Dark Energy

[CoG]

All quotes by hecd2

And you don’t seem to get the point that the global curvature of space, as represented by the FRLW solutions to the Einstein field equations and as measured by COBE and WMAP is too small,…….

I do not seem to have the ability to convey to you the concept or you do not have the ability or desire to understand. I thought the concept was simple. The natural limitation of all things to move at less than the speed of light required all objects in the universe to be equal distance from the Big Bang. This is true no matter how you think the transition from the Big Bang to the current condition takes place. No object or wave function can move beyond that limitation. This requires that all objects or radiation move on a curve with the Big Bang as the center.

This does not require a curve of space itself. This effect gives the result of the observation of Dark Matter to mass objects and of lensing to radiation.

Are we supposed to give credence to someone who can’t tell the difference between astronomy and astrology?

The definition of astrological observation in scientific terms is “observation of the stars”. Try looking it up.

Astrology is the application of the observation of the stars and using the knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

I only made the correction because I realized the limited range of you understanding of terms and did not desire to make this a subject of debate. You seem to be totally lacking of manners over perceived errors.

Recession due to the expansion of space can occur at greater than the speed of light. This is well known at quite an elementary level by anyone who knows what they are talking about.

Recession is not spatial motion and space is not expanding. All objects in the universe are moving outward from the Big Bang in a dimension that is perpendicular to all the spatial directions.

Spatial motion, velocity, is a vector. Redshift accounts for all spatial vectors. What is the vector of the expansion separation? You will note that it is perpendicular to all spatial vectors. Is this not then a dimension and is it not also a dimension that we have no ability to move in. Are you able to move in a direction that makes all objects redshifted?

“this suggests that space itself is expanding”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

You will note that they are smart enough to realize that the expansion of space is just suggested.

The view that space itself is expanding came about as most of the errors in science today from lack of a better understanding of nature. if space is expanding and then the speed of light must keep increasing to cover the changing distance but at the same time the distance between closed systems such as the solar system does not change and light still covers the same distance in the same amount of time.

On the other hand if the universe is moving outward in a fourth dimension all observations would be as we see them and there is no problem with a constant speed of light.

There are many more examples of why space itself is not expanding.

You people that claim to be professional have a bad habit of all jumping on the same bandwagon. You run to the complicated details that have very little to do with the problems. It is too bad that critical thinking is not a required course of study.

 

[CoG]

All quotes by hecd2

Really? How about rho, theta, phi? Ever heard of polar co-ordinates laddie? Or r, theta, h - how about cylindrical co-ordinates? It’s astonishing how the ignorant, who have never done a co-ordinate transformation and don’t even know what one is, can pretend that they are knowledgeable.

Changing the mathematical point of view does not change the relationships of reality. I am starting to doubt that you have any ability in physics.

What, t, u, v? This is pathetic. What utter garbage. Tee hee. Now that’s funny! Wrong

I guess those statements show that all the ideas are wrong. How can anyone argue with those facts.

Aha! the limp and totally discredited hypothesis of tired light. Have you actually got ANY evidence for your fantasies?

This is not tired light. There is no loss of absolute energy as a wave changes length. There is only a change of energy over time. A single cycle of any frequency has the same energy. The only difference is that you have more cycles per second.

You don’t even know what the words “wave function” mean. What you are trying, in your terribly naive way to say, is that wavelength increases because space has expanded since the Big Bang, which, at last is a correct observation, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a wave function which is a quantum mechanical construct to define the behavior of a quantum particle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave

You are stuck with such a narrow understanding of functions and are unable to see the connections to the general.

Your observations disagree with known physics.

I have indicated no disagreement with observations only interpretations of the observations. God did not make an irrational universe and any interpretation that is not rational is wrong.

You have not shown anywhere that my view is irrational. In fact, you have not shown that my view does not match all observation. I am sorry that you do not like the simple understanding of nature.

So how about explaining the power spectrum of the anisotropy in the CMB or the late Sachs-Wolfe effect or the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect or Luminet’s paper on a compact topology, Luminet et al, Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background, Nature 425, 593 - 595. No?
You are really making a bit of a fool of yourself. I suggest you are best to go and do a foundational course on physics and leave discussions on physics to those who have bothered to learn the subject professionally.

It would be better to take the current concepts that you have refuse to discuss, one at a time, and contract the discussion not expand into more areas. All you have done is make sweeping statements of pronouncement as scientific proof or make reference to papers that have very little or nothing to do with the topics.

