What if Dark Energy is pushing?

[rigney]

Someone much smarter than me will have to come along later with ultimate answers, but I believe this theory is right on target. What if the stuff between our material Galaxies and throughout the universe is actually what we refer to as, dark matter and to includes anti matter, dark energy and anti energy? What if this "repulsive force" is being generated from a growing central point and whipping the universe into a hyper-drive? I know, such nonsense gives no established credence for why our universe should be speeding up, but that's exactly the case for my thoughts. If the material we speculate as halos around galaxies is dark energy, it may make the cause for what we consider a "runaway universe"? Not simply an expanding universe.

Instantaneous Transcendental Tteleportation. Still not sure of its meaning, so I'll be careful in its use. I've read tons of scientific articles since coming on the forum, and have found this process essential to my theory. I believe somewhere back in time, there is a core to this universe generating an anti force caused by matter returning instantantly and continuously as anti-energy. Once the transformation is complete and this core has consumed the last bit of matter, there will be a new 'Big Bang". Maybe it will take trillions of years in the coming, but the alternative of a cold and speculative death as theorized by scientists, just doesn't sit well with me. But then, we have at least a few billion years to go before giving it too much thought.

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index.html

Edited May 7, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Someone much smarter than I will have to come along later with the answers, but I believe this theory is right on target. What if the stuff between our material Galaxies and throughout the entire universe is actually made of what we refer to as, dark matter, and that to include anti matter, dark energy and anti energy? What if this stuff is a "repulsive force" whipping the universe into hyper-drive? I know, such nonsense gives no qualified credence for a perpetuity as to why our universe should be speeding up? But that's exactly the case for my thoughts. If the materials we can't see in our galaxy, other galaxies, or outer space is actually made of some sort of anti matter, it may be the cause for what we consider a "runaway universe"? not simply an expanding universe.

 

Actually dark energy is thought to be pushing the universe apart. But dark matter is not anti-matter, and anti-matter should behave exactly like matter in the influence of gravity.

 

 

Instantaneous Transcendental teleportation. Still not sure of its use, so I'll be more careful this time. I used the term when first coming onto the forum and nearly got tossed for lack of being congruous and sincere. Well, I've read tons of scientific articles this past year and have found nothing deterring me from my theory. I believe somewhere back in time?, there is a core to this universe that matter is returning to instantantly and constantly as anti-energy. Once this transition is complete?, a new Big Bang. A cold death to our universe just doesn't set too well with me.

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index.html

 

 

I've toyed with the idea of matter reforming at the center of the universe as hydrogen gas as matter reaches the edge of the universe and is annihilated or something but i see no way to show this to be true, no reason to think there could even be an edge, and no mechanism for it to happen so at this time BBT does seem to account for the universe we see. Actually I partially based my idea on the old video game asteroids where if anything went off the screen (the edge of the Universe in the game) it reappeared back at the opposite side, just a mind game but no reason to think it could really describe the real universe.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Moontanman

[rigney]

Actually dark energy is thought to be pushing the universe apart. But dark matter is not anti-matter, and anti-matter should behave exactly like matter in the influence of gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

I've toyed with the idea of matter reforming at the center of the universe as hydrogen gas as matter reaches the edge of the universe and is annihilated or something but i see no way to show this to be true, no reason to think there could even be an edge, and no mechanism for it to happen so at this time BBT does seem to account for the universe we see. Actually I partially based my idea on the old video game asteroids where if anything went off the screen (the edge of the Universe in the game) it reappeared back at the opposite side, just a mind game but no reason to think it could really describe the real universe.

 

I like the picture of my cousin that you have begun posting. He says it isn't a good likeness since you caught him without a proper hair cut. But hey!

My thoughts on the issue is, If the BB came from a central point; regardless of size, there must have been a reason for its happening. So, if the BB was the beginning of something new that evolved into the different elements of today, I believe it begin as anti energy, and only anti energy. In otherwords, a singularity;and the direct opposite of matter. At that beginning, scientists say the universe was a plasma? Of what, we don't know. but it took only pico seconds to start the transformation into the elements that we understand today. More than likely, I'm wrong again as usual, but I feel strongly about this idea.

Edited May 7, 2011 by rigney

[Realitycheck]

Unfortunately, I doubt that you would be able to fit all of the matter of the universe into a singularity, or even black holes for that matter, unless you are a pure mathemetician. I wouldn't be surprised if the term is obsolete now. Maybe we can redefine it as center of gravity, or not necessarily being the size of a point, just extremely dense.

