Dark Energy

[hecd2]

Yeah, It sounds familiar. Let’s see… Isn’t the universe too flat for the Big Bang? Comsology is a religion.

Science doesn’t wish to know the hoax it is pulling over everyone’s head. Dark energy and Dark matter are Bunk. Untestible means unscientific. I thought they knew this when they fought with religion on evolution.

And you are qualified to make these judgements exactly how? You can’t even be bothered to read previous posts on the thread:

Evidence for dark matter:

1. The flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies determined by Vera Rubin et al can only be explained by mass density in spiral galaxies at least ten times higher than the mass we can see
   Rubin et al, Astrophys J Lett 225, L107 (1978)
   Rubin et al, Rotation Velocities of 16 Sa Galaxies and a Comparison of Sa, Sb, and Sc Rotation Properties, Astrophys J 289, 81, (1980)
   Rubin et al, Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc), Astrophys. J. 238: 471 (1980)
2. the dispersion of the peculiar velocities of galaxies in clusters, observed as long ago as 1937, demands the presence of dark matter
   F Zwicky, Astrophys J 86, 217 (1937)
   Cen, Bahcall and Gramann, *Velocity Correlations of Galaxy Clusters, *Astrophys J Lett in pressavailable on line here: arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9409/9409042.pdf
   The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS):
   
   The IRAS point source catalogue:
   lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/iras/point_s_catalog.cfm
3. distant galaxies affected by gravitational lensing confirms its existence
   Wittman et al, *Detection of weak gravitational lensing distortions of distant galaxies by cosmic dark matter at large scales, *Nature 405, 143 - 148 (2001) Gray et al, Probing the distribution of dark matter in the Abell 901/902 supercluster with weak lensing, Astropys J 568, 141 (2002)
   R Irion, *The Warped Side of Dark Matter, *Science 300, 1894 - 1896 (2003)
4. So does very hot X-ray emitting gas bound in galaxies and clusters
   Borgani and Guzzo, *X-ray Clusters of Galaxies as Tracers of Structure in the Universe, *Nature 409, 39 - 45 (2001)

Evidence for the existence of something like dark energy is the accelerating expansion of the universe:
Perlmutter et al, *Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-redshift Supernovae, *Astrophys J 517, 565 - 586 (1999),
Bahcall et al, *The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe, *Science 284, 1481 - 1488 (1999)
Riess et al, Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant, Astron J 116, 1009 (1998)

and the fact that the universe is flat or close to flat:
Spergel et al, *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology, *draft available on-line here: lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/…_3yr_param.pdf

Once you’ve come to grips with these, we can have a rational discussion. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[jpusateri]

And you are qualified to make these judgements exactly how?

I find this intellectual bigotry amusing. Please stop sneering at the inadequacy of our qualifications and listen.

What is being said is that there is an ironic similarity between the adherents of science and those of religion.

Both require a belief (faith, if you will) that the answers are there. Religionists (so-called) believe strongly that we have an accurate understanding of the universe and its workings. If we don’t know something, it’s not a big deal, but we KNOW that the answers are out there. And it doesn’t break our model !

Tell us how science is different… We’re listening.

Thank you.

 

[steveandersen]

I was watching this documentary regarding Dark Energy. Apparently Astronomy has dubbed this term to the amount of “missing energy” that is supposed to account for up to 65% of all the energy in the universe. Of course… there is “dark matter” that makes up to 12% of the missing mass of the universe… Apparently without all these amounts of mass/energy, the Physic calculations regarding gravity do not work out.

They call it “Dark” since no-one has been able to detect or measure any of it…but i ask whether this a manifestation of a higher being or something related to it?

I know what you are trying to say BUT the notion that God can somehow be measured in cosmological observations and/or used in equations is quite disturbing to me.

God can’t be put on a petri dish.

If you base your faith on something that currently can’t be observed what are you going to do when some fool in a lab coat figures out how to observe it?
(no offence Alec)

I was raised catholic, but I steered away from religion for the past 10 years… I know there is a higher power out there… but i just dont believe on having to follow all the tribulations that the church (any church) makes you go though to be considered part of them.

I’m not sure what to say to that
Are you saying that an organization can’t decide what it (and by extension its members) should stand for or what its rules are?

If you don’t want to be a part fine.
But saying that a church can’t set rules is kinda silly. What is it there for if it is not a community with a common belief system?