Just like all men I make a fool of myself everyday and I do it better then most. I guess the only difference I seem to have is that I have asked for wisdom and have been given the wisdom to know that I am a fool.

I do not mean to be rude, but what is your level of science education?

Of course you are rude and have been so in this total discussion and my level of science education has not yet reached the level of being rude. I am open to any rational ideas but science by authority is not science. I have presented ideas supported by observation and logic and all you do in return is cite other ideas as proof. Differing ideas are not proof. Get down to the basics such as. What changed from the early Big Bang to what we see as the universe today? Change requires movement. Movement requires vectors, direction. What is that movement and in what direction? What is time?

 

[hecd2]

hecd2: It’s worth remembering that most of the guys who were right at the time were actually wrong over the long run.

This is the myth that science progresses by revolutions that sweep away previous knowledge entirely and relace it with something entirely different. But it is a myth. Most well established theories, such as Galilean relativity or Newtonian Mechanics are incorporated into the broader theories that replace them.

Only a small minority ever turns out to be right. Think about it: every radical advance was first suggested by (usually) one person, who was ridiculed by the scientists of the time.

This is also a myth. Almost all advances take place within the context of the existing science and are based on work by scientists who are both well educated in science and well established in their fields. The idea of science being progressed by lone mavericks is a myth and untrue. Furthermore, radical advances are rapidly accepted, certainly within twenty years. The most egregious examples of hypotheses that were ridiculed and later accepted that I can think of are plate tectonics (Wegener) and the cause of peptic ulcers being bacterial infection by Helicobacter pylori (Warren and Marshall). Other than that, the idea of lone mavericks is myth.

OK - so some of their stuff is suspicious. Some of it is wrong. Being wrong part of the time doesn’t make it all wrong, or all that you believe to be right is also wrong (because I think that even you admit that you don’t know everything).

Almost all their stuff, apart from what they take directly from Alfven is just pure wrong. Those who are as wrong as that have no credibility. I might as well ask my pizza delivery boy for his views on cosmology - at least, he would probably have the decency to admit his ignorance.

Lighten up. Your arrogance is bad for science. Physicists tend to be this way, I know (my daughter is one and I chide her about it too.)

No. What is bad for science is the sort of drivel promoted by these guys.

Please - look at their evidence for electric discharge from planets. If you really have an open mind (which I really really really doubt), then you’ll see that meteoric impacts just don’t explain a lot of things. It’s on their site. It is good science.

So, just what things with regard to craters on bodies that have low vulcanism and no atmosphere do meteoric impacts not explain? I am sorry, but you will excuse me if I utterly reject a fantastical idea that purports to revolutionise planetary physics in 173 words here:
holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7

And yes, as you say, some of the craters on the moon were actual impact craters. But look at recent evidence from the flybys of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The data is still coming in. ITS NOT ALL IMPACT CRATERS!!! PLEASE!!!

So what is it? And even if it isn’t all impact craters, just what relevance has that to the conclsion that dark matter exists, which is, after all, the topic of this thrread and the claim that you began with.

BTW your statement that planetary nebulae formation is from magnetic, not electrostatic effects — really, I can’t believe a physicist said that. DUH when charged particles move, they create magnetic fields. What happens next is the field of plasma dynamics. Which these guys DO know about.

These guys and you know about as much about plasma dynamics as my cat.When did you, or they, take even an undergraduate course on plasma physics? It is beyond belief how those with an open contempt for and utter incompetence in maths can claim any expertise whatsoever in any plasma phenomenon. Plasmas are highly conducting and quasineutral. Structures in planetary nebulae are explained primarily by the excitation of the disc wind plasma by UV radiation from the AGB star combined with thermal and kinetic gas expansion and only secondarily by magnetic fields. Because of the highly conducting nature of plasmas, electrostaics is much,much less important. Everyone knows, however, that magnetohydrodynamics is important: See for example:

Blackman et al, *Magnetohydrodynamic Stellar and Disk Winds: Application to Planetary Nebulae, *ApJ 546, Issue 1, 288-298.

Have a nice day. Look, I’m in the middle of installing a garage door opener

I hope that went well.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I do not seem to have the ability to convey to you the concept

Thank you for your answers. Since you speak a different scientific, logical and grammatical language from trained scientists like me, I fear that our dialogue is doomed to mutual incomprehension. We are wasting our time trying to connect… You think that you have much more insight into physics than I do, to the extent that you despair of teaching me fundamental principles of physics as you understand them, which I am, as you think, too dumb to absorb, so I wish you every success in getting your fantastical hypotheses absorbed into the mainstream of physics. We should urgently cancel every research program in every prestigious research institution, because my PhD has, as you think, done me no good. You think I understand nothing, not even college freshman physics, at least as understood by you. Can I suggest that you submit papers to Nature, or Science, or Phys Rev Lett, or App Phys Lett, or J App Phys, or Phys Rev D or Phys Rev E, or some other prestigious physics journal in support of your wonderful incoherent hypothesis. I am sure they would love to hear from you.