 

The plasma that you speak of is called a quark gluon plasma, which we have been producing with the latest colliders, and can only be produced under extremely high temperatures and pressures. It is not exactly an element itself, since it is just a component of matter that only existed just after the Big Bang.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Realitycheck

[rigney]

Unfortunately, I doubt that you would be able to fit all of the matter of the universe into a singularity, or even black holes for that matter, unless you are a pure mathemetician. I wouldn't be surprised if the term is obsolete now. Maybe we can redefine it as center of gravity, or not necessarily being the size of a point, just extremely dense.

 

The plasma that you speak of is called a quark gluon plasma, which we have been producing with the latest colliders, and can only be produced under extremely high temperatures and pressures. It is not exactly an element itself, since it is just a component of matter that only existed just after the Big Bang.

 

I really must have misspoken to leave you or anyone with the idea that the universe was ever the size of an atom or smaller. My intent was to say that it was a single entity. How large or small? I have no idea. But right, wrong or indifferent, I believe that single mass was wall to wall anti-energy. And compact? Likely there was no space between individual bits of it. A singularity? I can believe it was a single volume of something special, just not a single point! And quarks? As I earlier stated to someone, a "QUAUQ to me is the fulfillment of both sides to this universe. Edited May 7, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

rigney, when we in school the idea was an atom, size unknown, but where the idea came from. As I recall the theory was ridiculed, not well accepted for years as Astrophysics tried to explain away that thought. As far as I'm concerned, DM or DE are extensions to those explanations, in an effort to explain an unexplainable expansion, into something called nothingness. My thoughts anyway...

 

 

Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a priest from the Catholic University of Louvain, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeval_atom

[Realitycheck]

I really misspoke, leaving you or anyone with the thought the universe was ever the size of an atom or smaller. My intent was to say that it was a single entity. How large or small? I have no idea. But right, wrong or indifferent, I believe that single entity was wall to wall, and nothing but anti-energy. And compact? Likely there was no space at all between individual bits of it. A singularity? I can believe it was a single volume of something special, just not a single point! And the quarks? As I satated earlier to someone, it should be written "QUAUQ. To me it the fulfillment to both sides to this ubiverse

Actually, there is no such thing as negative energy. Energy is energy, defined as what it takes or potential for something to have an effect on something else.

 

Or here rather,

 

Energy,

the ability a physical system has to do work on another physical system.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Moontanman]

OK Rigney my friend, this is the best explanation of how the universe came into existence, ignore the idiot asking the questions over and over and the need to continuously debate the creationist but listen to the guy who is explaining how the universe came into being....

 

[rigney]

OK Rigney my friend, this is the best explanation of how the universe came into existence, ignore the idiot asking the questions over and over and the need to continuously debate the creationist but listen to the guy who is explaining how the universe came into being....

 

 

Can I simply respond by saying. "Or the one idiot taking to task the other idiot for not agreeing with his philosophy? But isn't it strange how little we know about how little we know, and "assume" it to be the truth because someone says so? Not trying to make an issue of the issue, but other than some documented equations making sense to some, and none to others; is there any proof either guy is right? No! And anyway, the dude with the long hair also needs a trim. Believe me, I'm not a creationist, but I just don't believe all of the 'bull shit" coming down the pike. Edited May 8, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Can I simply respond by saying. "Or the one idiot taking to task the other idiot for not agreeing with his philosophy? But isn't it strange how little we know about how little we know, and "assume" it to be the truth because someone says so? Not trying to make an issue of the issue, but other than some documented equations making sense to some, and none to others; is there any proof either guy is right? No! And anyway, the dude with the long hair also needs a trim. Believe me, I'm not a creationist, but I just don't believe all of the 'bull shit" coming down the pike.

 

 

Rigney, as I tried to explain i was not trying to introduce creationism or "evolutionism" into this discussion, it was the illustration of how the big bang theory has been misunderstood and give a animation that attempts to explain that everything in the universe was not compressed down to the size of a singularity or what ever version of that turns out to be true but the universe it's self, everything, all of the forces of nature time space "existence it's self" the universe did not expand into anything, and trying to see what lies beyond is like trying to measure south of the North pole, the idea makes no sense. You have been discussing the ideas of the BB and I thought you might appreciate an illustration i had found to be very helpful in understanding the true meaning of the concept. I happen to totally agree with Aron he deals a death blow to the creationism movements claim of being science in this and several other videos and what he is saying is not philosophy it is science but that will have to be in or already is in another thread....

