Dark energy is pseudoscience
- Thread starter kaneda
- Start date
Can you link to a few published papers on the topic and then go through them step by step carefully showing their calculations wrong.
It's just that it's easy to say "You're wrong". I'd like you to show you've examined the evidence and you can demonstrate it's wrong. Otherwise you're just an ignorant whiner.
It's just that it's easy to say "You're wrong". I'd like you to show you've examined the evidence and you can demonstrate it's wrong. Otherwise you're just an ignorant whiner.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=dark+energy&word2=flying+elephants
Check your facts first!
Scientists know that it's not proven, yet it is a compelling theory.
Dark energy could be a clue to a greater universe out there
One way to explain dark energy, the force that drives the expansion of the observable universe and is thought to account for acceleration of the expansion, is that our expanding universe is expanding into a greater universe of lower energy density. I guess any mention of the existence of a greater universe beyond our expanding arena makes this a pseudoscience topic.
That would mean that the observable universe is our arena within a greater universe. Our arena having higher energy density than the surrounding greater universe would experience accelerating expansion for two reasons … an increase in the volume of space occupied would lower the energy density of our arena and the mass ratio to the volume of space occupied would decline as the volume increased and the energy density decreased.
Expansion fueled by energy density equalization between our arena and the greater universe would increase the volume of space that our arena occupies. Separation of the galaxies as our observable universe expands has been resisted by gravity every since matter formed into galactic structure; expansion obviously winning as we note acceleration of the expansion. As the separation of the galaxies increases the inverse square law says that the gravitation force between them will decline and that gravity will be putting up less resistance to the expansion as time goes on.
So our arena experiences an increase in volume of space occupied as the galaxies continue to separate, and with a declining mass ratio to volume of space occupied as energy density declines, the inverse square rule is invoked and the result is accelerating expansion.
Hence my premise is that dark energy is energy density equalization between our arena and the greater universe.
Dark energy could be a clue to a greater universe out there.
One way to explain dark energy, the force that drives the expansion of the observable universe and is thought to account for acceleration of the expansion, is that our expanding universe is expanding into a greater universe of lower energy density. I guess any mention of the existence of a greater universe beyond our expanding arena makes this a pseudoscience topic.
That would mean that the observable universe is our arena within a greater universe. Our arena having higher energy density than the surrounding greater universe would experience accelerating expansion for two reasons … an increase in the volume of space occupied would lower the energy density of our arena and the mass ratio to the volume of space occupied would decline as the volume increased and the energy density decreased.
Expansion fueled by energy density equalization between our arena and the greater universe would increase the volume of space that our arena occupies. Separation of the galaxies as our observable universe expands has been resisted by gravity every since matter formed into galactic structure; expansion obviously winning as we note acceleration of the expansion. As the separation of the galaxies increases the inverse square law says that the gravitation force between them will decline and that gravity will be putting up less resistance to the expansion as time goes on.
So our arena experiences an increase in volume of space occupied as the galaxies continue to separate, and with a declining mass ratio to volume of space occupied as energy density declines, the inverse square rule is invoked and the result is accelerating expansion.
Hence my premise is that dark energy is energy density equalization between our arena and the greater universe.
Meh. This is worthless blather.
You probably know nothing about the theory you're attempting to dismiss.
at least someone is willing to stand up and share that magic does not exist.
and
is just a crack up......
i should have thought of that!
so is dark energy actually stuff coming from a 'black hole'..... not the one that winks, but the one that stinks
ether either can be identified by simple logic; between point a and b, there is no void (vacuum).....
the method to recognize this is that no energy can exchange without 2 points.
i.e..... a photon is not moving through empty space.
almost like playing catch. without 2 folks playing together, it's no fun
photon's are not moving through empty space otherwise the night sky would not be so dark.
that 'phenomenon' causation between bodies in entangled energy between the bodies relevant to the exchange rate (see a little kepler and maxwell; combine the 2 and it is pretty easy to see)
Perhaps you would like me to then provide evidence that fairies, Santa Claus, God, etc are wrong?
Let's see some evidence this nonsense exists. I don't have to disprove what does not exist.
I am not talking about the number of internet sites dedicated by people who should get a life. Otherwise God with 615,000,000 beats it easily.