Oh - and thank you for confirming that you have no qualifications in science whatsoever. But we all knew that anyway.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[bobzills]

The natural limitation of all things to move at less than the speed of light required all objects in the universe to be equal distance from the Big Bang. This is true no matter how you think the transition from the Big Bang to the current condition takes place. No object or wave function can move beyond that limitation.

A recent experiment has shown that the group velocity of laser beams can travel much faster than the peed of light. And it has also been shown that the phase velocity of evanescent waves can exceed the speed of light.

 

[CoG]

bobzills

A recent experiment has shown that the group velocity of laser beams can travel much faster than the peed of light. And it has also been shown that the phase velocity of evanescent waves can exceed the speed of light.

Information can be transmitted faster than light by a process called tunneling.

The limitation of the speed of light seems to apply to any function that is above the Planck limits. This may be stated as; Any object can move faster then the speed of light over a distance less then the Planck length or any objects less then Planck size can move faster then the speed of light over any distance.

All things in the universe that we deal with do not have the ability to move faster then the speed of light of they would not be limited by the rate of transition outward from the Big Bang. The rate of expansion as measured by red shift of distant objects, places the outward transition from the Big Bang on the order of the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a natural limit, it seems safe to assume that the rate of transition outward from the Big Bang is equal to the speed of light.

The math indicates that objects and functions in the universe may be stated in terms of x, y, z, and t and that relationship requires that time be stated as ct. The reason for ct is that the position of any object is in constant motion at a rate in the time dimension equal to c. At the same time the use of c puts t into the same units as spatial dimensions, distance. This also tells us that the only difference between any dimension and the time dimension is that we are moving in the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light.

Every thing may be considered from the viewpoint of fixed dimensions with all actions within this fixed framework. All functions in the universe have as an absolute reference of the Big Bang. The position of any object may be stated in terms of x, y, z spatial dimensions and time distance from the Big Bang. We are also able to state the radial angle any object is in reference to our outward line of transition from the Big Bang. This may be calculated based on the distance other objects are from us.

 

[CoG]

hecd2

Thank you for your answers. Since you speak a different scientific, logical and grammatical language from trained scientists like me, I fear that our dialogue is doomed to mutual incomprehension. We are wasting our time trying to connect… You think that you have much more insight into physics than I do, to the extent that you despair of teaching me fundamental principles of physics as you understand them, which I am, as you think, too dumb to absorb, so I wish you every success in getting your fantastical hypotheses absorbed into the mainstream of physics. We should urgently cancel every research program in every prestigious research institution, because my PhD has, as you think, done me no good. You think I understand nothing, not even college freshman physics, at least as understood by you. Can I suggest that you submit papers to Nature, or Science, or Phys Rev Lett, or App Phys Lett, or J App Phys, or Phys Rev D or Phys Rev E, or some other prestigious physics journal in support of your wonderful incoherent hypothesis. I am sure they would love to hear from you.

Oh - and thank you for confirming that you have no qualifications in science whatsoever. But we all knew that anyway.

I have had very little problem communicating with most PhD’s. Most of the problem in communications is with the newer graduates. I have had no problem understanding everything you have stated. I have tried to point out where I feel that your concepts are incorrect and all I have gotten in return is denial, with out any comment of support for that denial or you answer with insults. You try to flood the discussion with reference, most to your own papers that have nothing to do with the subject under consideration.

I do not despair of learning or teaching. It is not a question of insight but of incorrect insight of the basics. You are not too dumb you are to full of pride. I have no interest of approval of mainstream physics. I love physics because it is one way to know of God and all I do is state what I have been allowed to see. I pass that along to anyone interested. If you had taken any time to try to understand my post, you would see that these views are supported. Your dismissals have been out of hand with the only apparent basis, that if they were correct you would know them.

As I see it, your education has been of great harm to your spiritual life. Not having been exposed to any education except that provided in an educational system that today denies absolutes, the value of logic and reason and the existence of God you can not be open to any other view point. You have come from a system that teaching authority is infallible and you now think that your education makes you also infallible. Life experience should correct that.
Why do you feel driven to insult people? In most cases, this is sign of low self-esteem.

