the Jewish image was also a mistake,
as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science
with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.
>
Please allow Yours Truly to remind everyone whether if he/she is a
true scholar of physics or another Orwellian-ill-educated Einstein
Dingleberry that fall in the following ridiculous traits:
>
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
>
Newton discovered the law of gravity in which if the gravitating mass
is positive, gravitational force is attractive. The reverse, although
never been observed, must be true. That is if the gravitating mass is
negative, the gravitational effect must be repulsive or antigravity.
<shrug>
>
Later on, it was discovered by Poisson that the gradient of the
Newtonian gravitational potential is equivalent to the mass density.
>
hanson wrote:
Revisiting an earlier discussion:
<http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question>
Newton in his 2 or 3rd Principia edition, 300 years
before Einstein, addresses Gravitation as
G = d2(1/rho)/dt^2.
Einstein was to lazy or stupid to incorporate
G = d2(1/rho)/dt^2 into his GR croc. Or maybe
Albert was still scared from his 1907 confession
and apology for him having stolen E-mc^2.
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein>
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2>
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft>
>
Despite all that, like brainwashed addicted cultists,
current day Dingleberries still worship Einstein's
sphincter, full well knowing that for the last 70 years,
experiments show Newtonian's gravitation also to be:
G = H^2/rho
wherein H is the Hubble constent and rho is the
mas-density (even on cosmic scales), (some
small digits & pi omitted here) all of which can
be concatenated into the skeletal 1234 cosmic
envelope as
c = (GM/R)^1/2 = (GMH)^1/3 = (GM*b_r)^1/4
IOW, none of Einstein's convoluted shit has
any use in the here and real universe that we
live in. .... KW is correct in his assessment
> John is lost in mathland & Hid quoted text then Showed quoted text -
>
Don KalterBauer wrote:
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kalter_Bauer>
For every pound of nonsense in your brain your soul has
to travel an extra 6.8 light years when you die
>
Luckily in your case, Kalter Bauer, you won't have
to travel nor die. You speak nonsense here and now.
What happened to you?
You seemed to be rational in the past when you...
Don Stockbauer wrote:
||| Don said: I actually think that you're discussing an
||| Don said: important topic. We are better than Einstein.
||| Don said: That Einstein. I can't stand the guy, OOOHHHH,
||| Don said: he makes me want to chew the bark off a tree.
||| Don said: I hate him. Einstein has trouble standing up
||| Don said: against the intellect of the current Global Brain.
||| Don said: Einstein is no match for the Global Brain, thus
||| Don said: he is ridiculed today. Einstein should be shot.
>