Dark Energy Is Real

[astroboy]

Source: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/dark-energy-real-evidence-indicates-180602612.html


Dark Energy Is Real, New Evidence Indicates

Space.com – Thu, 19 May, 2011

A census of 200,000 galaxies may confirm that the mysterious force of dark energy is what is pulling the universe apart at ever-increasing speeds, a new study finds.

The results of the five-year galactic survey offer new support for the favored theory of how elusive dark energy works – as a constant force, uniformly affecting the universe and driving its runaway expansion.

The new findings contradict an alternate theory that gravity, and not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart and causing it to expand. That alternate theory challenges Albert Einstein's concept of gravity, because it has gravity acting at great distances as a repulsive force rather than an attractive one.

The galaxy survey, which looked at galaxies that were up to 7 billion years old, used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in Australia.

An unsolved mystery

Dark energy has long been an unexplainable force, and the theory of its existence remains unproven, but the results of this new study could provide independent confirmation that it is behind the strange way that galaxies are being pulled from one another, against the tug of gravity.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Blake is lead author of two papers on the study appearing in an upcoming issue of the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed," Blake said in a statement. "If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

Dark energy is thought to dominate the cosmos, making up roughly 74 percent of the universe. Dark matter, a slightly less mysterious substance, accounts for 22 percent. "Normal" matter, which consists of anything with atoms, or the materials that make up living creatures, planets and stars, makes up only about 4 percent of the universe.

Where did it come from?

The theory of dark energy was proposed during the late 1990s, based on studies of distant explosions of dying stars called supernovas. Supernovas emit constant, measurable light, which make them useful guideposts for astronomers to calculate the dying stars' distance from Earth.

By looking farther into space, scientists are effectively able to peer back in time, since the light we see from distant objects is light that left there billions of years ago. Astronomers observed many supernovas at different distances to determine how fast they are speeding away from us, and these measurements subsequently implied a strange force – dark energy – was flinging the objects out at accelerating speeds.

The new survey provides two separate methods for independently checking these results. This is the first time astronomers performed these checks across the whole cosmic time span dominated by dark energy.

Astronomers began by assembling the largest three-dimensional map of galaxies in the distant universe, as spotted by GALEX.

"The Galaxy Evolution Explorer helped identify bright, young galaxies, which are ideal for this type of study," said Christopher Martin, principal investigator for the mission at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. "It provided the scaffolding for this enormous 3-D map."

Mapping the cosmos

Detailed information about the light for each galaxy was obtained from the Anglo-Australian Telescope, and the team of astronomers studied the pattern of distance between them. Sound waves from the very early universe left imprints in the patterns of galaxies, causing galactic pairs to be separated by approximately 500 million light-years.

Blake and his colleagues used this figure as a yardstick to determine the distance from the galaxy pairs to Earth. Similar to the supernova studies, these distance data were combined with information about the speeds the galaxy pairs are moving away from us.

This revealed, yet again, that the fabric of space is stretching apart faster and faster.

The astronomers also used the galaxy map to study how clusters of galaxies grow over time like cities, eventually containing many thousands of galaxies. The gravitational pull of the clusters attracts new galaxies, but dark energy appears to tug them apart, and scientists are able to measure dark energy's repulsive force.

"Observations by astronomers over the last 15 years have produced one of the most startling discoveries in physical science: The expansion of the universe, triggered by the Big Bang, is speeding up," said Jon Morse, director of the astrophysics division at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. "Using entirely independent methods, data from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer have helped increase our confidence in the existence of dark energy."

[astroboy]

If we have satellites in space placed in a position where there is no gravity pull, then how does the moon remain in 'loyal orbit' to the earth?

[athribiristan]

If we have satellites in space placed in a position where there is no gravity pull, then how does the moon remain in 'loyal orbit' to the earth?

Well that's actually explained quite well by relativity. Linear acceleration is counteracted by the attractive force of matter (gravity). When these forces balance you get a stable orbit.

I'm skeptical about the current theory of dark matter/energy. My intuition says we are on the right track but that the current theory is missing something fundamental. I can't say what that something IS yet, but I feel it in my gut that it is missing.

[astroboy]

Well that's actually explained quite well by relativity. Linear acceleration is counteracted by the attractive force of matter (gravity). When these forces balance you get a stable orbit.

Well thank you on this.

I'm skeptical about the current theory of dark matter/energy. My intuition says we are on the right track but that the current theory is missing something fundamental. I can't say what that something IS yet, but I feel it in my gut that it is missing.

They say dark matter is different from dark energy. Could it be the reason why the biggest planets are further away from the sun - dark energy's propulsion force is greater on larger masses.

[athribiristan]

Well thank you on this.

They say dark matter is different from dark energy. Could it be the reason why the biggest planets are further away from the sun - dark energy's propulsion force is greater on larger masses.

I think that is likely true. It sounds to me like they are describing a force similar to gravity but with different qualities. Sort of an anti-gravity. I guess what I would need to postulate further would be actual observation/evidence to base my thinking on. I really don't pretend to know much about this subject. I still feel like we are missing an important part of the equation.