Even a bowling league has membership rules.

Any comments are appreciated.

I think I’ve said too much already

But I like to think that our faith is based on what has been revealed rather than by what is hidden.

 

[CoG]

hecd2 I have not challenged the observations that have lead to the conclusion that Dark Matter must exist. I agree with all of your citations of the observations. The problem is in the conclusions that have been reached. You have not shown that my observations are in error.

Do you disagree with the fact of the Big Bang or that all objects in the universe have and are moving outward from the Big Bang? Do you disagree that all objects are at an equal time distance from the Big Bang and that they lie in a three-dimensional hypersphere? Do you disagree that the shape of the hypersphere results in a curve space.

Are you aware that according to General Relativity gravity curves space and that curve space acts on mass objects. The cosmological curve of space must therefore act the same as any mass object on other mass objects.

If you will get down off your high horse and discuss the topic you might learn something.

 

[CoG]

Spirithound
So, if the universe has boundaries, what’s on the other side? Space is already a whole lot of nothing, is there not even nothing over there?

Your assumption that space is nothing is incorrect. According to GR space is able to be warped. You cannot warp nothing. There is no evidence that space is limited. All objects in the universe are moving outward from the Big Bang in the time dimension. At the same time this outward movement results in a spatial separation. There is no indication that there is any limitation to the number of dimensions or the size of any dimension. The universe is only limited in size at the present time by the limitation of the rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang.

The only know limiting rate in the universe is the speed of light. The magnitude of the measurements to distant objects indicate that the outward transition from the Big Bang is on the order of the speed of light.

 

[CoG]

bobzills
Here is a video on dark matter:

Again I have no disagreement with the observation only with the conclusion that there are invisible mass objects. I have given an explanation based on sound observation and physics. This observation has no missing components or invisible cause.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

I’m a rank armature when it comes to this sort of thing, but I have a burning question that I think some of the resident experts might be able to shed some light on.

Is it possible that Newtonian space is a regional anomaly? What if everything we think we know about physics only works in our own little galaxy? And the reason our math doesn’t seem to work in the bigger picture is because our constants are not really constant?

Like I said, I have no real experience, just questions.

 

[Philthy]

Evidence for dark matter:

1. The flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies determined by Vera Rubin et al can only be explained by mass density in spiral galaxies at least ten times higher than the mass we can see
2. the dispersion of the peculiar velocities of galaxies in clusters, observed as long ago as 1937, demands the presence of dark matter
3. distant galaxies affected by gravitational lensing confirms its existence
4. So does very hot X-ray emitting gas bound in galaxies and clusters
   Borgani and Guzzo, *X-ray Clusters of Galaxies as Tracers of Structure in the Universe, *Nature 409, 39 - 45 (2001)

Evidence for the existence of something like dark energy is the accelerating expansion of the universe:
Perlmutter et al, *Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-redshift Supernovae, *Astrophys J 517, 565 - 586 (1999),
Bahcall et al, *The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe, *Science 284, 1481 - 1488 (1999)
Riess et al, Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant, Astron J 116, 1009 (1998)

and the fact that the universe is flat or close to flat:
Spergel et al, *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology, *draft available on-line here: lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/…_3yr_param.pdf

Once you’ve come to grips with these, we can have a rational discussion. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Im not entirely stupid, but I do know that I am not qualified to truly digest the implications of these findings so I will not pretend to truly understand this topic enough to have that rational discussion. At least not without help from those more knowledgeable than myself.
But I do wish to contribute one thing: When science limits its explanation of the cause of unexplained phenomena to a purely scientific entity - that is all that it can do - but does so without a confirmable scientific cause, then those who are not limited to such explanations are justified in questioning the scientific explanation.
That much being said, I do think that there will eventually be confirmation of something scientific to explain the observations which have lead to the “dark matter” theories, but at this point it remains one, unconfirmable theory.

 

[bobzills]

Again I have no disagreement with the observation only with the conclusion that there are invisible mass objects. I have given an explanation based on sound observation and physics. This observation has no missing components or invisible cause.

