Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hello Pulchra, of course the next question to ask would be "why" is the energy doing the particular work that it is doing (unless you believe that "energy" is a being itself, with both a mind and and will of its own)?
Perhaps figuring out where energy originated would answer the secondary questions as well(?)
--David
Dark matter is a theory to explain that the universe is still expanding but with everything we know about physics it shouldnt be. So dark matter that we cant see, feel, or perceive or detect in any way was invented. Maybe it could be the creative power of God causing the universe to continue expanding. Dark matter is just the name given to it.
My older theory was that when all energy was gathered in just one lump sort of, it collapsed under it`s on weight and spread out like an explosion almost, but to have a final amount of something would be arbetrary in the universe, it has to be infinite amounts of it, so the theory people have that everything`s gonna be dark and empty one day, is most likely wrong, energy that everything consists of is probably infinite, but where does it come from then? Well, thats the big questions really, where does the thing everything consists of come from really, is it like a hole from another dimention or universe just spewing out infinite amounts of it?
is it like a hole from another dimention or universe just spewing out infinite amounts of it?
Being a Christian, I have an idea or two about how (and why) the universe came into existence, why energy does what it does, etc. If you'd care to hear my POV sometime, just let me know.Yes, I'm thinking
Is it worth my while? You have already chosen to ignore my major criticism and insist upon calling your wooly piece of handwaving a theory.hehe be my guest to point out the flaws
Do you sometimes feel you were headed for a lecture on the role of Cepheid variables in cosmology and found yourself instead in a kindergarten class?You explain even less. Don't complain. Hand waving is not an explanation.
With comments like this mainstream cosmology has nothing to fear about a paradigm change.There`s one flaw with math itself, it has infinite decimals after comma, so it`s not accurate
I am somewhere in the valley when it comes to this topic:Is it worth my while? You have already chosen to ignore my major criticism and insist upon calling your wooly piece of handwaving a theory.
Do you sometimes feel you were headed for a lecture on the role of Cepheid variables in cosmology and found yourself instead in a kindergarten class?
Energy doesn't have independent existence, it's a property of stuff. When people talk about 'pure' energy, they usually mean electromagnetic radiation (heat, light, etc).Thats the big question where it came from, but after my own theory it collapses of it`s own weight, people don`t really explain how energy has the ability to do things, so I thought perhaps it collapsed on under it`s own weigth and spread out and therefore have the power to make things move
The word is not offensive. It is simply wrong in the context in which it was used by @Pulchra . Even as someone one or two steps below 'junior scientist' level, I know enough to recognise incorrect terminology when it is used. I am also perceptive enough to recognise the snide attempt at an insult on your part. If I valued your opinion on the matter that might offend me. Fortunately, that's not a problem.First, I do not find your use of the word "theory" offensive or grammatically incorrect but it could be offensive to a junior scientist;
Yes, but they don`t explain how energy has the ability to do work, I think it`s from the collapse itself, it forces it out so it does the work
The 'accelerated' expansion of the universe is not directly measured, it is a speculation based on the observation that more distant objects appear to be receding at a higher speed
But it *is* directly measured. It is measured by comparing the distance and recession speeds of various exploding stars. You would do the same to measure the acceleration of a car speeding away from you -- measure it externally.
We would measure acceleration as CHANGE in speed over time
By this analogy- we have a snapshot of several cars receding from us on the highway- we can use doppler shift to detect that the more distant cars are moving more quickly- that's all- that does not mean they are accelerating
We don't have a large enough time-lapse to directly and accurately measure change in velocity - that is only indirectly assumed from our 'snapshot'
No; a uniform expansion of space would give that result. The acceleration is evidence by the velocities of objects at greater distance being greater than that produced by uniform expansion. They've checked it very carefully.The 'accelerated' expansion of the universe is not directly measured, it is a speculation based on the observation that more distant objects appear to be receding at a higher speed
Dark energy is just a name for the cause of the acceleration. The acceleration has been measured.And so dark energy is not directly measured either- just a mathematical patch- like Einstein's cosmological constant- to fill in the apparent gap in the model
No; a uniform expansion of space would give that result. The acceleration is evidence by the velocities of objects at greater distance being greater than that produced by uniform expansion.
Dark energy is just a name for the cause of the acceleration. The acceleration has been measured.
Strictly speaking, neither the acceleration nor the velocity of the expansion are measured directly. The original measurement was the red-shift, effectively a Doppler effect. A confirmation of acceleration was obtained from the cosmic microwave background baryon acoustic oscillations which give a measure of the early rate of expansion (slower than measured today). The density of galaxy clusters and gravitational waves also contribute to measurements of the acceleration.in both cases we are talking about measurements of velocity, not acceleration
...
not directly, as you noted above- objects appear to be receding more quickly- and yes, even more quickly than might be expected through uniform expansion- but these are still just differences in velocities between objects not over time for an individual object, used to assume acceleration. it's not a direct observation of change of velocity over time- the effects are just too small to measure directly- but maybe in a decade or so...
Strictly speaking, neither the acceleration nor the velocity of the expansion are measured directly. The original measurement was the red-shift, effectively a Doppler effect. A confirmation of acceleration was obtained from the cosmic microwave background baryon acoustic oscillations which give a measure of the early rate of expansion (slower than measured today). The density of galaxy clusters and gravitational waves also contribute to measurements of the acceleration.
If you have an alternative explanation that better explains these multiple lines of independent evidence all suggesting acceleration,
I'd be interested to hear it. Given that cosmological researchers and theorists were expecting to find a deceleration of the expansion, the original results were subject to very detailed scrutiny, and subsequent discoveries have supported them.
You'll forgive me if I accept the conclusion of the people who've spent their careers doing this research over some guy on the internet
@FrumiousBandersnatch is not guilty of using an Argument from Authority. You, however, are guilty of misunderstanding the nature of that fallacy, or - even worse - are cynically ignoring its character in an attempt to discredit Frumious through cheap rhetoric.Don't worry I forgive you! argument from authority is one of the most common fallacies and we have all been guilty of it at some point.
@FrumiousBandersnatch is not guilty of using an Argument from Authority. You, however, are guilty of misunderstanding the nature of that fallacy, or - even worse - are cynically ignoring its character in an attempt to discredit Frumious through cheap rhetoric.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?