Did We Over Think Dark Energy?

[Logic and Theory]

Everything in our observable universe exists in space. Space is not nothing. Invisable energy and matter make up a greater portion of the universe than all of the matter and detectable energy combined. Space is not nothing. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you split an atom(smaller than a human eye can see) you get a release of energy hard to miss for miles. If you were to crush all of the "space" out of an atom the reaction must me opposite. Instead of an energy release, I believe energy would be condensed(rather than released) into matter. Black holes are something of the same nature. The idea of a body in space with an infinite density where light can not escape is hard to make sense of. Gravity affects matter. Light is not matter. So, the gravity of a black hole doesn't allow light to escape? I think we have it wrong. I believe a black hole exists when all of the space has been removed from a mass of matter. Space and Gravity are in a 13+ billion year long battle over matter. gravity pulls and space pushes. space will always try to exist between the particles of matter, and gravity will always try to pull them together. With the space removed from our theoretical black hole, we would observe space trying to once again enter the particles. As the space nears the black hole, it brings with it other bodies of matter. When the matter is brought to the edge of the black hole, the matter will then become part of the black hole while the space is pushed back out. all of the energy will, as mentioned before, convert to matter. Light travels through the vacuum of space at a fixed rate of speed. If there is a lapse in space around the black hole, then energy, in the form of light, will not have the required medium in which to travel. All energy that travels in waves travels through a medium. Why would that not apply to light? Space is not nothing. Light travels through space. The absence of space in a black hole can explain the infinite density problem. Space being more than a required tool to explain how we may perceive the universe can explain the behavior of light around a black hole, and the existance of dark energy. Compounding light energy into matter absent of space may also have the ability to explain how we may only indirectly observe black holes. Please share your opinions on my theories. I am fascinated with astronomy and phisics. Please take note that all of the statements above are simply logical connections and opinions formed from many basic rules of phisics, that I try to make sense of day to day. To the higher educated professionals who visit this site, I apogize for how silly some of this may sound, but this is my generalized perspective from bits and pieces of information that I obtain from reading discoveries, and further research on the things less explained. This post may shed some light on people's perspective who don't have a respectable education in phisics. Thank you all for reading.

[Daecon]

Gravity curves space. Light follows the curve of space which is caused by gravity.

[Strange]

If you split an atom(smaller than a human eye can see) you get a release of energy hard to miss for miles.

 

 

This is only true for some atoms. For others it requires an input of energy to split them. (And the amount of energy released by a single atom is barely detectable.)

 

 

 

The idea of a body in space with an infinite density where light can not escape is hard to make sense of.

 

No one thinks the idea of infinite density at the singularity represents a physical reality. It is assumed that a theory of quantum gravity will avoid this.

 

 

 

Gravity affects matter. Light is not matter.

 

Gravity does affect light. Even Newton knew this.

 

 

 

So, the gravity of a black hole doesn't allow light to escape? I think we have it wrong.

 

What evidence or mathematics do you have that supports your belief?

 

 

 

All energy that travels in waves travels through a medium. Why would that not apply to light?

 

It turns out that not all energy travels through a medium. Light for example. This is shown to be unnecessary (and even contradicted) by theory; e.g. Maxwell's equations. Furthermore all attempts to detect such a medium have failed.

 

 

 

This post may shed some light on people's perspective who don't have a respectable education in phisics.

 

I think there is more danger of it confusing them if they take it seriously.

[Phi for All]

space will always try to exist between the particles of matter, and gravity will always try to pull them together.

Unlike water, which has matter to physically force apart other matter, isn't space simply existing where matter has vacated? Space isn't trying to exist. That's like saying darkness is trying to exist whenever the light goes out.

 

This post may shed some light on people's perspective who don't have a respectable education in phisics.

Be careful when you violate natural laws like this. I think making a snarky comment about people's education in a sentence you misspell is a variation of Skitt's Law.

[Logic and Theory]

physics(spelling) I'm not terribly great at spelling. I have a perspective that having the ability to phonetically communicate to someone may be more important that having 100% error free spelling all of the time. I come from the age of spell check where spelling was slack in school. Or, Perhapse I was. Never the less, low blow, undermining an attempt to be respectful in a post about speculations on mainstream unanswered questions we wonder about.

We think science is right until we discover something that the earth is curved. The earth is not the center of anything. Our galaxy is not the entire universe. and so on. I do respect that mass causes spacetime to curve, and thatvthe result is gravity. But, space is not noting. dark energy makes up most of the univese. There is more space than matter. Space is expanding. Space should be given the term of dark energy. the very substance, or rather anti substance that matter exists. Without space, Gravity could not exist as space time curves to matter. I just think spacetime is being overlooked because of the indirect way in which we must study it.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Logic and Theory

[Strange]

We think science is right until we discover something that the earth is curved. The earth is not the center of anything. Our galaxy is not the entire universe. and so on.