[hybrid]

gentle folks, just adding some points to ponder ....

1. perceived dark energy is caused by scalar motion of our cosmos. scalar motion is caused in turn by standing waves, the vibratory pattern of all matter.

to differentiate scalar motion from vector motion (day to day common sense motion we see around us), let say .... there is point A, B, C. B being the observer.

A B C

in transverse vectoral motion, when B moves toward C...

A-------------------------> B ----> C , notice that the distance between AB increases while the distance between BC decreases.

in scalar motion when B moves , the distance bet AB and BC bot increases.

A <------------------B------------------>C

and this kind of motion is what we observed in the surrounding galaxies. they all moved away from us in all direction

[hybrid]

point 2. according to einstein GR, gravity and acceleration are equivalent and the same phenomena. you can't distinguished one from the other.

if we are in the moon and observing a comet being pulled by earths gravity, what we actually see as proof of gravity is that the comet accelerates way from us and moving towards earth.

[hybrid]

lastly,

if we are in space and observing an orbitng satellite around the earth, we will observe that the satelite is again accelerating towards earth. the only reason why the satellite doesn't fall to earth is becasue the earth is constantly moving relative to the satellite so that the satellite can't catch up with the earths ground surface. the result is the satellite constantly falling and orbiting around earth.

using this well established principle to interpret our dark energy data, we can assume that everything is being pulled away from us by gravity towards a " certain center of the cosmos". but if the center also move relative to everything, what we have here is just like an earth - satellite relationship. we perceived an accelerating universe BUT it is not a run away direction to nothingness, it is also cyclic in nature. it means the whole universe orbits in its center.

[astroboy]

Using this well established principle to interpret our dark energy data, we can assume that everything is being pulled away from us by gravity towards a " certain center of the cosmos". but if the center also move relative to everything, what we have here is just like an earth - satellite relationship. we perceived an accelerating universe BUT it is not a run away direction to nothingness, it is also cyclic in nature. it means the whole universe orbits in its center.
Hybrid,

This last explanation makes more sense to me because I too am pretending to understand. But it's interesting.
It's almost as if members of a football team take position away from each other,
like spiral galaxies actual spiral because it allows systematic release of energy away from its centre,
as if Einstein's relativity theory is limited to observation whereas, movement is not subject to relativity at all. Although relativity does show different direction, in any case, movement is eminent.

[athribiristan]

point 2. according to einstein GR, gravity and acceleration are equivalent and the same phenomena. you can't distinguished one from the other.

if we are in the moon and observing a comet being pulled by earths gravity, what we actually see as proof of gravity is that the comet accelerates way from us and moving towards earth.

The comet is not accelerating away from us. It is moving at a constant speed away from us. Unless there is some force acting on the comet that wasn't included in your explanation. Am I missing something?

Are you saying that the only reason the planets continue to orbit the sun is that the sun is continually moving in a straight line in order to miss them? How does that work with the mulitude of varying orbits in the solar system? Isn't the sun actually moving towards at least one planet as it attempts to avoid the Earth?

I have to say at this point that I am skeptical of this explanation of things. Please explain further.

[athribiristan]

gentle folks, just adding some points to ponder ....

1. perceived dark energy is caused by scalar motion of our cosmos. scalar motion is caused in turn by standing waves, the vibratory pattern of all matter.

to differentiate scalar motion from vector motion (day to day common sense motion we see around us), let say .... there is point A, B, C. B being the observer.

A B C

in transverse vectoral motion, when B moves toward C...

A-------------------------> B ----> C , notice that the distance between AB increases while the distance between BC decreases.

in scalar motion when B moves , the distance bet AB and BC bot increases.

A <------------------B------------------>C

and this kind of motion is what we observed in the surrounding galaxies. they all moved away from us in all direction

But isn't this why we HAVE the theory of dark matter/energy? If the distance between AB and BC both increase, how can we say that B is moving. In your first example we can verify this because both point A and C observe the same motion. They can see that it is B moving and not themselves by observing another stationary point.

With scalar motion (is this the new fancy word for expansion?), you would be unable to ascertain who is actually moving because ALL points appear to have motion. All points appear to have been acted upon by the same force.

[athribiristan]

lastly,

if we are in space and observing an orbitng satellite around the earth, we will observe that the satelite is again accelerating towards earth. the only reason why the satellite doesn't fall to earth is becasue the earth is constantly moving relative to the satellite so that the satellite can't catch up with the earths ground surface. the result is the satellite constantly falling and orbiting around earth.

using this well established principle to interpret our dark energy data, we can assume that everything is being pulled away from us by gravity towards a " certain center of the cosmos". but if the center also move relative to everything, what we have here is just like an earth - satellite relationship. we perceived an accelerating universe BUT it is not a run away direction to nothingness, it is also cyclic in nature. it means the whole universe orbits in its center.

Call me slow but that doesn't make sense. If the uiverse orbits around its center, all things would be moving in the same direction, not away from us. It seems like dark energy is meant to describe an expanding universe, not a rotating one.

