Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Please reread my posts and quote me where I said anything about the cosmological constant not existing. the cosmological constant/ dark energy doesn't exist Oh cruel irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I didn't say "hey' date=' this is scientific law: cosmologists are wrong"I just presented a perfectly logical and probably true idea that was attained the same way the theory of relativity was.[/quote'] You're a lost cause, you really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 I was thinking the same thing about you. I never said that this thread was fact. actually, I said the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 You're a lost cause, you really are. Not really. He just didn't figure on how stringently people here might do things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 cum on, back to the subject, stop taking the piss out of each other! maybe it does exits maybe not..... assuming that dark matter does exist... what could it be... any theories, considering it doesnt react with matter, how can it be a physical object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 is that better? now it has a warning. Dark matter and dark energy aren't the same thing. Dark matter is probably planets, asteroid belts, moons, comets, undiscovered black holes, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 I just got an idea. What if there was no Big Bang. WHat if the expansion is the universes answer to gravity. You could say that the universe "wants" equelibrium, so maybe it is just compensating for gravity. I haven't anywhere near thought this all the way out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I just got an idea. What if there was no Big Bang. WHat if the expansion is the universes answer to gravity. You could say that the universe "wants" equelibrium, so maybe it is just compensating for gravity. I haven't anywhere near thought this all the way out yet. Referring to things 'wanting' to get to another state is just shorthand for saying that lower energy states are more stable, and thus they are more likely to remain in that state having reached it. It's like ice and adding salt to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 I was thinking more like osmosis or thermal equelibrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I was thinking more like osmosis or thermal equelibrium. Osmosis happens because there's more water going one way than the other; it's an equilibrium. I don't really see how 'galaxies moving apart' could be considered as part of an equilibrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 It could be an equilibrium for gravity. Gravity in one area equels expansion in another. That was the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Fine as it goes, but nothing means anything in physics without mathematics to back it up, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 JaKiri: But without thoughts, ideas, theories and abstract thinking math would be of no real use to us.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 JaKiri: But without thoughts, ideas, theories and abstract thinking math would be of no real use to us.. It's the other way round in physics, at least at present. Just about every interpretation of what goes on is because THE MATHS TOLD US, not the other way around. Things like black holes, and quantum uncertainty, and antimatter. The maths came first, the interpretation second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 It's the other way round in physics, at least at present. Just about every interpretation of what goes on is because THE MATHS TOLD US, not the other way around. Things like black holes, and quantum uncertainty, and antimatter. The maths came first, the interpretation second. Most shurely but that is due to the scientific "language" is math! But without the ideas that lead to abstract thinking and math we wouldn't at this specific point we are (as you are saying)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 Did I not say, that this isn't done yet? The Big Bang only comes from following the expansion backwards to one point. With this, there doesn't have to be a Big Bang. How would I extract the math for this to test it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacM Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 I just got an idea. What if there was no Big Bang. WHat if the expansion is the universes answer to gravity. You could say that the universe "wants" equelibrium, so maybe it is just compensating for gravity. I haven't anywhere near thought this all the way out yet. Hi, I'm new here and I just wanted to draw your attention to my first post: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934 It has bearing on your comments above. It may be that: 1 - Dark Matter is very limited and not as prevelant as currently believed. Indeed probably negligable. 2 - Dark Energy doesn't exist as an exotic anti-gravity energy field. 3 - That gravity has a common function which inherently results in a different calculation of gravity that explains both the star rotational velocity anomaly at galatic scales (AD HOC Dark Matter solution) and the accelerating expansion of the universe (AD HOC Dark Energy solution). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARDBATTY Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I thought that the constant was a mistake or guess made to fill a gap in the theory that has now been proved wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARDBATTY Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I thought that the constant was a mistake or guess made to fill a gap in the theory that has now been proved wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermions Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 do you mean the universal constant ( somethng like that ) ? em... does the latest theory suggest it to be zero or not? it's really confusing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 do you mean the universal constant ( somethng like that ) ?em... does the latest theory suggest it to be zero or not? it's really confusing... I think you mean the "cosmological constant" there's a thread about that' date=' and some other things, here http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5062 Primarygun, yourdadonopogos, and Cap'n Refsmmat are the first three posters on that thread, I got into it later on, and also Alexa, and also Sayonara briefly, here is post #13 in that thread. the cosmological constant was einstien's antigravitaional force to keep the universe static. dark energy is the MODERN version of it in which it is much stronger making up for the extra speed. in the future' date=' read a post before you comment on it.[/quote'][url']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5368[/url] I dont remember who all else. It is a popular topic. Alexa gave some links to NASA web pages andor SpaceTelescopeNews web pages that tell about the cosmological constant and dark energy IIRC. I think she did anyway. I remember finding one she gave pretty interesting Since the topic is such a magnet it might be helpful to have a central thread where people could put links to various outside sources they think are understandable and reliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 as it originally appeared in the Einstein eqn (main eqn of Gen Rel) the cosmological constant is a bit of extra curvature that isnt caused by any corresponding concentration of energy this was mostly ignored till 1998 when it was measured to be one over a certain area (curvatures are the reciprocal of area) the area is the area of a square 9 billion lightyears on a side. it is hard to comprehend a curvature so small, so close to zero zero curvature would be one over an infinite area (in this kind of mathematics curvature is measured as reciprocal of area) and to our minds a square 9 billion lightyears on a side seems like infinite but it isnt people exaggerate the importance of Einstein having said at one point that he thought he'd been mistaken to include this tiny autonomous curvature in his equation (which at the time nobody had measured) maybe Einstein was being overly dramatic when he expressed regret. it is standard practice for mathematicians to put in some extra terms in the equation when you cannot logically exclude some possibility so whatever his reason (his prejudice for a static universe at the time) it was not out of line. it was smart and even accepted practice. so let's not overdramatize the "Einstein's mistake" aspect---that is just something that appeals to popular imagination. -------------- if you know how much one joule of energy is (raising a kilogram by about 10 centimeters, that much work, or dropping a kilogram 10 centimeters, that much thump) then I can tell you how much extra energy would have to be spread out in space in order to give spacetime exactly the tiny extra curvature which I said up there earlier the extra energy would have to be 0.6 joule per cubic kilometer. (that is the socalled "dark energy" density) that amount of energy in every cubic kilometer of space would give to space the extra curvature which is one over that very large area. the rest of what one normally hears is to a considerable extent just hype, flap, journalists whooping it up in the media, and people masturbating their imaginations without much additional understanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARDBATTY Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 "people masturbating their imaginations without much additional understanding" Thanks for the explanation and the strange image created by the later part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Thanks for the explanation and the strange image created by the later part of it. thanks for the response! It helps---always encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 thanks for the response! It helps---always encouraging. Yeah It's indeed a very GOOD summary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now