 

 

Exactly. But all these advances were made on the basis of observational evidence and mathematical models. Not guesswork and beliefs.

[Logic and Theory]

 

 

Exactly. But all these advances were made on the basis of observational evidence and mathematical models. Not guesswork and beliefs.

The observational evidence and mathematical models come from beliefs and speculation. One does not exist without the other. Apples fall with inspiration. Only later may that inspiration be accepted as reality via research and testing. I had to edit my previous response.

Be careful when you violate natural laws like this. I think making a snarky comment about people's education in a sentence you misspell is a variation of Skitt's Law.

I think you may have misread. My comment about the lack of educational background in physics refers to the people, like myself, trying to make sense of the information we are spoonfed. The people that may benefit from understanding our perception of the physics are the people of higher education that deliver said information. So basically, scientists can understand how their work is viewed by someone who doesn't speak their language. The comment was not a conceited attempt to place myself above anyone else. Rather a respectful gesture to the more highly educated professionals on this forum. I can't stess enough that I posted in speculations. Edited September 24, 2016 by Logic and Theory

[Strange]

The observational evidence and mathematical models come from beliefs and speculation.

 

 

Nonsense. If you observe or measure something, that is not a belief or a speculation.

 

 

 

Apples fall with inspiration.

 

Huh?

[Logic and Theory]

 

 

Nonsense. If you observe or measure something, that is not a belief or a speculation.

 

Huh?

 

If, belief and speculations are not observations or measurements; then, perhapse the speculations section is not the place to argue observation or measurements.

 

Maybe this is the wrong topic for some of you guys. I posted an open minded idea in the speculations section. If an Apple falls on my head and I believe it's gravity. It's not actually gravity until I prove it. I'm not sure why people insist on complicating rather easy to understand concepts by changing the message intended. It's a post of speculations in the speculation section. It's not an attempt to undermine mainstream science. Until a like-minded respectable individual were to present evidence to the statements, ON THE ACTUAL TOPIC, this is all just fictional, mind expanding thought for fun. lighten up people.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Logic and Theory

[Strange]

Maybe this is the wrong topic for some of you guys. I posted an open minded idea in the speculations section. If an Apple falls on my head and I believe it's gravity. It's not actually gravity until I prove it.

 

 

But the evidence (the apple falling) is not a belief or speculation. Which is what you said before.

 

And, as gravity is the name for the thing that makes things fall, it obviously is gravity. By definition.

 

The challenge is to explain gravity. Newton did a very good job of this by providing a mathematical theory that could be (and has been) tested. So no belief or speculation there, either.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why people insist on complicating rather easy to understand concepts by changing the message intended.

 

It is not clear what the message was. It was a rather confused (and confusing) wall of text.

And the Speculation forum is not for just making stuff up. It is supposed to be a place to present well thought out scientific hypotheses - i.e. with evidence and, hopefully, mathematics.

[geordief]

This may be my second time of asking this but might there be a sense in which massive bodies and space are two aspects of a same thing?

 

If mass/energy curves spacetime and the curvature of spacetime cause mass to follow a particular path (its geodesic) are they somehow "joined at the hip" or do we have to work with the idea of spacetime as simply being a mathematical model and nothing in any sense physical (which is what massive bodies are) is being curved?

Edited September 24, 2016 by geordief

[Phi for All]

Never the less, low blow, undermining an attempt to be respectful in a post about speculations on mainstream unanswered questions we wonder about.

 

It wasn't a blow at all, it was an observation involving some humor. Or not, apparently. I'm sorry I tried that, since it seems to have made you miss my first point.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with your stances at all. First, the scientific method produces trustworthy data with which to form information. It has little to do with taking anything on faith, or hoping it's true. Second, it's clear you don't understand what logic and theory really mean. Logic isn't just something that makes sense to you. And theory isn't educated guesswork. A scientific theory is the strongest, best explanation we have for reality-based phenomena.

 

If an Apple falls on my head and I believe it's gravity. It's not actually gravity until I prove it. I'm not sure why people insist on complicating rather easy to understand concepts by changing the message intended.

If you think anything in science (besides maths) can be proven, it shows you've misunderstood some fundamental concepts.

