Dark Energy – Required to explain a plausible mistake ?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Aug 16, 2014.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I agree and that is why I qualified the link as being partly excellent. I like the explanation of what constitutes a fractal and the "in depth fractal" provided with graph is fascinating watching it unfold.

    A better definition is displayed in this video.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Just a musing,
    I wonder if the dark (confined) part of a Mandelbrot Set can be compared to the ratio of Dark Matter to the total mass of the universe?
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Well, to be honest, I do not think that the center universe can be located at present, with the current system. I also think that current system will have to go on in its efforts to plot out galaxies to get a approximate refference. when using location sky or star maps.
    As for using some kind of instrument to make detection for solar group motions for detecting a universe arc or its center point i would have to recommend the use of titianium for our region of our galaxy, and to establish a zero point of reffence for measure or instrument balance. I have a feeling that it quite easy to get lost directionaly when looking for the universes center. Cleary almost all sound bearing for location would be haywire or miscued. the most sound base for use by insturment is titanium.

    as for dark matter, i would say that one missing structue in the idea is probably the different undiscoverd atoms that exist at various locations throughout the galaxy, atomic elements of higher atomic weight and their abundances within the galaxy. their effect on space is unaccounted for. wherein i also suspect that a large amount of that heavier matter is located in much greater abundances closer in on the galaxtic disk.

    It is a very interesting question,(where is the center of the universe) something that will keep astronomers and math guys busy as they try to press out the fact. keep working on it.

    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    That is nice that you think that, I guess. The entire scientific community (with the exception of a couple of nuters) does not think the "center can be located" because it does not exist.

    WTF? What is 'use titanium as an instrument' suppose mean, that makes about as much sense as a soup sandwich. Why not use an armadillo as an instrument to find the center of the universe.

    elements with hight atomic weights than are shown on the periodic chart of elements have incredibly short half lives so that doesn't work. The would not be "dark" since they would interact with photons.

    That amount of matter in the galactic disk would absorb enough energy from the stars that it would not be dark, we would be able to detect it.

    It is not an interesting question. The question (where is the a center of the universe) is not keeping any astronomers or 'math guy's busy because no sane person is working on it.
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Mass is invariant, so shouldn't we be able to find a center of mass for the universe? If you use the balloon and ant on the surface analogy, with the balloon inflating, there always be a center of mass to calculate.

    One thing that has always perplexed me is, if the galaxies are expanding relative to each other due to space-time expanding, then why aren't atoms and molecules also expanding? Why can space-time manhandle big things but not little things. For example, say the universe increased volume by 10%, so the mass density of the universe lowers, why aren't atomic and molecular densities also decreasing by 10%?

    We measure the red shift and equate a velocity of expansion that physically makes galaxies appear farther and farther apart in terms of distances, yet atoms and molecules stay the same size.
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Analogies are not reality. All analogies break down when taken too far as you have done with this analogy.

    The problem is as usual you do not know what you are talking about. The galaxies are not expanding!

    The universe is expanding but the gravity is strong enough to overcome the expansion so that even galactic clusters do not expand let alone galaxies.

    Yep, they sure do.
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    I will add to your perplexion. Fine the Galaxies are not expanding, but space between Galaxies is expanding? The Galaxies are not expanding because of Gravitational bonding, but then can we say that the space between Galaxies is completely free from Gravity? At least we must observe some expansion perturbations near to the insides of periphery stars of a Galaxy. Moreover dark matter is assumed to be a vast halo around Galaxies, is the space occupied by Dark Matter also expanding?
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I'l just comment on a few points you still are rather not expressing correctly.
    Our models of cosmology as accurate and as predictive as they are, also have areas of applicibility, outside of which they fail.
    From the instant of the BB [t=0] to t+10-43 seconds, the BB/GR fail. This is the region we call a singularity, and which a future validated observed QGT [quantum gravity theory] may resolve.
    From t+10-43 seconds to the present time, we are able to reasonably logically, construct how matter first formed to stars and planets. The closer we theorise to t+10-43 seconds though, the less certain we are of the validity.
    [But still reasonably confident]
    The theory of density waves to explain spiral arms, also solves other problems such as "winding".

    The Universe/spacetime is expanding at an accelerated rate over large scales to the edges of the observable Universe.
    Over smaller local regions like our local group of galaxies, and even to clusters and walls of galaxies, gravity [spacetime curvature due to mass/energy density] overcomes spacetime expansion.
    That fact does not present any problem at all.
    In effect the strong and weak nuclear forces, EMF hold us together also against spacetime expansion.
    In the same way gravity holds planets, stars, galaxies, groups of galaxies, together against the overall effect of the DE/CC causing spacetime to expand over larger scales.

