tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post7352487390377958108..comments2023-11-05T02:01:36.369-06:00Comments on Neo-Cosmos: Dark Energy Debunked Still MoreGary A Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00925966937618086841noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-66046602189047307342008-12-21T12:15:00.000-06:002008-12-21T12:15:00.000-06:00Until we have a consistent theory of Quantum Gravi...Until we have a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity that explains how space is created by energy, the jury will remain out on the concepts of inflation and dark energy. Are any of you aware of one?<BR/>By the way, if you are skeptical about Dark Energy then please visit my new blog debunking the many worlds theory at<BR/>http://fundementalsofmodernphysics.blogspot.com/.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-920410181078619332008-12-20T22:58:00.000-06:002008-12-20T22:58:00.000-06:00To the Adventurer,Yes, dark energy smells like the...To the Adventurer,<BR/><BR/>Yes, dark energy smells like the aether.<BR/><BR/>What bothers me is the eagerness of some scientists to accept a hypothesis that even they admit is unprovable with no critical experiments possible. We are supposed to dump the principle of science that holds that all knowledge of nature must be supported by experimental facts. If not, then it's not knowledge. It's just speculation or worse, an appeal to what amounts to the supernatural.<BR/><BR/>One might say that dark energy is an illusion resulting from our relativistic perspective on the surface of the universe, not at its center. The center of a polydimensional universe is not everywhere as mathematicians sometimes say, it is NOWHERE.<BR/><BR/>Acceleration that is observed NOW actually occurred THEN. The universe actually does follow a relativstic scheme.Gary A Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925966937618086841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-14192131762691190272008-12-20T22:42:00.000-06:002008-12-20T22:42:00.000-06:00To Anonymous Joe,Thanks for the complement. Scienc...To Anonymous Joe,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the complement. Science is all about gathering and organizing facts of nature, developing explanatory theories and then usning them to actually expain. But, its no good explaining things like, say, relativity to the likes of Einstein. So many scientists seem to wish to preach to the choir. Maybe this is all they can do.<BR/><BR/>And, they like to use jargon and an impregnable impenetrable demonstration of their mastery of jargon to impress us all with their high IQs. This is no way to communicate.<BR/><BR/>It appears that "grey dust" does not attenuate the signal from distant objects. The distant supernova results show that they are farther away than even their red shifts would indicate. <BR/><BR/>If they are ACTUALLY farther away, then grey dust is not a factor since its effect would be to let truly "near" objects seem to be be farther.Gary A Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925966937618086841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-76098746875191688512008-12-20T22:24:00.000-06:002008-12-20T22:24:00.000-06:00To Anonymous,The idea of a spinning universe has b...To Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>The idea of a spinning universe has been expressed before. But the objection is that spin would leave a trace in the cosmic microwave background radiation. It would not be isotropic, for instance. It should alter the pattern of polarization too. <BR/><BR/>But, the universe as a whole would not be subject to the physical laws that govern objects within it. So, the universe could spin on all three axes, not just one. Then the acceleration that is observed to be occurring now could result from the effects of spin and such spin would not leave a trace in the CMB.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the Big Bang results from regurgitation from a supermassive black hole is an old one. It fits with the cyclic theory wherein the universe expands and contracts periodically. But we need to get the facts straight regarding what is actually observed before we can move on to more interesting stuff.<BR/><BR/>What I meant to say about supernovae 1A was that they appear to be so very far away that they tend to disprove the idea that there is a lot of "grey dust" that attenuates the signal. Then, since the universe would at that time have been expanding at a faster rate than was believed through application of Hubble's Law, our universe must be expanding NOW at a faster and faster rate. <BR/><BR/>I do not think that this conclusion follows from the facts. It is quite illogical, in fact. If the correct interpretation is that the universe underwent accelerating expansion THEN, why, there is no problem and dark energy does not exist.