DLTherrien

Very well Said. I agree. While many are scoffed at their discoveries, often their theories have come to fruition and that is why I never look at something and say it is ridiculous. Not out load anyway. Well, maybe Bigfoot but that is another story. Newton himself even left the why's of gravity to the reader so I get it. Take what is known and expand on it. As far as general relativity goes, I have been looking into it more over the last couple days as I said I would and the whole Idea that space is flat still baffles me as it's significance. OK, so I draw two straight and parallel lines and they will go on for eternity unless I run out of room to draw so that is a flat surface. I get it. I can also do the same on a cylinder or even a cone I imagine. but the concept that space is flat eludes me. I could also draw two straight lines around a globe that wouldn't intersect as long as I didn't start at the poles. I am aware of the Einstein theory of how gravity works and have been for some time. But my question is this. If a planet such as the Earth warps space and time due to it's weight as does the sun to use the two obvious examples and I will use common sense in our Newtonian physics to explain my question. If I was to take an actual sheet ( flat universe ) and place a bowling ball in the center then roll around a baseball at the edge of the indentation, gravity is going to quickly force it into the center with the heavier object regardless of the indentation caused by the baseball; not to mention it is actually on a physical plane offering other influences. Now I am aware that Gravity is actually a very weak force and the distance between and the mass of the two objects in question create the amount of attraction. ( Been watching Einsteins theory of relativity videos From Stamford. Actual recordings of the classes. Learning some Calculus. How did you guys make it through those lectures I will never know. ) Anyway, if this is the case, how is it that a mass so massive as the sun over the last 4 billion years or so has not pulled the earth in to it's inferno considering we are a pebble in comparison while offering our own gravity to the mix ( How we discover orbiting planets around distant stars; the wobble caused by the orbiting planets gravity ) and how is it that the Earth can hold onto the moon when it also is affected by the suns gravity? Seems the sun would win that battle especially during eclipse times when the moon is closest to the sun not on the other side of Earth etc. I figure it is because the Earths gravity being so close to the moon not to mention the gravity of the moon itself negates the very distant suns gravity. Is this correct? Will we eventually before the sun runs out of fuel and goes supernova which will fry us anyway be sucked in or will we always stay in the same orbit as long as some outside force does not interfere? Getting back to the flat universe idea, it is obviously not really flat or we would look out and see a line at night so what gives. Could you possibly explain that a little more. I am unable to find any real get to the point explanations of what that means. What bugs me is if large masses warp space like the bowling ball/sheet example, what happens to the space above the mass? It must come down to fill the space where the mass used to be when and if it ever was not warping space; like the sudden rush of air into a two litter bottle after you suck all the air out and then allow the opening to be clear again. Surely space has the same effect. If I was to suddenly remove the sun, the space would be completely empty for a microsecond or two I assume which would require it to be filled. Space can not be truly empty or we would have nothing and is why the two litter bottle collapses in on itself when the air is sucked out trying to fill the void. Does this not apply to space? If it does, it seems to me that space must be forever with no end or the constant vanishing of masses caused by things such as black holes eating entire suns would cause the universe to be contracting like the soda bottle trying to fill the voids not expanding faster and faster. A final question. If things just float in space we'll say out in the far distant emptiness with the to the lack of any opposing gravity, how is it that a large mass warps anything? If there are no forces on it, it should not go anywhere or cause any disturbance; up, down left, right. This is Newtons law and I assume still applies in space. Perhaps this is that whole dark matter thing being discussed. It must be there and have some sort of gravity and mass otherwise there would be nothing to warp. Thanks. I know I ask a lot but I am learning much here in ways my other sources do not offer.

Thank you for the link @studiot I will most definitely check that out. This is why I finally came here. I grow weary of what is readily available online. Been there done that. I am a knowledge junky.

Thanks. I am going to look into that more and learn of what you say. That opens some doors to isolate my studies. Thank you. String theory - in spite of its name - is actually only a hypothesis... So was General Relativity at one time. We'll see. Einstein never got a Nobel Prize for it because at the time it was considered to far fetched even after it was proven. I am rooting for those dedicated to figuring it all out. Without them we would stall. I will continue to monitor all ideas including the we are a hologram idea. Being a computer programmer who understands code, who knows. We are trying to create Quantum computers. Is that the next step in understanding the Quantum word in more detail? Once that happens, the advances those devices could offer could could exponentially explode to a degree what we know now is placed in the history books,. That is how my mind works. Looking back on our discoveries, all have once been thought of as ridiculous by those who "knew" they were right.

This I already know and is why I am now here. I am open for suggestions. If you were in my shoes, what would you do to find a good starting point that would guide me in the right direction. Only sources I have are the web. Which sources should I trust? I review over and over again what I have learned and I come up with the same questions every time. With so many varying opinions by so many, who do I listen to? Who is correct for sure? It seems there is no one other than what has been agreed upon. Other than that, the study is a murky place that even the "Experts" are at a loss to explain. String theory is a good example. "There must be a way to make it all work together". Without a deeper understanding of the things we still don't understand, how will we ever know unless we look outside of the box we have placed ourselves in? Sometimes I wish I just watched football. Too late. Once you begin to think of this stuff, how do you stop?