    Our Sun certainly does create spacetime curvature, and also warps and bends light coming from more distant objects. In general though, we are unable to see that effect due to its brightness.
    This was averted in 1919 during an eclipse, when this brightness was blocked during totality, and an astronomer called Eddington, photographed a particular distant star that was seen to be somewhere other then where it would be if spacetime curvature was not taking place.
    This was the first hard observational evidence supporting Einstein's GRT.

    Light will not get trapped within any galaxy confines, unless it happens to be right on the EH of the SMBH at the center. Light will be gravitationally redshifted as it climbs out of the spacetime well of the galaxy.

    Spacetime is the more correct term when speaking of space, as Einstein showed how they are linked.
    That's only a pedantic point though.

    Analogies like the balloon analogy and the raisin loaf are helpful in describing a particular scenario, but like all analogies, they have limitations. eg: the balloon analogy uses a 2 D rubber skin to represent 4D spacetime.
    With that analogy, one needs to forget about the air in the balloon and that cavity, and the space above the skin of the balloon.

    In summing you seem to be proposing/suggesting certain problems with certain situations.
    Personally I'm not that into it to explain how they account for and get around all these supposed anomalous situations, but rest assured they do.
    Think of the sensitive expensive state of the art equipment both on Earth and in orbit and beyond orbit.
    That's why people here that are far above my limited expertise/knowledge, quickly write off as delusional, alternative hypothesis pushers, that claim to have rewritten 20th/21st century cosmology.
    We have for example four on this forum that have at one time or another, claimed to have a ToE [theory of everything]
  12. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This is a restricted response to my post #22 in the thread titled "Some-questions-for-better-understanding-of-Main-Stream-Cosmology".

    I again admire your straightforward acceptance of the fact that there are many unresolved issues with present day mainstream theories. Yes it is true that they tend to explain multiplicity of observations but still get stumped on certain aspects. This can be attributed to three things:

    1. Our inability to add to the theory.
    2. The theory itself requires a complete re-look.
    3. Our observation is at fault.

    The difficult part is despite "sensitive expensive state of the art equipment both on Earth and in orbit and beyond orbit" due to vastness of universe none of the three above can be ruled out completely. Yes again I must admit that possibility of #3 is far less, but nonetheless it cannot be zero.

    So the fluidity (failure to explain certain questions) of present day theories will always create some kind of would be noble laureates. Please note that no one is proposing an alternative theory for Newton's Law in its domain, because there is no fluidity. So please bear with people who come up with new TOE, let their imagination go wild, they are not claiming themselves to be scientists, neither they are dumb. At the best they can be termed as people who are not conversant with multiplicity of scientific theories. For example a new TOE sponsor may not realize that his theory may be violating Electromagnetism, or Particle Physics, or Conservation of Momentum etc. But nonetheless we must admire his/her ability to think differently, must salute his/her courage that he could come up with something alternative against the stalwarts. We must politely ask questions or draw their attention to the flaws, instead of asking them for proofs which they won't have. (If they have the proofs they won't be here for long.)

    Please note that MOND is accepted by scientists to certain extent despite the fact that momentum part is violated, Dark Matter is accepted despite that fact that it is in total darkness (clueless), Density wave is accepted despite the fact there are many unanswered questions, BB is accepted despite the fact that we can offer nothing about t=0, spacetime curvature is a culmination of pure mathematics, spacetime expansion is jittery. But still these theories are accepted because they fit into majority of observations.

    At the end I must say, its great to be on the side of mainstream cosmology, but this may create some kind of complacency, believe me it will be extremely difficult to get a Theory of Unification, if we do not question certain existing hypotheses. To unlearn is ok, to learn more. Sometimes I wonder that you give an impression of a hardcore advocate of mainstream cosmology. If so then your own creative ability may get stunted.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2014
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    If they're not claiming to be scientists then what business do they have proposing scientific explanations?

    How can they "come up with something against the stalwarts" if they aren't conversant with those "stalwarts"?
    If they aren't conversant with such things as electromagnetism, conservation of momentum etc then they aren't doing science.
    Therefore why should they be accorded any admiration by science?

    What you're suggesting is equivalent to someone completely unfamiliar with, say, cricket suggesting that 50% of those on the pitch should be on horseback and expecting to be taken seriously.

