David Levy

Thanks O.K – as long as we don't use the name of the scientist which develop this formula. For example, if Einstein has deleted the constant from his formula, then it is O.K. to add this cosmologic constant as long as we do not connect Einstein name to the updated formula. Thanks I would like to ask you the following hypothetical question: Let's assume that we are at a stage that the theory of the dark energy had not yet been emerging. Under this condition, let's assume that I'm so cleaver that I found the great idea of the Dark energy. I will introduce at this forum all the current scientific available info on the dark energy and highlight that 74% from all the mass in the universe must be dark energy. The question is – What might be the feedback from this forum with regards to my great idea? Well, let me guess; I assume that I will be requested to offer some evidences for the existence of this dark energy. However, we all know that there is no evidence at all. Not even 0.001%. So, I assume that my great idea will be moved automatically to trash. (I'm not even consider an option for speculation) So, why there is no one roll to everybody? If you trash it as my personal idea, than you might consider similar approach even if it comes from the elite of our scientists. Please advice.

Sure. It is quite normal to change theory, but it is not accepted to change formulas. Hence, t is perfectly O.K. to change any current irrelevant theory, but it is forbidden to make any change in Einstein GR formula. In any case, you shouldn't make a change in this GR just in order to prove some other theory. Sorry, this is a severe mistake. No one has the authority to set even a bit of change in Einstein formula - whatever it is. If there is new evidence, then you need to develop new theory. If you fail to support this new theory by any current knowledge, or formulas, then you should reconsider your theory. It's better for you to abandon this unrealistic theory and look for better alternative. There is no confirmation for dark energy. It had been pop up in order to close the gap between the current mainstream theory and the new evidence (High acceleration of far end galaxies). No one has the authority to make any change in Einstein GR just in order to meet this unrealistic theory. In one hand it is stated by the science that: "Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see. Dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the Universe." While in the other hand it is stated: "It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. Einstein formula for GR (as is from 1920) can't give any justification for Dark energy. It is a severe mistake to change this formula just in order to meet our needs, and it is a supper arrogant approach to use Einstein name after this significant change. Thanks. In this occasion you are correct. Why? You have just claimed that: " It is not as if Einstein was a prophet. He was wrong about the expanding universe and he was wrong about other things as well." So how can we thrust someone which is making so many mistakes (based on your message?) Thanks I do appreciate that we agree that "it is expected that the science will look for other theories to prove the concept for dark energy or dark mass." Why? You have just informed that you agree with me and I'm correct…

What do you think about Einstein? Is there any chance that his knowledge in his GR theory is quite minimal? Do you think that he is a foolish scientist? Einstein by himself claimed that this constant is the biggest mistake of his life. So, how can we add it back to his formula? I doמ't have the tools to address your following message: ""Removing scalar constant is simply setting it to 1.0. Multiplication by 1.0 will give the same formula as without it" But what do you consider should be Einstein reply if he was living today? Do you think that he will agree with you? If so, why did he claim that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life?

Agree Disagree. In the last update of his theory of GR (starting 1920), Einstein had removed the Cosmological constant. Actually, at his time, no one really even consider the idea of having dark energy or dark mass. If the science wants to prove the existence of dark mass, then a different formula is needed. Further your example for Newton. We all know, that currently the science consider that it doesn't fit to what we see in spiral galaxy. Hence, technically, the science can add some constant to his law and reclaim that it suddenly works O.K for spiral galaxy. Would you agree for that? Is it ethical? Therefore, it is forbidden to set any change in a formula which had been developed by a scientist and still call it under his name. If the science needs to make a change in the GR (By adding back the cosmological constant), then it is needed to eliminate Einstein name from the updated GR. However, it is expected that the science will look for other theories to prove the concept for dark energy or dark mass.