[Logic and Theory]

Exactly, you lack the ability to understand. Not all of the questions of the universe have been answered. Some of our answers may be wrong or simply stop being correct due to changes in the cosmos. we may never know and an individual such as yourself will never know everything. most of my posts have been met with negative replies, No matter how respectful my intentions were.Still, I shall look to the sky in awe of our relativistic size and role. To the closed minded persons who shoot down the radical ideas of lesser individuals, I hope you can look back to before you became educated, and reflect on the ideas and aspirations you had that lead you to persue the scientific fields you are in. Maybe some of your ideas were a little radical themselves.

[Phi for All]

Exactly, you lack the ability to understand. Not all of the questions of the universe have been answered. Some of our answers may be wrong or simply stop being correct due to changes in the cosmos. we may never know and an individual such as yourself will never know everything. most of my posts have been met with negative replies, No matter how respectful my intentions were.Still, I shall look to the sky in awe of our relativistic size and role. To the closed minded persons who shoot down the radical ideas of lesser individuals, I hope you can look back to before you became educated, and reflect on the ideas and aspirations you had that lead you to persue the scientific fields you are in. Maybe some of your ideas were a little radical themselves.

 

I think you mistake the intentions here. Nobody is shooting down your ideas because they're "a little radical". It's because they're based on misinformation.

 

If you were to have the idea that you could supercharge your brain by plugging it into an electrical outlet, would I be "shooting you down" by pointing out that the signals in your brain use a different and incompatible form of electricity? You complain that we may not understand our own theories, but you make it plain that you don't, at least. It's very common to be ignorant about an area of science and therefore think something is "missing". I often look at the intricacies and think of a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skin of an onion, layered and linked, dependent yet individual bits representing massive amounts of study, research, testing, and observation.

[Bignose]

Exactly, you lack the ability to understand.

Perhaps, then, you need to explain it better. Reaching the point where you are telling us that we can't understand after a mere 11 hours since your first post is pretty ridiculous. If you really cared about your ideas, you'd learn how to make them understandable.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bignose

[Strange]

Exactly, you lack the ability to understand. Not all of the questions of the universe have been answered. Some of our answers may be wrong or simply stop being correct due to changes in the cosmos.

 

 

Absolutely. (Possibly apart from the last bit.) And the fact we know that is why science is able to progress.

 

 

 

most of my posts have been met with negative replies, No matter how respectful my intentions were.

 

That is because you have said things that are, or appear to be, factually incorrect. As such, it doesn't really matter what your intentions were. I feel duty bound to point out the errors.

 

 

 

I hope you can look back to before you became educated, and reflect on the ideas and aspirations you had that lead you to persue the scientific fields you are in. Maybe some of your ideas were a little radical themselves.

 

Indeed. But this ideas came from experts in the field who had looked at the evidence. Not from people who just made stuff up. (Apart from some SF, I suppose. But then we know that is fiction.)

[Logic and Theory]

let's start over. My aim is gathering opinions of more educated individuals on my fictitious conotative theory that space is more than a mathematical necessity to explain how matter and forces interact.

I do understand the denotation of theory, and that scientific theories are developed after ovservation, reaearch, and testing. The focus is to ponder about such things that may not be tested.

 

To the comment on the definition of logic. I understand logic. logic is the simplist answer to the information given. What you may have overlooked is that you may have different information than I. If I am instructed to find the easiest way out of a room with a permanently locked door and an open window, I would climb out of the window. should you be given information about a key to unlock the door you're answer may be different due to the information. I took a less direct way of explaining this by acknowledging the difference in education some of you have. That was a mistake on my part.

 

I accept my mistakes and apologize to those who may think my intentions are to challenge the well tested and proven rules and laws of physics.

 

Basically my thought is that space itself is more than we think. Einstine spoke of the ether of space. Suggesting space is not a tangible substance is, in my oponion, likened to saying the space represented by 0(zero) doesn't exist. We could not exist if we did not have a "space" to exist in. It would be kind of hard to count to 11 without 0. Is there any evidence or theory to suggest that the expansion of the universe, theoretically caused by dark energy, is actually a property of the space in which all things exist? This is a belief of mine. It is not a hypothesis forged in the scientific method. It is a simple comparison to the theories of dark energy's proportion of the universe, and its effects on the universe. If "dark energy" makes up most of the universe and drives the expansion; then wouldn't the proportion of space to matter seem to coincidental to not at least be a potential candidate for explaining the expansion.

 

I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you for baring with me this far. I do very much appreciate the input.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Logic and Theory

[Strange]

let's start over. My aim is gathering opinions of more educated individuals on my fictitious conotative theory that space is more than a mathematical necessity to explain how matter and forces interact.

 

There are currently (at least) two other threads on the same subject. It seems to be endlessly fascinating ...

 

 

To the comment on the definition of logic. I understand logic. logic is the simplist answer to the information given.