Edited May 8, 2011 by Moontanman

[rigney]

How can we, other than to assume it is so; that the BB is misunderstood?

Moon, I would love being able to pontificate like Mr. Ra, but heck; who's gonna disagree with the guy? Really!, he could star in one of Steven Kings scary movies. But other than his pompus attitude, I heard little of value.

 

Reaitycheck replied with a statement:

Actually, there is no such thing as negative energy. Energy is energy, defined as what it takes or potential for something to have an effect on something else.

 

Not well versed in any science, I agreed with the above quote. Yet looking around at what took billions of years to make, I still don't know why, when or how it all began? But then, neither does anyone else. Other than a lot of guesstimates defining it; few facts known about the universe are cut in stone. (No referral to Moses). Being old school, I simply like to see things set in concrete, not vacillating. And since everyone has ideas, this is the way it will continue until the concrete sets, which will be never!. As a species, I don't think humans has a chance of ever attaining that pinnicle of knowledge. Which means, I wanna be heard, and even if it makes no sense at all. So, adjudicate if you will; but give some thought to what I'm saying before "indistinctively and knowingly" sawing the limb off from under my (ass), thoughts. On occasion, even a blind hog gets an acorn.

Edited May 8, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Moon, I would love being able to pontificate like Mr. Ra, but heck; who's gonna disagree with the guy? Really!, he could star in one of Steven Kings scary movies. But other than his pompus attitude, I heard little of value.

 

Who is gonna disagree with AronRa? You have to be kidding, if he says anything that isn't backed up by real evidence he would be shredded like a shrub in a wood chipper, he has taken a stance of telling the truth, just because he is an ass, which he freely admits to, doesn't make him wrong but the purveyors of creationism are nothing but snake oil sales men, calling them store front preachers would be a step up for them, they lie, cheat, misrepresent and out right fabricate all of their information, there is no truth in what they claim to support their position and they are getting rich off the scams by lying to people, but as I said it was the animation i wanted you to watch, to understand the creationist stuff you would have to watch his vids from the beginning, at 18 or so of them. But it is wrong to assume AronRa is no better than the liars he is chopping up just because he has long hair and doesn't pull his punches, If i know anything about you i would guess you don't like liars either. .

 

 

Reaitycheck replied with a statement:

 

Not well versed in any science, I agreed with him. Yet looking around at what took billions of years to make, I still don't know why, when or how it all began? But then, neither does anyone else. Other than a lot of guesstimates defining it; few facts known about the universe are cut in stone. (No referral to Moses). Being old school, I simply like to see things set in concrete, not vacillating. And since everyone has ideas, this is the way it will continue until the concrete sets, which will be never!. As a species, I don't think humans has a chance of ever attaining that pinnicle of knowledge. Which means, I wanna be heard, and even if it makes no sense at all. So, adjudicate if you will; but give some thought to what I'm saying before "indistinctively and knowingly" sawing the limb off from under my (ass), thoughts. On occasion, even a blind hog gets an acorn.

 

 

I understand how you want things set in stone Rigney but Science is not set in stone, science is always changing as new information comes in, you will not find the absolute truth set in stone in science. If someone tells you science is set in stone then they are misinformed as to how science works. The concrete will never set...

 

BTW, sawing the limb out from under your ass is the last thing I would do but I won't kiss it either...

Edited May 8, 2011 by Moontanman

[rigney]

Who is gonna disagree with AronRa? You have to be kidding, if he says anything that isn't backed up by real evidence he would be shredded like a shrub in a wood chipper, he has taken a stance of telling the truth, just because he is an ass, which he freely admits to, doesn't make him wrong but the purveyors of creationism are nothing but snake oil sales men, calling them store front preachers would be a step up for them, they lie, cheat, misrepresent and out right fabricate all of their information, there is no truth in what they claim to support their position and they are getting rich off the scams by lying to people, but as I said it was the animation i wanted you to watch, to understand the creationist stuff you would have to watch his vids from the beginning, at 18 or so of them. But it is wrong to assume AronRa is no better than the liars he is chopping up just because he has long hair and doesn't pull his punches, If i know anything about you i would guess you don't like liars either.