Let's set it clear: "In 1917, Einstein was applying his new theory of general relativity to the structure of space and time." "But Einstein, like all scientists at that time, did not know that the universe was expanding. He found that his equations didn't quite work for a static universe, so he threw in a hypothetical repulsive force that would fix the problem by balancing things out, an extra part that he called the "cosmological constant." "Then, in the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble, using a type of star called a Cepheid variable as a "standard candle" to measure distances to other galaxies, discovered that the universe was expanding." "Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the "biggest blunder of his life," according to his fellow physicist George Gamow." Hence, Einstein added the cosmological constant to his general relativity theory before 1920, as it was expecting that the Universe is static. However, by 1920, when it was discovered that the Universe is expanding, Einstein had eliminated this constant from his Theory. Therefore, from 1920 Einstein didn't use this constant any more in his theory. He even called the idea of adding the constant (before 1920) as the biggest mistake of his life. It is quite normal that scientist can adjust his theory during his life time. However, once it had been set, we shouldn't change it forever! Even if Einstein was wrong at the beginning about the expanding universe by 1917, and he was wrong about other things as well, we must keep his last adjustment of the Theory starting 1920. Hence, it is forbidden to add back a non-zero cosmological constant to his theory (Which was considered as hypothetical repulsive force). If you think that he is wrong, than please don't call it Einstein theory anymore! Actually, if you think that Einstein was wrong, you shouldn't use his theory at all. In this case, other alternative are needed to support our theories. You mislead yourself by using a wrong Theory of Einstein and you mislead us by calling it "Einstien theory".

Why dark energy is needed? By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php "Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see. Dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the Universe." By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php "When the word first got out that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, many astronomers questioned the results. They felt that the observations must be wrong, or the interpretation must be flawed. The whole concept was so difficult to believe because it requires significant changes in our understanding of the way the universe works Astronomers found that the universe is moving faster today than it was a billion years ago, meaning something must be working to speed it up. This result seems crazy because gravity always pulls and slows it never pushes. Yet some force appears to be pushing the universe apart. Astronomers, concluding that we just don't know what this force is, have attributed it to a mysterious dark energy" So, what is dark energy? By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php "Well, the simple answer is that we don't know. It seems to contradict many of our understandings about the way the universe works. Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, teaches us that matter and energy are interchangeable, Dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe. It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is" Dark energy Is it real? By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php "It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is." Dark energy as Einstein's cosmological constant. By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-did_einstein_predict.php "In 1917, Einstein was applying his new theory of general relativity to the structure of space and time. General relativity says that mass affects the shape of space and the flow of time. Gravity results because space is warped by mass. The greater the mass, the greater the warp Today astronomers refer to one theory of dark energy as Einstein's cosmological constant. The theory says that dark energy has been steady and constant throughout time and will remain that way" What was Einstein conclusion about the cosmological constant? By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-did_einstein_predict.php "Then, in the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble, using a type of star called a Cepheid variable as a "standard candle" to measure distances to other galaxies, discovered that the universe was expanding. The idea of the expanding universe revolutionized astronomy. If the universe was expanding, it must at one time have been smaller. That concept led to the Big Bang theory, that the universe began as a tiny point that suddenly and swiftly expanded to create everything we know today. Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the "biggest blunder of his life," according to his fellow physicist George Gamow. If the cosmological constant is correct, Einstein will once again have been proven right about something even he thought was a mistake." My personal conclusions about the Dark energy - Well, Einstein claimed that the cosmological constant is the biggest mistake of his life. Therefore, it is forbidden to use it in his theory of general relativity. And if we do so, we shouldn't call it Einstein' theory anymore! -It sounds rather strange for me that some sight of the waves could be a proof for 74% of the universe. Please remember: " It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean." -It is claimed that: "Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see".I disagree with this statement. We should say: Most of the universe seems to contradict with our current theories. Therefore, the science should look for better alternative theories for what we see. Dark energy and dark matter is needed to close the gap between our current theories and what we see. Hence, Dark energy and dark matter might not be needed if we can find a real explanation for what we see. I would mostly appreciate to get your feedback.

Why do you prefer to force the universe to the current theory, instead of the other way? Our dear Newton gave us full set of tools to understand the basic elements of spiral galaxy. It is so simple and clear. You don't need to be scientist to understand those basic elements. Somehow it seems that you shouldn't be a scientist in order to accept Newton law. There is a chance that if Newton could wake up and see what the science claims about his law, he would properly die on the spot.

It is just amazing. You don't claim that there is an error in this article. You don't claim that those tiny stars are located between the spiral arms. I'm quite sure that you have the ability to understand the real meaning of this article which you have just pointed. But unfortunately, you still prefer to use your unrealistic mathematical calculation. Why do you prefer mathematical theory over real evidence? Why?

Just a brief highlight The Sun is located at the edge of the spiral arm. Let's assume that just 100 Ly away from us and we are out of the arm. However, Some of those tiny stars are located at the outer side of the Halo. Let's assume that it is 100,000 Ly from our location. So, Gemini Observatory have the the technology to detect those tiny stars at 100,000Ly but so far it couldn't detect tiny stars nearby our sun (only 100 Ly away). So please, don't confuse yourself with dim stars. There are no stars between the arms!

