Dark Energy

[ydoaPs]

WARNING: THIS IS NOT FACT. I AM UNABLE TO PHYSICALLY TEST IT.

 

Dark energy doen't exist. It is an illusion caused by relitivity. Objects aren't just moving farther apart, spacetime is expanding. When time expands it runs faster (as observed by an observer in contracted time, say on a planet). The expansion continues so, to us, the time of an observer in space with minimal gravity is always going faster. To the said observer, the expansion of the universe is slowing down due to gravity. To us, it is speeding up because we live in "slower time" and thiers is always speeding up. If you were a few kilometers from a black hole's event horizon, then the expansion would seem infinite.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What?

 

 

(and if you do explain it, please provide proof!)

[Sayonara]

(and if you do explain it, please provide proof!)

 

The only thing he has to explain is what the expansion of the universe has to do with dark energy, seeing as there's no obvious connection between the thread title and content.

[ydoaPs]

dark energy is the force that makes the universe expand einstien called it the cosmological constant

[Sayonara]

So are you saying that relativity is wrong or right?

[ydoaPs]

I am saying that it is right. the cosmological constant/ dark energy doesn't exist

[ydoaPs]

most people don't seem to understand that gravity cantracts time too. and then u get the people that are like "time is the interval between two events, how can it be contracted." then u have the people that want proof (there is nothing to prove; it is proven that gravity contracts time and that contracted time runs slower relatively than noncontracted time). It is just using your brain and thinking. if u open your mind to new ideas and think about it, then it makes sense; if u automatically reject anything new or contradictory to what u have learned, then u wont learn anymore.

[chuman]

cosmological contant doesn't exist, it was just something eistien thought of because he thinks the universe is static, but his calculations showed that it wasn't therefore producing the comological constant so to match everything

[ydoaPs]

but, scientist now think there is one. maybe u should read more

[JaKiri]

there is nothing to prove; it is proven that gravity contracts time and that contracted time runs slower relatively than noncontracted time

 

I'd suggest you discover a bit more about the scientific method. It's not just thinking of KERAZZY! postulates then going where they take us. There's testing, and hypotheses, and statistical significance. You saying 'There is nothing to prove!' is both stupid in and out of context, as it is entirely reasonable to expect the default perspective of any given person to be what they experience.

 

but, scientist now think there is one. maybe u should read more

 

Cosmology is a big bubbling pot of speculation at the moment. As in your dealings with string 'theory', try to keep this in mind.

[ydoaPs]

Did Einstien test? no, that was done mostly after his death. It's not crazy, it is a logical use of relativity on a proven fact.

[JaKiri]

Did Einstien test? no, that was done mostly after his death. It's not crazy, it is a logical use of relativity on a proven fact.

 

The cosmological constant was a postulate before it was tested. Even if they're constructed from 'first principles' (as if such a thing existed; a Schroedinger wave equation is a good example of this, however) it still has to be validated by experiment.

 

Furthermore, given that the cosmological constant was rejected soon after it was suggested (Einstein called it his biggest mistake, in fact), I doubt it could have had the status of 'proven fact' either before or after Einstein.

 

Only recently is it coming back into vogue, but as I said, cosmology has the capability to be really all over the place.

[ydoaPs]

What Einstien did was mental experiments. i suggest u do your own.

use these facts:

spacetime is expanding

gravity contracts spacetime

contracted time runs relatively slower than time that isn't contracted

different observers percieve the same event defferently

imagine yourself as two observers. one on a planet and one in the space between two clusters of galaxies. see what happens

[JaKiri]

What Einstien did was mental experiments. i suggest u do your own.

 

Thought experiments only go so far.

 

'Scientific 'fact' is based on experiment is based on experiment' is possibly the least controversial thing ever said on this forum, so stop arguing with it.

[ydoaPs]

u arn't even going to consider it are you? ok, actual experimentation. how can i experiment it?

[JaKiri]

u arn't even going to consider it are you? ok, actual experimentation. how can i experiment it?

 

You appear to have missed that this isn't about the Cosmological Constant. I'm going to let people who actually work in that area deal with determining its correctness.

 

This is about how you have a tendency to state postulates as fact.

[ydoaPs]

how can i prove it to be fact when it is beyond practical experimentaion? I can see that you wont even consider it until i prove it, so what do you want me to do, place a telescope in orbit around a black hole and see how fast the universe is expanding from that reference frame and compare it to what i would find here?

[JaKiri]

how can i prove it to be fact when it is beyond practical experimentaion? I can see that you wont even consider it until i prove it, so what do you want me to do, place a telescope in orbit around a black hole and see how fast the universe is expanding from that reference frame and compare it to what i would find here?

 

R>C>P

 

For the love of god, I just SAID that I wasn't interested in the Cosmological Constant; I KNOW that it is highly unlikely that you'll prove the existance of the CC, or M-Theory, or anything else, but that doesn't mean you should state it as fact ALL THE TIME when it blatently ISN'T.

[ydoaPs]

so, u r mad bcuz i didn't put "WARNING: THIS CAN'T BE PROVEN" at the top of the post?

[JaKiri]

so, u r mad bcuz i didn't put "WARNING: THIS CAN'T BE PROVEN" at the top of the post?

 

You're stating postulate as fact.

 

Things which can't be tested, or proven, or whatever word you wish to use aren't science.

[ydoaPs]

I was incorrect in my last statement. I can prove it. I just don't have enough money or time. Even if I had enough money, I, along with you and several generations to come, will have been long dead by the time the results come in.

[JaKiri]

I was incorrect in my last statement. I can prove it. I just don't have enough money or time. Even if I had enough money, I, along with you and several generations to come, will have been long dead by the time the results come in.

 

And round we come again.

 

You can't definitely prove it because it ISN'T definitely true.

 

Capiche?

[ydoaPs]

do you want me to get some cosmologist to do a lot of math just for you to consider the idea?

[JaKiri]

do you want me to get some cosmologist to do a lot of math just for you to consider the idea?

 

THIS ISN'T A DIFFICULT IDEA TO UNDERSTAND

 

The cosmological constant may or may not exist. The chance of it existing isn't 1, however, so it's utterly invalid to state it as fact, as you have done.

 

It may be fact, it may not be fact. That is immaterial to this discussion.

 

Please reread my posts and quote me where I said anything about the cosmological constant not existing.

[ydoaPs]

I didn't say "hey, this is scientific law: cosmologists are wrong"

I just presented a perfectly logical and probably true idea that was attained the same way the theory of relativity was.