[astroboy]

If the uiverse orbits around its center, all things would be moving in the same direction, not away from us. It seems like dark energy is meant to describe an expanding universe, not a rotating one.

Point to ponder. Good sense.

[Scibat]

Call me slow but that doesn't make sense. If the uiverse orbits around its center, all things would be moving in the same direction, not away from us. It seems like dark energy is meant to describe an expanding universe, not a rotating one.

Actually you are correct. According to current astrophysics, the universe and everything in it IS moving away from everything else. In many billions of years the universe will be so expanded you would no longer be able to see any stars (assuming the Earth was still around -- Which it won't be.) as the distances between those remaining would be so vast.

Here is a good video that demonstrates it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3NwM_fVS5E&NR=1

[astroboy]

Scibat,

We don't have to go too far. In the 1960s when I was a kid, my sister and I used to watch shooting stars at about 10 or 11pm on a regular basis. But now, you hardly get to notice them.

[hybrid]

the idea that an explosion from nothing creates spacetime ( locality and time ) and then this locality itself expands to nothingness is absurd, an expansion requires a "room" or a place to expand , but if it is space that expands itself, to what and where it is expanding to?


.

[hybrid]

big bang, dark energy, dark matter, they are one myth after another. all of these are just preconceived ideas based on one fact alone. i.e. because the light coming to us from the stars are red shifted. and from that, they drew the origin of creation. it's a myth. might as well believe that god created heaven and earth in 6 days.(note: there's lot of new explanation why is this so ( redshifetd light) that coming out in the net from legit scientists as well other than a big bang explanation)

einstein believed in a steady state universe, however, its bad politics because a steady state universe requires no creator and the ruling class those days are Christians. Lemaitre, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FGeorges_Lema%25C3%25AEtre)) a scientist priest convinced einstein to change his mind and instead interpret the redshift data as big bang, becasue in big bang theory, a creator is required to start the process of creation.

thus spirituality and big bang theory are historically tied up, and that is why big bang theory is sacred to some.

PS. cmbr is another proof of bigbang.
but an explosion with no center can't be one singular big bang as theory proposes. besides cmbr can be interpreted too as neutron decay.
.

[hybrid]

in the first place, to think of energy as a real thing out there that exists is nonsense. energy is an abstract concept, an ability to do work hence a potential for action which is based on motion. iow, we extract work and energy from nature becasue everything is moving.

so dark energy simply means there are some motions that are unknown to us that caused us to see as an apparent expanding accelerating cosmos.

so acceleration is a kind of motion ( velocity change), which is the same a gravity force ( principle of equivalence) and force is the same as curvurture of space ( gen relativity).

so what do we have here?

an expanding space is the uncarving (unfolding is good word too) of space, meaning to say the thinning of space. but space go nowhere, because the expansion of space is being complimented by the curvature of space near center of mass, therefore the everytingh is in balance. the space created in between galaxies are being eaten up by black holes at the center of galaxies.

let me see if i can find an appropriate animation for a steady state dynamic cosmos. ,

[hybrid]

http://theresonanceproject.org/images/graphics/dualtorus.gif

[Scibat]

big bang, dark energy, dark matter, they are one myth after another. all of these are just preconceived ideas based on one fact alone. i.e. because the light coming to us from the stars are red shifted. and from that, they drew the origin of creation. it's a myth. might as well believe that god created heaven and earth in 6 days.(note: there's lot of new explanation why is this so ( redshifetd light) that coming out in the net from legit scientists as well other than a big bang explanation)

einstein believed in a steady state universe, however, its bad politics because a steady state universe requires no creator and the ruling class those days are Christians. Lemaitre, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fen. wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FGeorges_Lema%2525C3%252 5AEtre)) a scientist priest convinced einstein to change his mind and instead interpret the redshift data as big bang, becasue in big bang theory, a creator is required to start the process of creation.

thus spirituality and big bang theory are historically tied up, and that is why big bang theory is sacred to some.

PS. cmbr is another proof of bigbang.
but an explosion with no center can't be one singular big bang as theory proposes. besides cmbr can be interpreted too as neutron decay.
.

I'm sorry I don't buy into that at all. The big bang isn't sacred, but it has been backed up by math and quantum physics. As I always state when this kind of stuff pops up, please provide proof to back up your assertions. I don't mean about Einstein, but about your alternative theory.

Also the big bang doesn't require a creator, just delve into quantum theory about alternate universes and gravity and there are several postulations where and how the big bang may have come about. Furthermore, the LHC recreated a smaller version of the big bang in the laboratory thus proving it was possible.

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

[hybrid]

here's a much better animation
http://www.antiprism.com/album/misc/horn_tor1_anim.gif

[hybrid]

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory

(by Tom Van Flandern - reprinted from Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6-13, 2002)

Abstract. Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems with the Big Bang theory of Cosmology. [1] Since that publication, we have had many requests for citations and additional details, which we provide here. We also respond to a few rebuttal arguments to the earlier list. Then we supplement the list based on the last four years of developments – with another 20 problems for the Big Bang theory.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

[athribiristan]

the idea that an explosion from nothing creates spacetime ( locality and time ) and then this locality itself expands to nothingness is absurd, an expansion requires a "room" or a place to expand , but if it is space that expands itself, to what and where it is expanding to?