Thanks Mordred, I'm existed! It is great discovery, which is fully aligned with my expectation. Please be aware that those stars aren't located between the spiral arms All of them had been found at the third section of milky way – the Hallo. "The finding suggests that a substantial number of low-luminosity globular clusters must have existed in the halo when the Milky Way was younger, but most of them might have evaporated due to internal dynamical processes." "“This cluster is faint, very faint, and truly in the suburbs of our Milky Way" "Seven out of 150 known Milky Way globular clusters are comparably faint but none are located as far out toward the edge of the Milky Way." Please see my explanation in pg. 36. "You have to understand correctly the structure of spiral galaxy. In each structure, there are different forces. So, the spiral galaxy is divided into three main sections. -spiral arms section -Center; The area between the supper massive black hole to the first Inwards ring of the spiral arms.(Bulge) -Outwards – The aria from the far end of the spiral arms and outwards." (Halo) So, this proves the following: The science has today the technology to discover tiny stars. However, with this advanced technology, so far we couldn't detect nearby tiny stars between the arms of spiral galaxy. If there were, Gemini Observatory would have already detected them. This could be used as one more evidence that there are no stars between the spiral arms.

Applause!

What do you mean??? What is the difference between: I don't see it, or I don't see it individually If you don't see the difference, then you should consider apology. I'm ready to accept it individually.

Please see the following message: I hope that you do not claim that another one is lying.

The real meaning of dim is: Yes, we know that the stars are there, but sorry, we can't see them. This is my personal understanding.

You claim that we can see the stars between the spiral arms, while in the article it is stated that the stars are dim. Hence, it is difficult/impossible to see them. I have nothing to add. There is a possibility that someone is lying, but it isn't me. The articles are quite clear. Sorry that you have missed the point. However, I do appreciate your knowledge and support and I have no intention to argue with you. Please don't take it personally.

Thanks Strange As you can verify, there is not even one article which confirms a visual evidence of star between the spiral arms. This is quite interesting. How could it be? We can't just hide behind the Idea that stars tend to be dimmer outside the spiral arm ( "There are many stars that are also in-between the spiral arms, but they tend to be the dimmer stars"). If we assume that it takes a star about million years to get out the arm, than we must see many sun like stars outside the arm. As I have already stated, the age of the Sun is several billions year and it is currently located at the edge of the arm. So, based on this approach, there is a high possibility that it just entered the arm or should go soon out the arm. The sun is just one example, there are many sun like stars which theoretically should be out the arm at that moment. somehow, we can't see them. There must be a real resone for that. Again – I don't agree with the idea that in all the million over billion spiral galaxies in the universe there are stars between the arms, but suddenly all of them are dimmer stars. Hence, let's agree that we disagree on this issue. Hello Imatfaal Let me start by highlight my appreciation to the great support and valuable answers that I get. With regards to my idea that there are no stars between the spiral arm; I have offered several evidences. Never the less, all of those evidences had been rejected because further calculation and investigation is needed, and I have no time or ability to set it. Therefore, there is no need to continue the discussion about this issue at this phase.

Theoretically idea Wth regards to Dark Mass; Let's assume that the DM has purely evenly distribution in the Universe. Under this assumption, do you agree that its gravity influence should be Zero?

O.K. The Sun is at the edge of the arm. Based on your reply, It could had been out of the arm in the past, or it should be out of the arm in the future. In the same token, near the Sun there are several stars at slightly different velocities (a few tens of km/s) and at different directions. Therefore, some of them could potentially move outside the arm, or just had been entered the arm. Hence, it is expected to see at least few stars outside the arm in the nearby space. However, there are no stars outside the arm near the Sun. Why? As you have already verified, all the stars keeps their average orbits around the galactic centre at 230 km/s. This proves that somehow there is a power which keeps them in the arm. Therefore, it is expected that all the nearby stars must adjust their random velocities. Hence, any star which is moving to the edge of the arm must reverse its direction and come back. There is a proof for that. It is Sirius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius "the Sirius system is one of Earth's near neighbors. Sirius is gradually moving closer to the Solar System" "Sirius, known in ancient Egypt as Sopdet (Greek: Σῶθις Sothis), is recorded in the earliest astronomical records" During this long time it had changed its color several times: (Red, Blue, white..) "However, not all ancient observers saw Sirius as red. The 1st century AD poet Marcus Manilius described it as "sea-blue", as did the 4th century Avienus.[75] It is the standard star for the color white in ancient China, and multiple records from the 2nd century BC up to the 7th century AD all describe Sirius as white in hue." This color change is an evidence that the star is adjusting its direction. In the past it was moving away from the sun and now it is moving closer to the sun. In the future it will reverse again its direction.(again and again). This shows that stars in spiral arms are not just moving randomly. Somehow, there is a power which must keep them in the loop.