<BR/><BR/>Yup. Dark energy reminds me too of the now defunct aether.Gary A Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925966937618086841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-67225942254603904062008-12-20T21:51:00.000-06:002008-12-20T21:51:00.000-06:00To L. Riofrio,I am skeptical of the effort to invo...To L. Riofrio,<BR/><BR/>I am skeptical of the effort to invoke an ad hoc explanation for phenomena that tend to disrupt the so-called consensus. When we have to "suspend disbelief" as if we were watching a science fiction movie, it's time to get suspicious. Dark energy seems unprovable and nobody can think of critical experiments that would confirm its existence. Not enough credence is given to alternate explanations.<BR/><BR/>Some scientists seem addicted to "weird science". I think it may be that they get more funding if they link their research to strange mysteries, the stranger the better. But the mystery of dark energy is almost supernatural. Some scientists seem willing to accept a supernatural interpretation of nature as if it actually explains something.<BR/><BR/>I say shame on such "scientists" who should be capable of doing better.Gary A Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925966937618086841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-25128761496153411812008-01-31T16:20:00.000-06:002008-01-31T16:20:00.000-06:00Dark Energy smells a lot like Aether Ever since th...Dark Energy smells a lot like Aether<BR/><BR/> Ever since the birth of science and physics in ancient Greece, even before Plato, natural philosophers have been attempting to explain the nature of the universe. However, when they tried to explain the cause of certain unexplained natural phenomena, such as the way lihjt propagates, they resorted to an imaginary and undetectable, yet ubiquitous substance that they called aether. It wasn't until the early 20th century, when Einstein's Theory of Relativity showed that light can travel in a vacuum and gravity is caused by the curvature of space by mass, that aether became obsolete.<BR/> When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, his Gravitational Field Equations predicted that the universe would collapse under its own gravity. For some philosophical reason, Einstein couldn't accept the concept of a contracting universe, so he invented the Cosmological Constant which opposes the force of gravity. Thus even Einstein succumbed to the temptation of the creation of undetectable phenomenon in order to explain mathematical discrepancies and preserve his theories. Einstein was forced to shelve the Cosmological Constant when his contemporary, Edwin Hubble, measured the periodicity of variable stars and red-shifts of distant galaxies and demonstrated that the universe was expanding in every direction. <BR/> Since then astrophysicists have been observing the motions of stars and estimating the mass of the galaxies that these stars reside in. Sometimes the estimated mass of a galaxy is too small to explain the motion of the stars within those galaxies. These astrophysicists have postulated the existence of "Dark Matter" to explain the motion of stars. Dark matter is incredibly dense matter that neither emits nor reflects light. Black holes are a popular example of dark matter.<BR/> In the last decade, astrophysicists have been studying certain Supernovas which they feel represent a standard candle for brightness in the universe. Their observations along with the assumption that these supernovas represent a standard candle have led them to conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In order to account for this, they have revived the concept of the Cosmological Constant but have renamed it Dark Energy.The Adventurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03908297897306994662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-73513002101058914342007-12-29T18:38:00.000-06:002007-12-29T18:38:00.000-06:00Gary, your non-jargon writing style is so refreshi...Gary, your non-jargon writing style is so refreshing! Wikipedia is legalese by comparison.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the Big Bang is energy escaping from a black hole in another universe is an idea that I came up with, based on things I have been reading over the years. When I read your post I got the further idea that maybe the mother black hole is still adding energy into our universe. Further, the mother black hole is probably spinning with very high energy (dragging our universe around? In this case, our universe should be flattened and flatten more and more over time. The mother black hole may have uneven mass distribution, adding to the effect.)<BR/><BR/>I put a lot of weight onto your idea that light from the 1A super novae, used as standard light sources, could be getting attenuated by intervening particles. The probability of attenuation of the light would increase with distance. However, if the luminosity discrepancy is perfectly proportional to red shift magnitude, then the intervening particle idea would seem flawed since the intervening particles would not be uniform due to clumping caused by gravity.<BR/><BR/>Joe<BR/>jomeis at netzero dot netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5585807102861789277.post-91787996242809199492007-08-29T02:02:00.000-05:002007-08-29T02:02:00.000-05:00Juat happened across your blog. You are reight th...Juat happened across your blog. You are reight that "dark energy" doesn't exist. You could write a good book on this.L. Riofriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02692071626849849079noreply@blogger.com