No reason to apologize. I appreciate your feedback and that is exactly what I was looking for. "there are only locally applicable laws." you mean the Newtonian physics is also applied to we'll say planets, stars and any other mass or is earth somehow special where they only apply here? That is obviously not true. Can it not be that this missing energy escapes this boundary, the planet and ends up in space? I understand general relativity is a proven science. Go Einstein but is that all? Really? Just because it is proven does not mean that is all. In some of my studies there is a quote from a speaker that I thought made a lot of sense and applies to everything we think we know. Something like this. "Man swore we would never be able to fly as he watched a bird soar through the sky" I listen to professionals all the time in videos in all related fields and the thing that keeps me thinking is how often I hear what they say and while most makes sense, there always comes a time where they begin to reach and try and solidify answers even they are not certain of. There will be more answers and also more questions. 1000 years from now will those folks say. "Calculus LOL What a bunch of idiots". That was just math made to convince them they were right. Newton needed something to aid him in understanding I believe it was the planets orbiting and gravity etc. So he created or stole this new math from the other guy to explain it. Perhaps in the future they will be somewhat correct. It seems to me that while I understand we need the math to figure out calculations, is it also what limits us from discovering beyond what we are convinced is true? Thanks again. - Darren PS: I am going to register for your site. More to learn. Thanks.

Is dark energy the root of dark matter I am not a scientist of any type but I am captivated by the fields and my mind is always trying to think of the unknowns of science from Space-time to Quantum Physics and there are a number of things that bother me so I have decided to reach out today with one idea I have however far fetched it might be and see what kind of responses I get in hopes to broaden my understanding of what is known and possibly not understood. I for one have an issue with the big bang theory and have a hard time believing that billions of galaxies, stars etc. came from an atom sized explosion just to clear that up from the start although I am agnostic in the belief regardless of the evidence. Who knows. To get to the point today, I have been thinking about Dark Energy which at this time is really just a placeholder name for the unknown force supposedly pushing our universe apart at an increasing rate. I have been reading up on energy and this is what has me thinking. There is non-conservative energy we get from an explosion. "Now the amount of energy used in a non-conservative way in the explosion, is the difference between the amount of energy released in the explosion and the total kinetic energy of the exploded pieces" I couldn't say this better without retyping so I just copied it from another site to be honest. My question is this. Where does this non-conservative energy go? It doesn't just vanish out of existence I am assuming so surely it is stored somewhere which could mean at a Quantum level perhaps we have not discovered yet, energy at this level could have mass. Now if this is possible which it very well could be, could it also be possible that this mass can only take up so much space which in our basic idea of physics makes sense. Before I continue I cannot do the math although I really wish I could so if you can explain how wrong I am, do not do it using Calculus because it will be wasted on me. If you feel like taking the time to write it and explain it though I am all ears. If I am correct in theory anyway this is my assumption. We know that during an explosion there is kinetic energy that is transferred to things like heat and that can be measured and accounted for because we know what it is and how to detect it. What about the energy that is "lost" in a non-conservative way? The universe is made up of billions and billions of galaxies which in turn have billions and billions of stars (as far as time can show us anyway due to the speed of light) which we know go supernova which is an explosion; not to mention all the other extremely destructive forces available from the largest to the smallest atomic collisions in a gas cloud. What if this Dark energy is really a conglomeration of all this lost energy that is not accounted for but still exists and if it can have mass or gather mass, how do we know this mass does not compute to our also unknown dark matter created by the overcrowding of this dark energy or non-conservative energy at the Quantum level? If the universe was created by this big bang, it as we all know started from an unknown beginning from an unknown source there obviously was something there before the big bang. Also, the universe is expanding but not at a speed as fast as light which it would be if I am correct if there was no friction, also a non-conservative force, slowing it down even at the beginning so there must have been this "Dark Matter" at the beginning of the big bang which caused and still is causing this friction somewhere beyond our horizon. Where did it come from? No one knows but what if? Space is a vacuum with no air but there is obviously some unseen mass there as we are theorizing due to observations. Could this be it and could this "Dark Energy" converting to "Dark Matter" not actually using gravity to expand the universe but instead expanding like a balloon as a limited space is filed more and more with this seemingly infinite amount of created mass that has no where to go? Will the balloon eventually burst and start this all over again with another "Big Bang" or pop creating an even larger "Infinite" universe for the next life forms to study? As all theories and answers go, this, even if I was correct raises other questions. How can infinity have limited space and does infinity actually have a boundary making it not infinite after all? What's on the other side? Space. I Am not the first I know to think of that but still.... huh? My head hurts thinking of this stuff but it will never stop. Sorry if I bored you but I am just a thinker not a scientist. I did the best I could to try and explain my thoughts. - Darren