.

Well that depends on how many dimensions you want to play with. As demonstrated by your animation below, it only takes one extra dimension to expand space infinitely without really going anywhere.

[Scibat]

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory

(by Tom Van Flandern - reprinted from Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6-13, 2002)

Abstract. Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems with the Big Bang theory of Cosmology. [1] Since that publication, we have had many requests for citations and additional details, which we provide here. We also respond to a few rebuttal arguments to the earlier list. Then we supplement the list based on the last four years of developments – with another 20 problems for the Big Bang theory.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

A Rebuttal:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html

[hybrid]

20 more problems with big bang, and for the evidence of god? it's not even wrong.

Of course, the literature also contains the occasional review paper in support of the Big Bang. [37] But these generally don’t count any of the prediction failures or surprises as theory failures as long as some ad hoc theory might explain them. And the “prediction successes” in almost every case do not distinguish the Big Bang from any of the four leading competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State [16,[38], Plasma Cosmology [18], Meta Model [3], and Variable-Mass Cosmology [20].

For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers. However, one web site by Ned Wright does try to advance counterarguments in defence of the Big Bang. [39] But his counterarguments are mostly old objections long since defeated. For example:
(1) In “Eddington did not predict the CMB”:
a. Wright argues that Eddington’s argument for the “temperature of space” applies at most to our Galaxy. But Eddington’s reasoning applies also to the temperature of intergalactic space, for which a minimum is set by the radiation of galaxy and quasar light. The original calculations half-a-century ago showed this limit probably fell in the range 1-6°K. [6] And that was before quasars were discovered and before we knew the modern mass-energy density of space of galaxies.
b. Wright also argues that dust grains cannot be the source of the blackbody microwave radiation because there are not enough of them to be opaque, as needed to produce a blackbody spectrum. However, opaqueness is required only in a finite universe. An infinite universe can achieve thermodynamic equilibrium (the actual requirement for a blackbody spectrum) even if transparent out to very large distances because the thermal mixing can occur on a much smaller scale than quantum particles – e.g., in the light-carrying medium itself.
c. Wright argues that dust grains do not radiate efficiently at millimetre wavelengths. However, efficient or not, if the equilibrium temperature they reach is 2.8°K, they must radiate away the energy they absorb from distant galaxy and quasar light at millimetre wavelengths. Temperature and wavelength are correlated for any bodies in thermal equilibrium.
(2) About Lerner’s argument against the Big Bang:
a. Lerner calculated that the Big Bang universe has not had enough time to form superclusters. Wright calculates that all the voids could be vacated and superclusters formed in less than 11-14 billion years (barely). But that assumes that almost all matter has initial speeds headed directly out of voids and toward matter concentrations. Lerner, on the other hand, assumed that the speeds had to be built up by gravitational attraction, which takes many times longer. Lerner’s point is more reasonable because doing it Wright’s way requires fine-tuning of initial conditions.
b. Wright argues that “there is certainly lots of evidence for dark matter.” The reality is that there is no credible observational detection of dark matter, so all the “evidence” is a matter of interpretation, depending on theoretical assumptions. For example, Milgrom’s Model explains all the same evidence without any need for dark matter.
(3) Regarding arguments against “tired light cosmology”:
a. Wright argues: “There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.” While it is technically true that no such interaction has yet been discovered, reasonable non-Big-Bang cosmologies require the existence of entities many orders of magnitude smaller than photons. For example, the entity responsible for gravitational interactions has not yet been discovered. So the “fuzzy image” argument does not apply to realistic physical models in which all substance is infinitely divisible. By contrast, physical models lacking infinite divisibility have great difficulties explaining Zeno’s paradoxes – especially the extended paradox for matter. [3]
b. Wright argues that the stretching of supernovae light curves is not predicted by “tired light”. However, one cannot measure the stretching effect directly because the time under the light curve depends on the intrinsic brightness of the supernovae, which can vary considerably. So one must use indirect indicators, such as rise time only. And in that case, the data does not unambiguously favor either tired light or Big Bang models.
c. Wright argued that tired light does not produce a blackbody spectrum. But this is untrue if the entities producing the energy loss are many orders of magnitude smaller and more numerous than quantum particles.
d. Wright argues that tired light models fail the Tolman surface brightness test. This ignores that realistic tired light models must lose energy in the transverse direction, not just the longitudinal one, because light is a transverse wave. When this effect is considered, the predicted loss of light intensity goes with (1+z)-2, which is in good agreement with most observations without any adjustable parameters. [40] The Big Bang, by contrast, predicts a (1+z)-4 dependence, and must therefore invoke special ad hoc evolution (different from that applicable to quasars) to close the gap between theory and observations.

