Dark Energy is contained in supra-long wavelengths?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet as the continued evidence shows, it is your babbling, your lies, and your pseudoscientific crap that ends in the fringes....funny that.

Yet my dinner reading surpasses in every way your nonsense as detailed by the professionals.....
Re: Neutron stars/Black holes
mitch@jila.colorado.edu
This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.

Stop being so inanely devious and stupid...it makes you look like a fool. DE is constant over volume or all of spacetime, but variable over time as shown by the acceleration.
And that consistency over all of spacetime, causing it to expand, makes the content of the Universe/spacetime less dense...So we see acceleration. Duh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since most on this forum know you as the "village idiot" I'll treat what you say with the contempt it deserves.

The rantings of a delusional ratbag, as the Professors [at least two of them] inferred in no uncertain terms.

No one said expansion was not always there. No one said that DE was not inferred and relatively recently discovered.
And Your attempt at liars, dishonesty, pretentious crap is fooling no one except your self.
Your earlier inferences with regards to brucep and seeing a doctor and taking medication, certainly applies to yourself obviously. But on your recent tantrums, posturings, lies, and abusively disparaging posts, any attempted cure could now be too late.
I'm telling you this with the best intentions and the hope that if you take my advice, you may alleviate some of your afflictions and obvious mental problems and instability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. In your esteemed opinion what does this signify ? (color quote)

2. If the Universe expands at constant pace (say without acceleration), then also its density will become less.....so from this reduction in density how do you conclude and see acceleration ? None can conclude what you concluded.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That I'm correct.
If you disagree, please offer some reputable link or reference. Your lay persons rejection on accepted mainstream physics is already known and seems to be based entirely on ignorance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?
Let me give you the accepted facts [not mine] based on mainstream accepted data which you do not have access to.
[1] The Universe/spacetime is expanding.
[2] That expansion has been observed to be accelerating.
[3] A component cosmologists have dubbed DE is said to be responsible.
[3] The nature of DE is unknown, although suggestions of the CC of Einstein fame, quintessence, have been raised.

The theory goes like this.......
Gravity due to matter/energy density in the Universe is trying to recollapse it.
As the mass/energy gets less due to expansion, [conservation of mass energy]
The constant effect of the DE component [please check out definition of constant] acting over all spacetime overcomes the diminished density of mass/energy in the universe.

That's the general accepted picture at this time, although not considering the "ringing universe" article I linked to which has as yet to be properly verified according to the scientific method and peer review, another aspect of mainstream you seem to dismiss and abhore due to that overly inflated ego problem you are cursed with, and which blinds you from truth, fact, logic, common sense and reasonability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good, you read something....
All others look ok, except As the mass/energy gets less due to expansion......you should have added 'density' at appropriate place in the line.,

but what is inside the quote ?? How the constant effect of DE component overcomes the diminished density of mass/energy in the universe ?

 

I read plenty of reputable material, all the time, you are just not a part of that I'm sorry to say.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes but as any reasonable person will understand from my post, I have used "density" at least twice in trying to educate you. See the following.
"Gravity due to matter/energy density in the Universe is trying to recollapse it.
As the mass/energy gets less due to expansion, [conservation of mass energy]"
Nice to see you accept some reputable mainstream knowledge though, although its certainly obvious your parents failed to educate you as to the benefits of honesty and the drawbacks in being so cunningly deceitful as you continually are. In that respect they failed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I realise that English is your second language but really, are you not able to figure that out?
Let me state it as I would to a child then.
[1] We observe gravity due to mass/energy density trying to collapse the Universe over smaller denser regions of spacetime.
[2] We observe the Universe expanding over less dense larger regions of spacetime.
[3] Recently we observe that expansion to be accelerating.
[4] It's logical to then conclude that the mass/energy density overall is getting less, while the consistent nature of DE accelerates that expansion.
[5] Whatever DE is [CC or quintessence] it is beyond our understanding at this time, and probably the best description one could give, is a property of the spacetime continuum itself.

Now that is the mainstream accepted answer rajy, so if you have any beef about it, fabricate a scenario [ as you usually do for anything you fail to understand] that you believe more realistic, and print up another paper detailing your thoughts so that we can all have fun again demolishing another of your gems.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bad, very bad for a 70+ year old man to bring parents and family reference in the argument.

 

Is it? My forum etiquette towards you just reflects your own forum etiquette towards me, particularly your lies, and unsupported accusations.
Let me remind you once again that you do not set the standards under which this forum operates. You live by the sword rajesh, you'll die by the sword. And of course as you have stated more than once, all this is an apparent game for you.
Perhaps that also reflects on your upbringing.

 

Is it possible that the pulsating nature of the universe itself is a wave function, but of such long frequencies that we are not able to measure it as a wavelength frequency but can only identify it as a pulsation of indeterminate length?

 

Hmmm, interesting question. I absolutely have no clue and am still trying to get my head around this "pulsating" "ringing" effect.
Still much review to be carried out on these findings, so what you ask may have some light shed on it in time.

 

Hi Write4U,

I emailed your questions to Prof. Ringermacher, who co-authored the paper mentioned by Paddo in posts 17 & 18. It appears you might be onto something

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here's his reply:

 

So tashja what though of this " pilot wave " three dimensionaly ?

Meaning that it comes from everywhere , at the same time.

 

Well structured reply tashja...and thanks to the Professor.
It appears though my use of "pulsation" instead of "oscillation" did not go down to well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I humbly withdraw same.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

These are not "pulsations". We estimated the period of the fundamental oscillation as 7 cycles over 13.8 billion years (7 Hubble-Hertz), a very low frequency, just barely measurable. Our model for the oscillations provides at least 2 interpretations.

 

Thank you Tasha for pursuing this further. It is encouraging to see that my intuitive viewpoint has merit.
I added it to my library.

I didn't know we could actually measure ultra-low frequencies. But it does seem to modify the previous illustration of an oscillating (wave-function) universe. By our measurements the illustration should only show 7 "oscillations" since the BB.

p.s. on after looking back, the illustration is actually correct in the lowest universal frequency of 7Hz.

 

Tashja, I apologize for the incorrect spelling of your name above.

 

Hi river,

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your question. Prof. Goldstein, however, knows a little bit about the topic, so here's his reply:

 

I see this as an unfolding fractal form. It does not come "from" anywhere but is a 3D "outward" unfolding process.

and an amazing zoom, note the wavelike patterns present at all levels, as well as a 3D simulation toward the very end of the zoom.

 

Deleted for duplication