 

[bobzills]

This also tells us that the only difference between any dimension and the time dimension is that we are moving in the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light.

My understanding is that when we move in the time dimension, we move in seconds, minutes, hours, days or years. When something moves at the speed of light, it moves in meters per second. So the units are not the same.

 

[Nepenthe]

CoG:

As I see it, your education has been of great harm to your spiritual life. Not having been exposed to any education except that provided in an educational system that today denies absolutes, the value of logic and reason and the existence of God you can not be open to any other view point. You have come from a system that teaching authority is infallible and you now think that your education makes you also infallible. Life experience should correct that.
Why do you feel driven to insult people? In most cases, this is sign of low self-esteem.

Oh for the love of little apples…

hecd2, hang in there. Your patience and intellect are heroic. I would have snapped long ago, if I tried to do the things you try to do, (even in a small, less-qualified way) on this forum! Illegitimi non carborundum and all that.

 

[hecd2]

A recent experiment has shown that the group velocity of laser beams can travel much faster than the speed of light. And it has also been shown that the phase velocity of evanescent waves can exceed the speed of light.

Thank you so much for the sanity that you inject into a thread where I sometimes feel beleaguered by fantastical ideas and personal myth. Most people reading this will not know the difference between pearls and dross, and what does it matter anyway? Some people post things that, in the words of the great quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli, “aren’t even wrong”. What he meant was ideas that are so wrong that they are undebatable because they are based on such fundamental misconceptions of basic physics or mathematics that dialogue is quite impossible. And why on earth should anyone spend time on that sort of sterile communication when he or she could be talking to people who are grounded in the basics and who can therefore exchange views that are, at least, meaningful? I wish I could answer that question on my own behalf

Anyway, to be fair to CoG, I assume the faster than light (or superluminal) group velocity experiment you are referring to is the Wang, Kuzmich and Dogariu paper “*Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation” *published in Nature 406, pp277 - 279. In that case the superluminal velocity was achieved by the propagation of a polychromatic pulse in a medium of anomalous dispersion; it’s a fantastically clever and complex experiment that I can describe in more detail if anyone is interested. Suffice to say, that although the group velocity was greater than the speed of light (and could be negative), the phase velocity in the medium was the speed of light (and thus the propagation of energy was not faster than the speed of light) and subsequent work showed that information also did not propagate faster than the speed of light either: Stenner, Gauthier and Nelfeld, *The speed of information on a ‘fast-light’ optical medium, *Nature 425, 695 - 698; Wynne, *Causality and the nature of information, *Opt Commun 209, 85 - 100; Kuzmich et al, *Signal velocity, causality and quantum noise in superluminal light pulse propagation, *Phys Rev Lett 86, 3925 - 3929.

All of this however fails to validate CoG’s bizarre ideas about a universal constant “distance” from the Big Bang.

Can you give me a reference to the superluminal phase velocity evanescent wave as I have missed that and it looks very interesting.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Oh for the love of little apples…

hecd2, hang in there. Your patience and intellect are heroic. I would have snapped long ago, if I tried to do the things you try to do, (even in a small, less-qualified way) on this forum! Illegitimi non carborundum and all that.

And thank you for this. It is a cool draught in a sometimes seeming intellectual desert. And as, you can see, I am lucky to be hard enough not to be ground down easily. Nevertheless your appreciation is hugely welcome.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

bobzills
Information can be transmitted faster than light by a process called tunneling.

No, it can’t. Tunneling, in physics, is a quantum process whereby a particle can penetrate an energy barrier that it cannot under any circumstances in classical mechanics. It has nothing to do with information being transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Oh, why do I bother?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

Oh, why do I bother?

Pride, Pride, and Pride?

And did I say, Pride?

 

[rpp]

There appears to be something that many of the non science oriented people here seem to miss.

When scientists try to understand something, they work it out. In the process of working it out, they sometimes get it wrong and sometimes get it right. They know it is wrong when they make more observations that contradict their earlier explanation.

They can presume they are correct, when more observations confirm the theory. Then they take this confirmed theory and begin to apply it other things.

They know that gravity keeps the Moon orbiting the Earth and causes a rock to fall. They also know that if you move fast enough, you can break free of the Earth’s gravity.

So they apply this knowledge of gravity, as well as many other well understood confirmed concepts, and lo and behold, things are not working out properly.

What can they do? Well, gravity is so well understood and has been so well confirmed that the explanation must lie elsewhere. Thus the Dark Energy and Dark Matter hypotheses.