By no means is this “top ten” list of Big Bang problems exhaustive – far from it. In fact, it is easy to argue that several of these additional 20 points should be among the “top ten”:
· "Pencil-beam surveys" show large-scale structure out to distances of more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite directions from us. This appears as a succession of wall-like galaxy features at fairly regular intervals, the first of which, at about 130 Mpc distance, is called "The Great Wall". To date, 13 such evenly-spaced "walls" of galaxies have been found! [41] The Big Bang theory requires fairly uniform mixing on scales of distance larger than about 20 Mpc, so there apparently is far more large-scale structure in the universe than the Big Bang can explain.
· Many particles are seen with energies over 60x1018 eV. But that is the theoretical energy limit for anything traveling more than 20-50 Mpc because of interaction with microwave background photons. [42] However, this objection assumes the microwave radiation is as the Big Bang expects, instead of a relatively sparse, local phenomenon.
· The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the present universe apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as CP violation asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, but left much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of this asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not seen. [43],[44]
· Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s Lyman-alpha emission line. This is called the Gunn-Peterson effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most hydrogen in the universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z » 6.1. [45] Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed by a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56, prior to the supposed reionization epoch and at a time when the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover, if only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their emission would have been absorbed by the surrounding hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. [34] So the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the theory it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar PG 0052+251 is at the core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host galaxy appears undisturbed by the quasar radiation, which, in the Big Bang, is supposed to be strong enough to ionize the intergalactic medium. [46]
· An excess of QSOs is observed around foreground clusters. Lensing amplification caused by foreground galaxies or clusters is too weak to explain this association between high- and low-redshift objects. This apparent contradiction has no solution under Big Bang premises that does not create some other problem. It particular, dark matter solutions would have to be centrally concentrated, contrary to observations that imply that dark matter increases away from galaxy centers. The high-redshift and low-redshift objects are probably actually at comparable distances, as Arp has maintained for 30 years. [47]
· The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the galaxies. [48]
· In the Las Campanas redshift survey, statistical differences from homogenous distribution were found out to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. [49] This is consistent with other galaxy catalog analyses that show no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. [50] The Big Bang, of course, requires large-scale homogeneity. The Meta Model and other infinite-universe models expect fractal behavior at all scales. Observations remain in agreement with that.
· Elliptical galaxies supposedly bulge along the axis of the most recent galaxy merger. But the angular velocities of stars at different distances from the center are all different, making an elliptical shape formed in that way unstable. Such velocities would shear the elliptical shape until it was smoothed into a circular disk. Where are the galaxies in the process of being sheared?
· The polarization of radio emission rotates as it passes through magnetized extragalactic plasmas. Such Faraday rotations in quasars should increase (on average) with distance. If redshift indicates distance, then rotation and redshift should increase together. However, the mean Faraday rotation is less near z = 2 than near z = 1 (where quasars are apparently intrinsically brightest, according to Arp’s model). [51]
· If the dark matter needed by the Big Bang exists, microwave radiation fluctuations should have “acoustic peaks” on angular scales of 1° and 0.3°, with the latter prominent compared with the former. By contrast, if Milgrom’s alternative to dark matter (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is correct, then the latter peak should be only about 20% of the former. Newly acquired data from the Boomerang balloon-borne instruments clearly favors the MOND interpretation over dark matter. [52]
· Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies [53],[54] and quasars [55]. So are other properties of galaxies. [56] This should not happen under Big Bang premises.
· The number density of optical quasars peaks at z = 2.5-3, and declines toward both lower and higher redshifts. At z = 5, it has dropped by a factor of about 20. This cannot be explained by dust extinction or survey incompleteness. The Big Bang predicts that quasars, the seeds of all galaxies, were most numerous at earliest epochs. [57]
· The falloff of the power spectrum at small scales can be used to determine the temperature of the intergalactic medium. It is typically inferred to be 20,000°K, but there is no evidence of evolution with redshift. Yet in the Big Bang, that temperature ought to adiabatically decrease as space expands everywhere. This is another indicator that the universe is not really expanding.] [58]
· Under Big Bang premises, the fine structure constant must vary with time. [59]
· Measurements of the two-point correlation function for optically selected galaxies follow an almost perfect power law over nearly three orders of magnitude in separation. However, this result disagrees with n-body simulations in all the Big Bang’s various modifications. A complex mixture of gravity, star formation, and dissipative hydrodynamics seems to be needed. [60]
· Emission lines for z > 4 quasars indicate higher-than-solar quasar metallicities. [61] The iron to magnesium ratio increases at higher redshifts (earlier Big Bang epochs). [62] These results imply substantial star formation at epochs preceding or concurrent with the QSO phenomenon, contrary to normal Big Bang scenarios.
· The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to detect them. [63] Moreover, the relative abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big Bang. [64] The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar’s own environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires.
· The luminosity evolution of brightest cluster galaxies (BGCs) cannot be adequately explained by a single evolutionary model. For example, BGCs with low x-ray luminosity are consistent with no evolution, while those with high x-ray luminosity are brighter on average at high redshift. [65]
· The fundamental question of why it is that at early cosmological times, bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars (globular clusters) were able to form remains unsolved in the Big Bang. It is no mystery in infinite universe models. [66]
· Blue galaxy counts show an excess of faint blue galaxies by a factor of 10 at magnitude 28. This implies that the volume of space is larger than in the Big Bang, where it should get smaller as one looks back in time. [67]

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.