Marbles moving around a curved surface is not a convincing argument against dark matter. The fact is that the orbital speed of galactic matter as a function of the radial coordinate implies a much greater density of matter than that which is stored in the visible stars. That implies that either the theory of gravity is wrong, or that there are invisible sources of matter called dark matter. Most (and here by most, I mean at least 99%) physicists think that the Einstein theory of relativity is pretty close to very correct, and by the way, even Newton’s theory of gravity gives the same result in this context.
Of course, there are alternate viewpoints such as the scale relativity theory proposed by Laurent Nottale, but it requires that you abandon the differentiability of the space time structure and substitute a fractal structure. And there are other theories also, such as modified newtonian dynamics or nonsymmetric gravitational theory, but I don;t see where any of the alternative theories are widely accepted.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Isn’t it ironic that “religious” people are accused of “inventing” a god to fill an obvious role that MUST exist but whom they cannot see, while physicists are criticized for inventing matter that MUST exist but THEY cannot see?

On the other hand, if the physicists can do it, how can they criticize the religious people?

Because “dark matter”, & ideas about it, are in principle subject to control & verification - difficult or impossible as this may be at present, in the present state of knowledge & with available methods.​

God by contrast is not controllable in this way, even in principle - there is no means of tracing something supposedly done by God back to Him: there is no way of verifying statements about God, or of ascertaining that what is attributed to God is not a fantasy. It does not help that Divine revelation is equally untestable by empirical means, or that Christians can’t agree on what they believe, or that their behaviour has not been beyond criticism. And there is no need for God - He has no function to fulfill. So it is easy to adopt the fervently evangelical tone of an anti-theist like Richard Dawkins.

So physicists are not acting unreasonably if they dismiss theism as childish rubbish fit only for the ignorant, while being confident that dark matter must exist. ISTM that atheism & anti-theism can both become self-enclosing views of the world - as this is also a feature of Fundamentalism, it’s perhaps unsurprising that some atheists are apt to sound like Fundamentalist evangelicals.

 

[wildleafblower]

**Hearing of the Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Innovation
United States Senate
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Testimony of Professor George Smoot
Co-Winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
Senior Scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Professor of Physics at the University of California Berkeley
**

*Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing and for recognizing the importance of science and scientific achievement to America’s health and vitality. It is my honor and pleasure to participate in this inquiry into the critical role that science plays in the life of our nation and the world.

My name is George Smoot and I am a Senior Scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Professor of Physics at the University of California Berkeley. I am perhaps unique in having received roughly comparable and vital support from the Nation’s three primary physical science agencies: DOE, NASA and NSF. As a scientist at Berkeley Lab and a professor at UC Berkeley, I benefit from the great advantages provided by a world-class national laboratory and one of the world’s great research universities. Both play critical roles in promoting America’s and the world’s scientific advancement through internationally recognized research, rigorous education of future scientists, and unique scientific tools and resources. Both have also played critical roles in my career as an astrophysicist, and in my work that led to the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, which I shared with my distinguished colleague and fellow witness here today, John Mather.

I was awarded the Nobel Prize for my role in discovering experimental evidence for the “Big Bang,” the primeval explosion that began the universe. This evidence was a map of the infant universe that revealed a pattern of miniscule temperature variations – “hot” and “cold” regions with temperature differences of a hundred-thousandth of a degree. These temperature variations, created when the universe was smaller than the smallest dot on a TV screen, are thought to be the primordial “seeds” that grew into the universe of galaxies and galaxy clusters we see today. The “map” of the universe that we created was produced in 1992 from data gathered by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.

It was exciting work. It was an exciting time. It was a time that ushered in what some call the Golden Age of Cosmology.

Since our COBE results, more amazing discoveries have been made. We continue to make maps of the universe with increasing accuracy, revealing more than we ever imagined. We now know that there is something that makes up roughly three quarters of our universe about which we have no clue as to what it is. We call it **Dark Energy **for lack of a better name, and it is driving the universe to expand at an accelerating speed, contrary to the expected force of gravity slowing the expansion down and ultimately pulling the universe back in on itself.