 

That is not the usual definition of logic. Logic is a formal (mathematical) process for going from a set of axioms or premises to a conclusion. The correctness of the conclusion depends on the soundness of the logical process (which can be formally tested, e.g. by computer) and the truth or otherwise of the initial premises.

 

 

Suggesting space is not a tangible substance is, in my oponion, likened to saying the space represented by 0(zero) doesn't exist.

 

The idea that space is a "substance" makes little sense to me. Space is just the distance between things. What is 1 inch made of? Is it the same stuff as 1 kilometre or 1 square mile or 1 cubic metre? And is time (remember GR deals with space-time) made of the same thing as distance?

 

 

Einstine spoke of the ether of space.

 

If you are thinking of his Leiden speech, then he made it very clear that he was using ether as a metaphor, and he made it very clear that it has no tangible properties.

 

 

Is there any evidence or theory to suggest that the expansion of the universe, theoretically caused by dark energy, is actually a property of the space in which all things exist?

 

Dark energy is not responsible for the expansion of space. It is proposed as an explanation for the observed accelerating expansion.

The other threads:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98845-models-for-making-sense-of-relativity-physical-space-vs-physical-spacetime/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/

Edited September 26, 2016 by Strange

[Logic and Theory]

Gravity curves space. Light follows the curve of space which is caused by gravity.

I agree that gravity curves space. If light follows a path of curved space, and the SPACE is curved by said gravity. Then, light is only indirectly affected at best. My opinion was that lights medium of known terminal velocity is space. Light following the path of a curved medium would not suggest that gavity affects the light at all. A previous argument stated that, "we have learned that not all forms of energy need a medium to travel. Light is an example through space". I know this is the accepted model, but if there were evidence that doesn't directly contradict my statement, I would love to know. My opinions are that of perspective. Space being a medium does not conflict with our current understanding of the universe. It just does not have the ability to be tested at this point in time.

[Strange]

All experiments have shown that there is no medium for light. Every possible model is contradicted by experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

[Logic and Theory]

Thank you strange for the links to the other threads. I do have a fascination with the idea that space is more than nothing. "GR" is a very thought provoking subject. The speed of light being constant. If the speed of light were to change, our relativistic perception of time would also change? Amazing. Perhaps I am unknowingly and incorrectly comparing the way sound travels to the way light travels. however, sound travels faster through more dense objects. while light SPEED is constant, it can take longer to reach a location through absorption and/or refraction. These things occur with dense marerials. we observe that in the vacuum of space light may travel at speed with such consistency that it may used to measure great distances. Distances to exponentially large that a variation to 50 decimal points could throw a calculation off by millions of miles. Also amazing. But... the uniformity of the vacuum of space having a few pH per (x)volume of space provides a perfect hypothetical medium.

 

I must agree with your analogy of distance. Distance is not a substance. It is a unit of measure. Zero is also not a substance. It is a unit of measure. Space may very well just be something we use to measure, but I like to believe it's not.

 

your definition of logic is spot on. My interpretation was nearly a short hand gist to limit the material in one response. Call it short hand.

 

Thank you for your response.

All experiments have shown that there is no medium for light. Every possible model is contradicted by experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

The photoelectric effect. If I had studied this, my post would not exist. What a fundamentally easy to understand idea. light does not need a medium because it is made of photons, and photons can travel through the vacuum of space. Sound is a kinetic sort of energy in that its waves vibrate the material it passes through. With no materil to vibrate, sound can not travel through space. It appears I have much to learn if I want to be a respectable physics conversationalist. Thank you for helping me to understand. My space medium thought just falls apart if light doesn't require a medium. I feel a but silly for having missed such an easy concept. Putting things that sound good together may not be the best avenue to scientific progress. Thanks again guys. Edited September 26, 2016 by Logic and Theory

[Phi for All]

Thank you for your response.

The photoelectric effect. If I had studied this, my post would not exist. What a fundamentally easy to understand idea. light does not need a medium because it is made of photons, and photons can travel through the vacuum of space. Sound is a kinetic sort of energy in that its waves vibrate the material it passes through. With no materil to vibrate, sound can not travel through space. It appears I have much to learn if I want to be a respectable physics conversationalist. Thank you for helping me to understand. My space medium thought just falls apart if light doesn't require a medium. I feel a but silly for having missed such an easy concept. Putting things that sound good together may not be the best avenue to scientific progress. Thanks again guys.

 

Wow, that took guts, but mostly it took critical thinking. I think critical thinking is really what you mean by logic. Some misunderstandings have been cleared up, based on supportive evidence. A crackpot would have insisted they were still right and ignored the evidence. Very good job, +1.