[hybrid]

Well that depends on how many dimensions you want to play with. As demonstrated by your animation below, it only takes one extra dimension to expand space infinitely without really going anywhere.
so the big bang may not be that big after all? it's a "local" event and probably happens in all scale and all the time. if that is so, then for this big bang to happen, there must be already a framework of the universe from which it may occur.

not out of nothing therefore god nonsense. that's bad science

.

[hybrid]

on cmbr

We know something epochal happened 10 to 15 billion years ago because of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

But now NASA tells us not to believe what our universities have been telling us for the past half century with this link. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html. NASA states: "In 1948, Physicist George Gamow hypothesized that all of the elements might have been made in the hot and dense early universe. He suggested to his student, Ralph Alpher, that he calculate this. Alpher did so for his PhD thesis, with Robert Herman participating in much of the work. Alpher and Herman found that Gamow was wrong: most elements could not have been made in the early universe. The problem is with neutron capture. Neutrons decay in about 10 minutes, and their density decreases as the universe expands in that time. There just isn't enough time to keep building up to the heavier elements before the neutrons are gone." http://rbduncan.com/fitzcos.htm

[Scibat]

The Big Bang being wrong is right up there with the Moon Landings being a hoax. I also noted how the rebuttal of Tom Van Flandern was not addressed and seemed to be ignored by the OP; I guess walls of text beat simple hyperlinks and so the latter get discarded.

Scroll down to Observational Evidence and decide for yourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FBig_Bang%23Observational_evidence)

Errors in attacks on the Big Bang theory:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.ucla.edu%2F% 257Ewright%2Ferrors.html)

If you are a betting person, the smart money is far and away on Big Bang theory.

[hybrid]

it takes the fun out of discussion if we just to throw each other with links.

[Scibat]

it takes the fun of discussion just to throw each other with links.

But a lot of folks don't like to read enormous text walls. :wink:

[hybrid]

yeah specially when they are copy pasted. makes one wonder if we're lazy to think or we don't actually understand the things we advocated. at any rate this is what unfortunately this thread came out to be, so i'm bowing out of it

[Dave World]

Satellites in space are definitely subject to gravity pull. They remain in place because there is a balance between the force of gravity and the opposite pull of centrifugal force.

[Scibat]

yeah specially when they are copy pasted. makes one wonder if we're lazy to think or we don't actually understand the things we advocated. at any rate this is what unfortunately this thread came out to be, so i'm bowing out of it

In my case at least, I like to have data to back up my arguments. Especially here amidst some of the outlandish claims some people make (I don't mean you Hybrid fyi.)

[hybrid]

okay, if you think that copy pasting the justification for the most accepted model is your argument. lols

[Scibat]

okay, if you think that copy pasting the justification for the most accepted model is your argument. lols

I didn't mean in this thread alone, it's just how I tend to do things. I find it better to provide a credible source for my knowledge than to just copy/paste from a site. Also I can get more data into one post by inserting links than I can with walls of text.

As for the "justification" it is the most accepted model for reasons other than a supposed religious conspiracy. Many cosmologists who were/are atheists accept it (Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking), insofar as our current understanding of things go, the math supports it, the science gathered from CERN (LHC) experiments, telescopes and space probes support it too.
Unless/until there is some breakthrough that makes the Big Bang obsolete, or some hard physical evidence is gathered that invalidates the Big Bang, I think it's here to stay.

Oddly enough when I was researching things for this thread, I found people who wanted to invalidate the Big Bang because THAT would prove the existence of God (Because, according to what I read you need a creator if there were no Big Bang.) but it seemed to be the exact opposite of your viewpoint that there is a conspiracy to keep the Big Bang for spiritual reasons.

[Bluegreen]

“A wall of text” would discourage the reader. However, if the wall of text were to be divided into paragraphs—text separated by blank lines—the wall would be less formidable and intimidating.


so the big bang may not be that big after all? it's a "local" event and probably happens in all scale and all the time. if that is so, then for this big bang to happen, there must be already a framework of the universe from which it may occur.

http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy122.html

1) that our Solar System is the successor to a primeval parent that formed < 0.7 Gy after the dawn of the universe;

It says solar system, but I think it holds for the entire universe. "But our body is not given to us: it is initiated by an earlier supra-physical of our own, although not necessarily its immediate forerunner in the series." A Hermetic law says: As above, so below. I say: and vice versa. Theosophy also maintains that the universe is built on its predecessor (hope I am saying this correctly).