New maps also reveal the existence of Dark Matter. Although it is estimated to make up a fifth of the universe, we also don’t know what it is. Perhaps this unknown matter will someday be viewed through particle physics experiments, or be revealed through even more accurate maps of the universe. What we are sure of is that there will be new discoveries that continue to surprise us, yet will lead us closer to a fuller understanding of the universe and the properties of matter and energy and space and time. . . . *
legislative.nasa.gov/hearings/5-2-07%20Smoot.pdf
http://legislative.nasa.gov/hearings/5-2-07 Smoot.pdf

I encourage our Catholic.com audience to read Professor Smoot’s grand testimony in its entirety. Thanks Professor Smoot! :clapping:

 

[hecd2]

Both require a belief (faith, if you will) that the answers are there. Religionists (so-called) believe strongly that we have an accurate understanding of the universe and its workings. If we don’t know something, it’s not a big deal, but we KNOW that the answers are out there. And it doesn’t break our model !

Tell us how science is different… We’re listening.

Thank you.

Although the bases for scientific knowledge are different from the bases for religious faith, that is not the point here. The point is that those who know less than nothing about the scientific evidence for the existence of dark matter and some form of dark energy - which evidence is strong as I have pointed out in some detail, supported by the evidence presented in several scientific papers - these people have gone public with their unwarranted opinion that the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are “bunk”. And I am calling them on their uninformed and unsupportable prejudice.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2 I have not challenged the observations that have lead to the conclusion that Dark Matter must exist. I agree with all of your citations of the observations. The problem is in the conclusions that have been reached.

Well then, choose any one paper, any one of the papers that I have cited, and tell us, with supporting evidence, why the conclusions reached in the paper are unwarranted, and how you would reach a different conclusion that fits in great interlocking detail all of the other evidence that we have about the universe. That, after all, is what real scientists do.

You have not shown that my observations are in error.

See below.

Do you disagree with the fact of the Big Bang

Absolutely agree:
see two articles that I’ve written here:
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

or that all objects in the universe have and are moving outward from the Big Bang?

Absolutely wrong, if by that you mean that there is a point is space where the Big Bang occurred and that all objects are equidistant from it ( in that case everything in the universe would be on a spherical shell, which they obviously are not).

Do you disagree that all objects are at an equal time distance from the Big Bang

All objects are not equidistant from the Big Bang for the reasons above - equal distance from the Big Bang is a meaningless concept.

and that they lie in a three-dimensional hypersphere?

Objects in the universe do not lie on the surface of a two-sphere in 3-dimensional space but possibly a 3-sphere in 4-dimensional space (I assume you are talking about the latter but it’s hard to tell). One possible spatial topology for the universe is a Poincare spherical dodecahedron, 120 of which abstractly glued together form a hypersphere. Unfortunately this, and all other closed topologies, requires the density parameter, Omega, to be significantly more than unity for the universe and recent results from WMAP seem to exclude this in favour of a flat universe. In any case, Omega is very close to unity.

Do you disagree that the shape of the hypersphere results in a curve space.

IF the topology of space turns out to be closed, there will be some underlying curvature of space in the absence of gravitational mass, but this curvature is utterly inadequate to explain the phenomena that lead to the conclusion that dark matter exists - flat rotational curves in spiral galaxies, peculiar velocities in galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing of distant galactic haloes, structure of very hot X-ray emitting gas clouds, magnitude of the late Sachs-Wolfe effect in the CMB etc, because the global currvature (if it exists) is not relevant in the local observable space around the cosmological objects where these effects occur. However, the evidence is currently pointing to flat space in any case.

Are you aware that according to General Relativity gravity curves space and that curve space acts on mass objects.

Well yes, I had heard something like that somewhere or other

The cosmological curve of space must therefore act the same as any mass object on other mass objects.

Indeed, but we are not talking about things that can be explained by tiny departures from non-Euclidean geometry in the local geometry. The effects we are talking about are not global, but local and huge…

If you will get down off your high horse and discuss the topic you might learn something.

From you??

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[bobzills]

Physicists are so dumb, aren’t they?

The Vatican doesn’t think so. The are hosting a conference on formation and evolution of galaxies. More than 210 scientists are attending. See:
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10558

 

[CoG]

All quotes by hecd2

Absolutely wrong, if by that you mean that there is a point is space where the Big Bang occurred and that all objects are equidistant from it ( in that case everything in the universe would be on a spherical shell, which they obviously are not).

You need to expand your thinking beyond three-dimensional space. The Big Bang occurred in a mutildimensional construct of which we are able to see the direct evidence of three spatial dimensions and perceive a fourth dimension of time. The physical reality of time is the outward transition of all objects from the Big Bang. All directions outward from the Big Bang are the time dimension. It is recognized that all spatial movement is only realized in comparison to the transition of time (velocity). In all consideration of velocity, time is treated as an independent dimension.