Holy shit!, and he has taken a stance of telling the truth? Me, I'm so against charlaitans in any dominion that I nearly piss my pants hearing one of them. Unless this guy has been to the stars, I'm not overly impressed or too wrapped up in any of his formulations either. In all honesty, from the tapes, none of his explinations come close to the specifics some on the forum lay out, in any catagory.

P.S. Just finished whippin' up a batch of "cracklings". Wonder how many on the forum know what I just related to you?

Edited May 8, 2011 by rigney

[mpc755]

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

 

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

 

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

 

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

 

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

 

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

 

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.

[rigney]

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

 

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

 

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

 

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

 

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

 

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

 

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.

 

Loved your explanation.! But what I liked even more was the animation of a Black Hole. Think of that orb as the metacenter of a varacious eating machine (core) of a recycling universe in process. A new (Big Bang) if you will? Edited May 12, 2011 by rigney

[mpc755]

Absolutely loved your explination, but what I liked even more was the animation of a Black Hole. Think of that black orb as the metacenter of a universe in a recycling process, a new (Big Bang) some span of time from now?

Until there is evidence otherwise, there is only this Universal jet and it has always existed as is. My guess is it is a recycling process. A new emission for us some some span of time from now. I do not see there being any evidence supporting any other explanation at this time.

Edited May 12, 2011 by mpc755

[rigney]

Until there is evidence otherwise, there is only this Universal jet and it has always existed as is. My guess is it is a recycling process. A new emission for us some some span of time from now. I do not see there being any evidence supporting any other explanation at this time.

I'm not familiar with the expression, "Universal Jet". I've been on the forum less than a year and still learning. Tried google and really couldn't find anything worth while. But I'm listening! Edited May 12, 2011 by rigney

[mpc755]

I'm not familiar with the expression, "Universal Jet".

I invented it.

 

I've been on the forum less than a year and still learning. Tried google and really couldn't find anything worth while. But I'm listening!

It's analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

Edited May 12, 2011 by mpc755

[Moontanman]

P.S. Just finished whippin' up a batch of "cracklings[/b]". Wonder how many on the forum know what I just related to you?

 

 

You make your own! Send me some, damn it's been decades since I had fresh cracklin's! Some good hot sauce and some strong beer... WOW!

[rigney]

rigney, when we in school the idea was an atom, size unknown, but where the idea came from. As I recall the theory was ridiculed, not well accepted for years as Astrophysics tried to explain away that thought. As far as I'm concerned, DM or DE are extensions to those explanations, in an effort to explain an unexplainable expansion, into something called nothingness. My thoughts anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeval_atom

Sorry to get back to you so late jackson, but my fingers and mind don't work as they used to. But I like the BB idea over a lot of other theories. "Not saying it is correct in any fashion", other than there was a cause and effect. Got to bet though, something happened to bring this universe into fruition. A lot of people have put years of gustimation into why and how?, but it's guesswork? I applaud the guy who came up with calling it the "Big Bang". To me it sounds better than, Eleven Dimensions of String Theory. "Dont jump my case Pal, that arbitrator may also be right"? Personally, I believe we are in a free flowing universe expanding into an endless continuum. And this, caused by some tremendous unknown force? Now!, don't shoot the messenger because he has no puire facts, quite like the other guesser(s). Edited May 12, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

Sorry to get back to you so late jackson, but my fingers and mind don't work as they used to. But I like the BB idea over a lot of other theories. "Not saying it is correct in any fashion", other than there was a cause and effect. Got to bet though, something happened to bring this universe into fruition. A lot of people have put years of gustimation into why and how?, but it's guesswork? I applaud the guy who came up with calling it the "Big Bang". To me it sounds better than, Eleven Dimensions of String Theory. "Dont jump my case Pal, that arbitrator may also be right"? Personally, I believe we are in a free flowing universe expanding into an endless continuum. And this, caused by some tremendous unknown force? Now!, don't shoot the messenger because he has no puire facts, quite like the other guesser(s). [/Quote]

 

Yes rigney, I understand where you stand or are trying to stand, with regards to the Universe. In my mind, having discussed the issue so many times, over so many years, it's always amazed me how something that can so easily be explained logically, has become so complex, then with questionable logic and explanations needing so much more to quantify. To me it's almost a contest to see whom of the who's can get the most research money to prove what can't be proved.