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=3oPRxdXJexcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=exponential+pattern+predicted+by+cosmology&ots=YcAwwHyZ8m&sig=oMgNNAPuSTDQpF62mXj-GY4TKc0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Developments in the last two decades of the 20th century--both theoretical and observatinal--point to
- the existence of dark matter and perhaps even dark energy;
- the need to understand the evolution of perturbations around the zero order, smooth universe;
- inflation, the generator of these perturbations.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~yuki/CMBpol/CMBpol.htm


http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/Dark-en.html


Dark matter makes up about 23% of the Universe. The first hint of its existence came in 1933, when astronomical observations and calculations of gravitational effects revealed that there must be more 'stuff' present in the Universe than telescopes could see.
[…]

Dark energy makes up approximately 73% of the Universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is homogenously distributed throughout the Universe, not only in space but also in time - in other words, its effect is not diluted as the Universe expands.


http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/08/colossal-void-may-spell-trouble-for.html


The standard model of cosmology that is, the big bang, cold dark matter universe is founded on the assumption that the distribution of matter (both normal and dark) becomes evenly spread at sufficiently large scales. Look in one spot in the sky and then another and they should appear nearly the same, they say. There shouldn't be a big hole in one spot and a giant cluster of matter in another.

A deciding factor between the two models, then, is the distribution of dark matter; in particular, whether or not there is dark matter lurking in the voids. If the mainstream guys are right, the voids should be full of evenly spread dark matter. If the fractal guys are right, the voids should be truly empty ? and huge. "If the cold dark matter model is correct, then there should be dark matter in the voids," Hogg told me.

And since this forum is called Science and Spirituality:

http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm

The Void is the vacuum or nothingness between all physical manifestations. The SPACE between atoms and their components. Modern science has begun to study this space between everything. They call it Zero point. Whenever they try to measure it, their instruments go off the scale, or to infinity, so to speak. They have no way, as of yet, to measure infinity accurately. There is more of the 0 space in your own body and the Universe than anything else!

What mystics call the Void is not a void. It is so full of energy, a different kind of energy that has created everything that we are.


Can anyone explain this, I would like to understand:

"The Earth is the only planet in our solar system to not fit the exponential pattern predicted by cosmology."

[astroboy]

This simulations follows the formation of a galaxy like our own. It assumes a Cold Dark Matter Universe. The movie shows the distribution of gas ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0jRObc7_xo

[moke64916]

Yes, I think dark matter is just anti-matter. The balance between the two are uneven. Dark matter is winning over matter.

[Sentientno1]

Since mystics have been brought into the debate, this from Bluegreen's post,... "The Void is the vacuum or nothingness between all physical manifestations. The SPACE between atoms and their components. Modern science has begun to study this space between everything. They call it Zero point. Whenever they try to measure it, their instruments go off the scale, or to infinity, so to speak. They have no way, as of yet, to measure infinity accurately. There is more of the 0 space in your own body and the Universe than anything else!

What mystics call the Void is not a void. It is so full of energy, a different kind of energy that has created everything that we are."

A few years back i coined a word to try to explain what is known about the void, the word is "spacelessness" You ( impersonal all inclusive you) will notice it is not space, nor is it object, and i'll even say it's not energy. It's the same thing between your fingers and toes and thoughts as between atoms and galaxies, and it's aware.
i don't call it god, because that word is so anthrpormorphidised it's almost impossible to think of it without attributing purpose, or intent.
i respect science, i enjoy it, maybe some day it will catch up to the mystic, but probably not in what's left of my lifetime.

i'm done. carry on...

[astroboy]

What mystics call the Void is not a void. It is so full of energy, a different kind of energy that has created everything that we are."

A few years back i coined a word to try to explain what is known about the void, the word is "spacelessness" You ( impersonal all inclusive you) will notice it is not space, nor is it object, and i'll even say it's not energy. It's the same thing between your fingers and toes and thoughts as between atoms and galaxies, and it's aware.
i don't call it god, because that word is so anthrpormorphidised it's almost impossible to think of it without attributing purpose, or intent.
i respect science, i enjoy it, maybe some day it will catch up to the mystic, but probably not in what's left of my lifetime.

i'm done. carry on...

It will be interesting to discuss both sides of the coin - mysticism and science.

[moke64916]

Source: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/dark-energy-real-evidence-indicates-180602612.html


Dark Energy Is Real, New Evidence Indicates

Space.com – Thu, 19 May, 2011

A census of 200,000 galaxies may confirm that the mysterious force of dark energy is what is pulling the universe apart at ever-increasing speeds, a new study finds.

The results of the five-year galactic survey offer new support for the favored theory of how elusive dark energy works – as a constant force, uniformly affecting the universe and driving its runaway expansion.

The new findings contradict an alternate theory that gravity, and not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart and causing it to expand. That alternate theory challenges Albert Einstein's concept of gravity, because it has gravity acting at great distances as a repulsive force rather than an attractive one.

The galaxy survey, which looked at galaxies that were up to 7 billion years old, used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in Australia.