The non-spatial outward transition from the Big Bang is also seen in the reseeding nature of all distant objects as observed by red shift. This observation is not possible except as a result of a non-spatial transition from a center point.

All objects are not equidistant from the Big Bang for the reasons above - equal distance from the Big Bang is a meaningless concept.

The age of the universe will be the same when measured from any object in the universe. It this were not so then there is no point to any astrological observation. When measuring any distant object its age from the Big Bang is stated with respect to our current position from the Big Bang.

When considering a multi-dimensional construct the term distance and position is not limited to spatial measurements.

Objects in the universe do not lie on the surface of a two-sphere in 3-dimensional space but possibly a 3-sphere in 4-dimensional space (I assume you are talking about the latter but it’s hard to tell). One possible spatial topology for the universe is a Poincare spherical dodecahedron, 120 of which abstractly glued together form a hypersphere. Unfortunately this, and all other closed topologies, requires the density parameter, Omega, to be significantly more than unity for the universe and recent results from WMAP seem to exclude this in favor of a flat universe. In any case, Omega is very close to unity.

There is no structural sphere or hypersphere of space. A hypersurface is a construct of one less dimension than the number of dimensions under consideration. In this discussion, a hypersphere is of three dimensions. Time being the fourth dimension under consideration.

Everything in the universe lie an equal distance in the time dimension (the outward transition from the Big Bang), limited only by the inability to move faster then the speed of light.

This is the geometry of the universe and has nothing to do with the universe being an open or closed universe.

You are confusing flat with geometry. Open, closed, or flat are only referring to the dynamic expansion of the universe not to the geometry of shape.

IF the topology of space turns out to be closed, there will be some underlying curvature of space in the absence of gravitational mass, but this curvature is utterly inadequate to explain the phenomena that lead to the conclusion that dark matter exists - flat rotational curves in spiral galaxies, peculiar velocities in galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing of distant galactic haloes, structure of very hot X-ray emitting gas clouds, magnitude of the late Sachs-Wolfe effect in the CMB etc, because the global curvature (if it exists) is not relevant in the local observable space around the cosmological objects where these effects occur. However, the evidence is currently pointing to flat space in any case.

Gravity is a spatial force and only acts within the three dimensions of space. There is no gravitational back to the direction of the Big Bang and therefore there is no need to consider gravity as having any effect of the open, closed, or flat nature of the universe.

Well yes, I had heard something like that somewhere or other

Yes we need to keep the discussion light.

Indeed, but we are not talking about things that can be explained by tiny departures from non-Euclidean geometry in the local geometry. The effects we are talking about are not global, but local and huge…

All effects are the result of the construct we live in. The nature of the universe is simple and no more difficult to understand then it was for people to understand that the earth goes around the sun.

From you??

I have found in all my years that I can learn from any one. If you try I am sure that you also will be able to do so.

 

[wildleafblower]

The Vatican doesn’t think so. The are hosting a conference on formation and evolution of galaxies. More than 210 scientists are attending. See:
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10558
hecd2;2793827:

Physicists are so dumb, aren’t they? They make up fantasy ideas for which they have no evidence, just in order to make the calculations work, when any casual observer can see that the calculations are off. It’s so obvious - why don’t they just abandon the concordance model - any seventh grader could suggest something better. I’m sure that you can.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

(Pssst: the evidence for the existence of dark matter is absolutely overwhelming)

Exactly! And instead of “making up” stuff to fit the calculation, they might want to consider that maybe the calculation is off and none of this stuff exists.
Ridgerunner;2791984:

A physicist could tell you better, but my impression is that “dark energy” and “dark matter” are both posited in order to make the calculations work out.

Thanks for the information bobzills I did some further research and as I write this, the international conference on **The Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Disks **organized by the Vatican Observatory is being held in Rome at the Centro Convegni Matteo Ricci. The conference runs from October 1-5, 2007. Participant’s abstracts are available online for review. Absolutely fasinating! I love Cosmology.

