PDA

View Full Version : Dark Energy Vs. The Void: What If Copernicus Was Wrong?


OilIsMastery
09-27-08, 11:15 PM
ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2008) — Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according physicists at Oxford University.

The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the accelerating the universe's expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy.

Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we're in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenants in physics.

Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we're not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we're special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model.

Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it's consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists. The maverick physicists at Oxford conclude their paper by pointing out that forthcoming tests of the Copernican principle should help us sort out the mystery in the next few years.
Link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926184749.htm)

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Religion Forum since there is little difference between physics (science) and metaphysics (religion).

Vkothii
09-27-08, 11:42 PM
Perhaps you could explain the difference between cosmology and metaphysics?

superluminal
09-27-08, 11:57 PM
Link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926184749.htm)

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Religion Forum since there is little difference between physics (science) and metaphysics (religion).

What a seriously stupid thing to say. IMO.

StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-28-08, 01:24 AM
Scientists are frustratingly far from perfect yet there is a gigantic difference between science & religion.
Neither DM nor any possibily of a low matter density area have anything to do with the Earthcentric views of the past or those who showed them wrong.

OilIsMastery
09-28-08, 02:20 AM
Scientists are frustratingly far from perfect
I thought the High Priests of Science are infallible? Well, at least I know I'm human.

yet there is a gigantic difference between science & religion.
Then you're doing one of them wrong. Either you're doing science wrong or else you're doing metaphysics wrong.

Asguard
09-28-08, 02:44 AM
this maybe stupid but why is any force needed to cause the expansion of the universe?

After all if there is an explosion things travel away from each other by symple momentium, wouldnt the remaining momentum from the big bang be the symplest way to acount for the expansion?

StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-28-08, 03:02 AM
I thought the High Priests of Science are infallible? Well, at least I know I'm human.


I understand how some might get that impression sometimes, sadly. Still that is a very limited view which is easily overwhelmed by enough reading & rational thinking. It's not the basis of science.
An infallible god for which there is no evidence is the basis of religion. Closely following is each person's infallible faith.


Then you're doing one of them wrong. Either you're doing science wrong or else you're doing metaphysics wrong.

Or you're doing thinking wrong.

superstring01
09-28-08, 03:18 AM
this maybe stupid but why is any force needed to cause the expansion of the universe?

After all if there is an explosion things travel away from each other by symple momentium, wouldnt the remaining momentum from the big bang be the symplest way to acount for the expansion?

Many people believed that was the case, but as we can see with some of the newer deep space telescopes, the expansion is increasing with every passing year (not by a huge amount, but it is increasing), which is impossible for simple momentum to have caused.

The fact is, nobody knows why. Some say "dark energy". Some say it's due to another force.

~String