An unsolved mystery

Dark energy has long been an unexplainable force, and the theory of its existence remains unproven, but the results of this new study could provide independent confirmation that it is behind the strange way that galaxies are being pulled from one another, against the tug of gravity.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Blake is lead author of two papers on the study appearing in an upcoming issue of the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed," Blake said in a statement. "If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

Dark energy is thought to dominate the cosmos, making up roughly 74 percent of the universe. Dark matter, a slightly less mysterious substance, accounts for 22 percent. "Normal" matter, which consists of anything with atoms, or the materials that make up living creatures, planets and stars, makes up only about 4 percent of the universe.

Where did it come from?

The theory of dark energy was proposed during the late 1990s, based on studies of distant explosions of dying stars called supernovas. Supernovas emit constant, measurable light, which make them useful guideposts for astronomers to calculate the dying stars' distance from Earth.

By looking farther into space, scientists are effectively able to peer back in time, since the light we see from distant objects is light that left there billions of years ago. Astronomers observed many supernovas at different distances to determine how fast they are speeding away from us, and these measurements subsequently implied a strange force – dark energy – was flinging the objects out at accelerating speeds.

The new survey provides two separate methods for independently checking these results. This is the first time astronomers performed these checks across the whole cosmic time span dominated by dark energy.

Astronomers began by assembling the largest three-dimensional map of galaxies in the distant universe, as spotted by GALEX.

"The Galaxy Evolution Explorer helped identify bright, young galaxies, which are ideal for this type of study," said Christopher Martin, principal investigator for the mission at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. "It provided the scaffolding for this enormous 3-D map."

Mapping the cosmos

Detailed information about the light for each galaxy was obtained from the Anglo-Australian Telescope, and the team of astronomers studied the pattern of distance between them. Sound waves from the very early universe left imprints in the patterns of galaxies, causing galactic pairs to be separated by approximately 500 million light-years.

Blake and his colleagues used this figure as a yardstick to determine the distance from the galaxy pairs to Earth. Similar to the supernova studies, these distance data were combined with information about the speeds the galaxy pairs are moving away from us.

This revealed, yet again, that the fabric of space is stretching apart faster and faster.

The astronomers also used the galaxy map to study how clusters of galaxies grow over time like cities, eventually containing many thousands of galaxies. The gravitational pull of the clusters attracts new galaxies, but dark energy appears to tug them apart, and scientists are able to measure dark energy's repulsive force.

"Observations by astronomers over the last 15 years have produced one of the most startling discoveries in physical science: The expansion of the universe, triggered by the Big Bang, is speeding up," said Jon Morse, director of the astrophysics division at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. "Using entirely independent methods, data from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer have helped increase our confidence in the existence of dark energy."
Dark energy makes up of 75% of Our universe. Second being Dark matter

[hybrid]

the redshifted light coming from ga;axies measured on earth can be cuased by two things ...

1. a doppler effect caused by galaxies moving away from us.

2. distortion of light waves caused by gravity pull of the galaxies.

possibility 2 make more sense to me than a traveling galaxy going to nowhere land. nobody respect occam's razor anymore.

[hybrid]

here is how light appears to us ...

electromagnetic waves
) ) ) ) ) ) ) o )))))))))))))) ----> expansion direction
redshift photon blueshift


electromagnetic waves
) ) ) ) ) ) ) o )))))))))))))) <----- dense curvature of space aka gravity
redshift photon blueshift

[hybrid]

acceleration is not a measure of motion! to treat it as such is a classical.newtonian way of interpreting things.

acceleration is a measure of force acting upon a moving body. this is consitent with the principle of equivalence where gravity force and acceleration are indistinguishable. (the same thing)

so nothing is actually speeding away from anything.

[astroboy]

acceleration is not a measure of motion! to treat it as such is a classical.newtonian way of interpreting things.

acceleration is a measure of force acting upon a moving body. this is consitent with the principle of equivalence where gravity force and acceleration are indistinguishable. (the same thing)

so nothing is actually speeding away from anything.

Hybrid,
I saw a video long ago about light travel speed which is relative to the observer (e.g.) an astronaut traveling in the same direction in the speed of light.
Maybe you can explain it better.

[Bluegreen]

And now they are investigating whether a neutrino can indeed travel faster than light as was observed by CERN.

[Bluegreen]

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=634

Dark matter must exist to account for the gravity that holds galaxies together. If the only matter in the universe was matter we could directly detect, galaxies would not have had enough matter to have ever formed. The galaxies we observe today would fly apart because they wouldn't have enough matter to create a strong enough gravitational force to hold themselves together. Dark matter is also responsible for amplifying small fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background back in the early universe to create the large scale structure we observe in the universe today.

Dark energy, which also goes by the names of the cosmological constant or quintessence, must exist due to the rate of expansion we observe for our universe. Not only is the universe expanding, but this expansion is also accelerating so the unknown 'anti-gravity' force at work is termed 'dark energy'.

I was curious about the difference between dark matter and dark energy.

[moke64916]

Dark matter is matter in the making, before the fact it becomes matter, and dark energy is the energy that has taken over the universe and is dominant. Science does not know much on the subject, but if it were not for dark matter and dark energy, the universe would not be what it is right now.

[mattie]

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23874