It is an explanation of an effect. No more.
quantum wave. Why not say that there was a big bang before the current one and that all the material from that is still moving away but at a slower pace with the material from this one gravitationally attracted by it so speeding up as it approaches it?
There are any number of possible explanations, likely and unlikely.
There are any number of possible explanations, likely and unlikely.
I can see blue. It is the sickly colour of your face when asked to produce real world proof of dark energy and you know you cannot.
If you spend the next ten years studying hard, you may be up to the level of dumbass posts.
Strawman. You don't see physicists measuring phenomena which backs up scientifically the existence of any of those, then constructing models which describe such phenomena.
20 seconds on the ArXiv search engine gives things like http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2966 . A discussion on the implications of observations on inflation models.
kaneda;1961664I don't have to disprove what does not exist.[/QUOTE said:You should be able to demonstrate the flaws in evidence though. You keep saying how everything I post is easy to find online so why couldn't you find, yourself, evidence for inflation? You say that a 10 year old with a search engine can find what I post so why do you keep having to ask me to provide such things? What's the matter, can't you do better than a 10 year old? :shrug:
And how many years have you spent studying physics Kaneda? This is another direct question I've asked you before and you're run away from.
How old were you when you stopped studying physics in school? What was the last physics textbook you read?
And notice how JamesR and Ben both agree with me. Just like I said people do. People who've studied physics. Though I imagine you think they've been brain washed.Or maybe are sock puppets of mine.
It is true that there are any number of possibilities. What you describe is eternal inflation with patches that inflate at different rates and can be influenced by other patches that catch up to them or that they catch up with, but always moving toward a de Sitter universe. Eventually all of the patches will approach zero entropy, but just like a Big Rip, they will never completely reach equilibrium.
I don’t say that because IMHO inflation only occurs locally and therefore the energy density of our expanding arena will be equalized with the lower energy density of the greater universe. No universal or eternal inflation is occurring. Our galaxies and energy density will be receding traces of our arena. But those remnant galaxies will still exert gravity as will the remnants of all similar arenas in the non-inflationary environment of the greater universe.
The next round of arenas will be the result of that gravity left over from previous arenas, making the equalized energy density environment of the greater universe the place where new arena formation takes place.
There will always be arenas playing out and all such arenas will go through collapse of remnant galaxies into big crunches, bursts of big crunches due to quantum level physics, the expansion of the energy that emerges from the bursts, the formation of matter from the expanding energy density, the formation of structure in the form of galaxies all moving away from each other, and then the equalization of the energy density of the expanding arenas with the energy density of the non-inflating greater universe leaving the remnant galaxies, etc. to mix and merge into the next round of big crunches.
The greater universe would be infinite and would contain a potentially infinite number of similar arenas at all times but saying that one big bang was preceded by another and another seems of ignore the infinite greater non-inflating universe and continual process of arena formation and disbursal.
the only thing they can show is Virial.
And to lump potential energy as Virial does is why the ignorant cannot simply recognize that the energy assessment is where the error is in todays physics.
as to realize what was just stated then even a numeric kind of guy can easily see for themselves
Easy; Virial is incorrect based on the observance to energy (planck's constant)......
does that help?
don't be mad; remember there are people who seek to continue learning and then there are some who like to believe in magic.
dark energy/matter is for morons too complacent to actually read the data and pursue solutions
ie.... no matter how many patches they create (Gibbs free energy), the bottom line is; it will always be less than good!
WHY? Because energy is defined incorrectly! And to observe the math at the large scale and return to basic interactions at the atomic scale, they can NEVER reconcile; because the environment and properties of energy are not observed.
i.e..... the entangled environment/the mass/the potential increases in time.
Gravity is simply entanglement between 2 bodies; by the energy associated between them. This is why the varied potential by there interactions.
Have you ever read about how they predict the amount of mass is in the universe and actually cannot even see that far?
the whole wheel of observing what is believed and what is true is a joke!
kaneda:
Why should I do your work for you? When you put in some effort, then maybe I will be willing to help you to learn more.
You started this thread with an empty statement, then you complain when I point out the vacuity of your statement? Really, you're a waste of space.
Why should I do your work for you? When you put in some effort, then maybe I will be willing to help you to learn more.
You started this thread with an empty statement, then you complain when I point out the vacuity of your statement? Really, you're a waste of space.