OK. Your turn to provide some evidence that there are no stars between the arms. And note that neither "I don't believe it"nor "it doesn't look like it" count as evidence. Sorry, you didn't provide even one real evidence in all the articles which you have offered. It is just theoretical overview that there are stars between the arms. You have promised that there is a real observation for this issue. I'm still waiting for this one real observation. However, I have already provided real evidence that there are no stars between the arms. Please see again the random velocities of stars near the Sun – pg 15. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110/MilkyWay.pdf Without Newton gravity force, there is no real power which should keep them in the arm. Therefore, those stars should continue with these random vector velocities. In this case, after few million years most of the stars should be out of the arm, and in different directions! Therefore, by definition, those stars must set fairly random orbits around the center of the galaxy. However, in pg. 16, it is stated that in the spiral arm section all stars move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits, while in the Halo and bulge the stars move in fairly random orbits. Hence, This is a real proof! Actually our Sun age is a few billion years. Therefore, based on the science approach, it was expected that it should be out of the arm long time ago. So how could it be that we are still in the arm???

Thanks Mordred. I'm not sure that I have fully understood your answer. In one hand you claim that: While in the other hand you calim: How could it be? You have to decide where the majority of the dark mass is located. If it is in the Hallo, then it is expected that the significant mass influence will be in the Hallo of the spiral galaxy. If you prefer a significant influence along the disc, than you have to set the DM in the disk. However, in order to meet the rotation curve, I had an impression, that the dark mass should be in the center of the galaxy. So please advice where shall we set the majority of the DM? Actually, why the DM isn't evenly distributed in the galaxy, in the Universe or even in the solar system? Hence, theoretically, for each kg of visible mass, there are few kg of DM. Therefore, we should have DM also in the solar system. If so, why it has no influence in our system? Please also remember that in the spiral arm section all stars move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits, while in the Halo and bulge the stars move in fairly random orbits. Do you still estimate that the DM is responsible for it? If so, please explain how it could have different influence on each galaxy section. Please feel free to locate the DM at any location which you like. But somehow we must explain whatever we see.

Thanks! I do appreciate your answer. So, Dark matter should be the answer to the evidence. However, if it is dark matter, it should have the same effect in each section of the spiral galaxy. Never the less, this isn't the case. In the spiral arm section all stars move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits. While in the Halo and bulge the stars move in fairly random orbits So, how could it be that we see different orbits cycles at each spiral galaxy section? Hence, if Newton law isn't relevant, how can we explain this issue?

Well, it is clear that that you have decided to ignore my question. You are supplying professional peer reviewed references, to avoid evidence which contradicts the current theory. It is not my unsupported model. It is evidence in an article which you have pointed out! Why do you prefer to fit the universe to your theories instead of the other way? Please, try to give a direct answer to my simple question. Please…

No! Why is it so difficult for you to reply: agree or disagree? I have asked a simple question: How the science can justify the evidence which we see in pg 15 and 16? Why are you using formulas in order to avoid direct answer? Somehow, we must prove what we see. We shouldn't fit the universe to our theories; We must fit our theories to the universe! So would you kindly explain how those formulas, D.M., Density wave or any other theory fits to what we see in pg. 15 and 16? Later on we will discuss about all the other subjects.

Before digging in the dark matter issue, and based on the diagram in pg. 15 and 16; Please let me know if you agree or disagree with the following statements: -The gravity force in the spiral arm section should be maximal due to the evidence that all stars move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits. (Agree or disagree) - The gravity force in the Halo and bulge is minimal as the stars move in fairly random orbits (Agree or disagree) - The density wave theory and the dark matter do not give real explanation for this phenomenon. (Agree or disagree) If you disagree, please explain why.

I will cover those issues later on. So, would you kindly explain how the Densitay wave theory covers the evidence in pg. 15 and 16? See: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110/MilkyWay.pdf This isn't fine tuning. This is a huge gap! This totally contradicts the observation as we see in pg. 15 and 16. If that was correct than the gravity force in the spiral arm section should be lower than the gravity force in the bulge section. This by itself should lead to fairly random orbits in the spiral arm section. However, that isn't the case. Therefore, the gravity force in the spiral section must be much stronger than the bulge! Somehow, you should explain this phenomenon. Please - don't call it fine tuning.