Thanks again Bill for bringing it to our attention

kino.as.arizona.edu/~disks/SciRatio.html
http://kino.as.arizona.edu/~disks/SciRatio.html

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Well then, choose any one paper, any one of the papers that I have cited, and tell us, with supporting evidence, why the conclusions reached in the paper are unwarranted, and how you would reach a different conclusion that fits in great interlocking detail all of the other evidence that we have about the universe. That, after all, is what real scientists do.

???

Well you don’t seem to have a response for this. Just to remind you, the papers in question which provide evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy are cited in post no 21 of this thread. You said that the papers reach the wrong conclusions about the observations they report. Were just making it up?

Snip verbose statement that the Big Bang happened at a point in time

The age of the universe will be the same when measured from any object in the universe. It this were not so then there is no point to any astrological observation.

Is there a point to any astrological observation? I don’t think so

There is no structural sphere or hypersphere of space. A hypersurface is a construct of one less dimension than the number of dimensions under consideration. In this discussion, a hypersphere is of three dimensions. Time being the fourth dimension under consideration.

Not so. A compact topology for the universe in which space has a positive curvature places objects on the surface of a hypersphere (which has a volume in four spatial dimensions - analogously an ordinary ball or 2-sphere is a closed surface in two dimensions enclosing a volume in three dimensions).

Everything in the universe lie an equal distance in the time dimension (the outward transition from the Big Bang), limited only by the inability to move faster then the speed of light.

I think this is meaningless - what about the time from the Big Bang is limited by the speed of light? The recession of objects caused by the expansion of space is not limited by the speed of light, by the way.

This is the geometry of the universe and has nothing to do with the universe being an open or closed universe.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

You are confusing flat with geometry. Open, closed, or flat are only referring to the dynamic expansion of the universe not to the geometry of shape.

Wrong. Open, closed or flat are used to describe model universes both spatially and temporally. Whether a universe is spatially open, closed or flat depends on value k in the Friedmann equation. If k=0, this corresponds to the flat Friedmann model, also known as the Einstein-deSitter model -a spatially flat model expanding forever. Both spatial curvature and closure in time are related to the mass-energy density in the Friedmann models. See, for example, Ciufolini and Wheeler, “Gravitation and Inertia”, Chapter 4, “Cosmology, Standard Models and Homogeneous Rotating Models”.

Gravity is a spatial force and only acts within the three dimensions of space. There is no gravitational back to the direction of the Big Bang and therefore there is no need to consider gravity as having any effect of the open, closed, or flat nature of the universe.

Wrong as above.

In any case this is all irrelevant to the fact that the global curvature of space, such as it is, does not lead to a conclusion that dark matter exists – for that we have to look to the local and relatively big effects described in the papers above.

I have found in all my years that I can learn from any one. If you try I am sure that you also will be able to do so.

I am sure that there is something that I can learn from you, but not on this subject.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[heisenburg]

Gravity is a spatial force and only acts within the three dimensions of space. There is no gravitational back to the direction of the Big Bang and therefore there is no need to consider gravity as having any effect of the open, closed, or flat nature of the universe

Actually… gravity is pivotal in the discussion of the creation of the universe… It also exists in every spacial dimension we are aware of. It exists in those that support the 9-d universe, to those that support an 11-d universe. Many find it extremely odd that it is so weak when compared to the other forces. This is actually a huge problem… One which some scientist think they have solved using what is known as Brane theory. From what I have seen, it also happens to fit the facts. It is still a very young theory though and requires further testing.

In Any case… Gravity is extremely pivotal in the discussion of where the universe comes from.

In Christ

 

[ricmat]

Well then, choose any one paper, any one of the papers that I have cited, and tell us, with supporting evidence, why the conclusions reached in the paper are unwarranted, and how you would reach a different conclusion that fits in great interlocking detail all of the other evidence that we have about the universe. That, after all, is what real scientists do.

OK.

holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye

holoscience.com/news.php?article=41wjs24r

PS. this site is intriguing, the archives have a LOT of supporting evidence, the links above are just a couple that relate to the discussion going on here now.

 

[bobzills]

OK.

holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye

holoscience.com/news.php?article=41wjs24r

PS. this site is intriguing, the archives have a LOT of supporting evidence, the links above are just a couple that relate to the discussion going on here now.

Halton Arp does have an alternative theory, but at this point in time, it is generally thought that quasars are very distant galaxies and not as Arp contends that they are local objects with “intrinsic” redshifts.