Having these hypotheses gives scientists of various disciplines and specialties something to look for an test. Without these hypotheses, what would they do? These may turn out to be incorrect, but something must explain the observations.

Personally, and I say this tongue-in-cheek, I think it is God punishing physicists and cosmologists for arrogance after many began predicting in the 1980s that science would come to an end because we will have understood everything.

A doctor who has graduated from medical school, passed the boards and is an actual physician is someone I would want to make a diagnosis. I would not trust some pseudo-scientific person who claims some wacky drink will cure all that ails me. In the same way, when it comes to physics, I would trust the one with the PhD, not someone who just read a few books.

 

[ricmat]

There appears to be something that many of the non science oriented people here seem to miss.

When scientists try to understand something, they work it out. In the process of working it out, they sometimes get it wrong and sometimes get it right. They know it is wrong when they make more observations that contradict their earlier explanation.

They can presume they are correct, when more observations confirm the theory. Then they take this confirmed theory and begin to apply it other things.

They know that gravity keeps the Moon orbiting the Earth and causes a rock to fall. They also know that if you move fast enough, you can break free of the Earth’s gravity.

So they apply this knowledge of gravity, as well as many other well understood confirmed concepts, and lo and behold, things are not working out properly.

What can they do? Well, gravity is so well understood and has been so well confirmed that the explanation must lie elsewhere. Thus the Dark Energy and Dark Matter hypotheses.

Having these hypotheses gives scientists of various disciplines and specialties something to look for an test. Without these hypotheses, what would they do? These may turn out to be incorrect, but something must explain the observations.

Right. Well, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics. (Note: Pure physicists may now go into “sneer mode”…OK, time’s up. Exit sneer mode.)

And it appears that some people who post here find it hard to believe that the hypothesis that they have their time and pride invested in (dark matter) might not actually be proven correct in the long run.

Time will tell. I’m open to it being the answer. I’m also open to it not being the answer.

It won’t be settled until someone goes to the intergalactic expanses and fetches some of the stuff - if it’s there.

 

[rpp]

Time will tell. I’m open to it being the answer. I’m also open to it not being the answer.

That is the essence of the scientific approach.

I take no sides because I am neither educated enough to be properly informed. I do have an interest in this as I used to be an amateur astronomer.

 

[bobzills]

Personally, and I say this tongue-in-cheek, I think it is God punishing physicists and cosmologists for arrogance after many began predicting in the 1980s that science would come to an end because we will have understood everything.

Was it a reputable scientist you were talking about here or was it a crackpot?

 

[JFonseka]

There are a lot of ignorant people here, just because dark matter is only theory right now doesn’t mean physicists are stupid for predicting things that don’t exist, a lot of things before being put into practice have to be worked out theoretically, dark matter isn’t a wild guess, it’s a good hypothesis based on other observed matter or lack thereof.

The presence of dark matter doesn’t disprove God or anything else like that, infact all these wonderful stuff adds to his glory.

 

[bobzills]

Can you give me a reference to the superluminal phase velocity…

There was a paper by Setn and Hujanen which claims that the phase velocity near sinusoidally oscillating point dipoles exceeds the speed of light.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67–80, 2006
ASPECTS ON THE PHASE DELAY AND PHASE
VELOCITY IN THE ELECTROMAGNETIC
NEAR-FIELD
J. C.-E. Sten and A. Hujanen
ceta.mit.edu/PIER/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
Also, according to the Encyclopedia of laser physics and technology: “The phase velocity of light can be higher than c, e.g. for X-rays or near optical resonances of atoms. Even a simple mechanical model (e.g. a sequence of coupled pendulums) can exhibit a phase velocity above c. However, it is not possible to attach a real signal to such a phase front; signal transmission requires some kind of modulation.”
Several references are given there:
rp-photonics.com/superluminal_transmission.html

 

[wildleafblower]

And thank you for this. It is a cool draught in a sometimes seeming intellectual desert. And as, you can see, I am lucky to be hard enough not to be ground down easily. Nevertheless your appreciation is hugely welcome.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I am in the process of completing a piece of conceptual art for a dear friend. I plan on adding to that artwork fragments of my **wisdom tooth **that will be extracted today. My DNA will live on within that artwork. It reminds me of the costellation Ophiuchus, a planet-forming disk (IRS 46) that contained proteins and organic molecules found in DNA and the Double Helix Nebula that appeared in the shape of DNA. It’s a grand universe we live in when you think about it. A tad strange at times but filled with genuine moments of awe.