    Essentially they're saying "I don't know anything about it, I haven't bothered to learn but I still expect to be accorded respect for my speculations".
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    You did not understand my post completely.

    First of all I do not think that all the members of this forum are scientists, have mercy, the forum title itself says amateur astronomy....

    Secondly this is not a classroom program either, where there are few teachers and others come to ask questions. This is a kind of knowledge interaction, ideas sharing and indirect learning.

    I said, it is the fluidity of astronomy concepts, which fires up the imagination of people with (more than) average knowledge, to come up with their own ideas and theories. Nothing wrong in that!! One cannot handle these guys with disdain, You have to have patience if you are a member of such public forums. What is rightfully problematic is their insistence for the complete truthfulness of their proposed theory, even when they are countered logically. Unless and until that is done, you or me or anyone else have no right to tell them get lost.

    Finally a question for you, can you name any such member who fits into your description ?? You can choose to answer this at your own risk, because reaction from him/her would be catastrophic to the extent that you may have to apologize or walk out.
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    I just wish that some scientist had thought of these things...

    Oh, wait, considering these things in detail is exactly what cosmology for the last century is all about.

    If only there were somewhere one could read about these things...
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    If the space-time between galaxies is expanding due to dark energy, will that same energy source cause the rarified atoms in this near empty space, to expand? Or can a single atom anchor its place in space-time and thereby resist dark energy? Would anchoring mean that all matter and all the attractive forces are resistant to dark energy?

    Picture the hypothetical situation, of an atom of hydrogen, being expanded in space-time by dark energy. Its ground state would be expanding with time, such that all electron transitions will not fall as far due to the higher ground state. The net effect is it will appear red shifted at all wavelengths based on earth atom standards. This higher energy ground state, would require energy to sustain with dark energy the source of the atomic ground state floor rising.

    Because dark energy has never been seen in the lab, we don't know if it is real, or if real, what are the limits of its interactions. It could have a combo effect of causing relative motion in space-time and ground state elevation in rarified space, both of which would be endothermic; energy conservation. Both would also cause a red shift.

    What is interesting about this hypothetical ground state elevation effect, due to dark energy, is it would make it easier to form chemicals because the electrons are more out there and easier to share. In other words, the effect would appear to lower the activation energy hill (floor rises), sort of like what enzymes do. This hypothetical extrapolates dark energy to life, nicely. But again, this is hypothetical because we have not seen dark energy in the lab to know what it can and cannot do.
  17. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Incredible. I don't know what else to say.
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    well wisher

    what was that???? (Post # 73)
  19. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    All I can say is that it appears that every once in a while wellwisher has a major flashback from previous hallucinegenic drug use.

    Well it could be current drug use.:shrug:
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    It is not expanding due to dark energy. It is expanding because it is expanding. This expansion is accelerating because of dark energy.

    Two things work against dark energy within an atom: gravity and electromagnetism. Given the supposed strength of dark energy, one can work out the difference between the two.

    I'm not exactly sure about this. I suppose it's possible. If dark energy would increase, it could reach the point where it rips atoms apart. I've never worked out the details.

    We haven't seen the gravity that influences Saturn in the lab. We haven't seen the gravity that will effect me next week in the lab yet, either. Draw what conclusions you will.
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    When someone shows that they don't know the basics yet has the gall to propose "theories" that rely on those basics do they not deserve disdain?

    Unfortunately when presented with such logic they tend to fight a rearguard action, adding caveat after caveat, as opposed to holding their hands up and saying "I'll go back to school". [sup]1[/sup]

    Keep working on that...

    I could name a handful. (But directly naming members is against the rules).

    Yeah, you're wrong again.
    When some one is demonstrably wrong, and demonstrably hasn't bothered [sup]2[/sup] to learn the basics yet still proposes a "radical new theory" I point that out. And neither apologize NOR walk out.

    1 Some, of course, simply plough ahead ignoring any objection.
    2 Or, equally usually and demonstrably, doesn't have the mental acuity to learn.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2014
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    There are plenty of people with scientific training in this forum. We even have one or two astronomers.

    And Dywyddyr is quite right to say that someone with a new idea that challenges the current theories is well advised to understand those theories first. If he doesn't, he obviously risks looking a fool, on the grounds of not knowing what he is talking about - a depressingly familiar phenomenon in all walks of life. Nobody, including scientists, have any obligation to spend time listening to someone who does not understand what he or she is criticising.
  23. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    I have told him that at least 5 time to no avail. Talking to him is like trying to communicate with rutabaga with learning disabilites.

Share This Page