Einstein was right - Dark energy confirmed

www.sciencedaily.com...

A five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies, stretching back seven billion years in cosmic time, has led to one of the best independent confirmations that dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds.

So I guess it's official Dark Energy is real, and Mnemth, sorry about the spelling, can quit bashing Einstein all the time.

reply to post by binomialtheorem


Maybe I'm just misreading it (or dense), but it doesn't say dark energy has been proven to exist - just that there were two theories, one being that gravity was driving things apart, and one being that some hypothesized form of matter (which we call dark matter) was to blame.

Really looks like all this is saying is that the gravity concept has been disproven, and that *what we're calling dark matter but have no other evidence for* is responsible.

Looks like DM is still in the realm of theory?

reply to post by Praetorius


Try this on for size my friend....

www.bbc.co.uk...

it is very late here, don't even want to start on it...

but one question... how do you confirm the existence of something that you yourself told never to be touch, seen or proven of existence?
"it has to be something" spooky thing

reply to post by binomialtheorem


I'm not saying it DOESN'T exist, but from this source...:

First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy...

Dark energy makes up some 74% of the Universe and its existence would explain why the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate...

However, despite scientists being able to infer the existence of dark energy and dark matter, these phenomena still elude a full explanation.

As I said, it's still a theory. Dark matter hasn't been observed, it's just that some force we're currently CALLING dark matter is currently the best explanation we have.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by binomialtheorem

 

I'm not saying it DOESN'T exist, but from this source...:

First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy...

Dark energy makes up some 74% of the Universe and its existence would explain why the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate...

However, despite scientists being able to infer the existence of dark energy and dark matter, these phenomena still elude a full explanation.

As I said, it's still a theory. Dark matter hasn't been observed, it's just that some force we're currently CALLING dark matter is currently the best explanation we have.

So going to go on a technicality on this.

It's like going that firetruck appears red, but I can't be fully sure.

Though I believe we can both say it's starting to lean towards the side that dark energy does exist.

"To explain why the expansion of the Universe was speeding up, astronomers had to either rewrite Albert Einstein's theory of gravity or accept that the cosmos was filled with a novel type of energy."

looks like they had to choose a way... the dark side of the force


oh... I see... NO, not you, I was talking about them, it's just how I speak

Originally posted by KrzYma
it is very late here, don't even want to start on it...

but one question... how do you confirm the existence of something that you yourself told never to be touch, seen or proven of existence?
"it has to be something" spooky thing

Well it's like this...

Say your friend has a piece of paper in his hand.Your friend is on the other side of the earth.

What do you do to confirm it's existence? Take a picture....

( waiting for some idiot to go "what if your friend's lying?")

reply to post by binomialtheorem


Yes and no. For me it's more like - "We know SOMETHING appears to be causing this effect, but we really have no idea what it actually is, just that it does this"

So these articles are stating it's not gravity - but they have not proven the causality for the effect, or the identity of such, just that it's not gravity.

Smallish quibbles, perhaps, but they have nothing to prove these particles/this matter exist yet...as they admit. It's just currently the best working hypothesis to explain the effect. It could just be a function of spacetime itself that's not yet understood, or some as-yet unrealized force of currently-known matter itself.

Sidenote - I'm not trying to give Einstein a hard time, he was awesome. But young mr. Barnett appears to be working on rewriting and correcting his theories, and it's entirely possible that there are things that occur in reality that have NO physical causality as well.

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
Say your friend has a piece of paper in his hand.Your friend is on the other side of the earth.

What do you do to confirm it's existence? Take a picture....

( waiting for some idiot to go "what if your friend's lying?")

yea sure, this works because piece of paper exist, they measured the speed of galaxies and this speed should be the proof of dark energy?

dude, we are right now in the darkest ages of middle age !
the proof God exists is written in the Book... com on

reply to post by binomialtheorem


To say it's definitely dark matter at this point - granted, it's a case of semantics, basically - is akin to scientists hundreds of years ago explaining magnetic repulsion as "God doesn't like these two stones being together, so whenever they get close, his holy breath that only they can feel blows them apart again!"

Is that a bit more clear?

reply to post by Praetorius


yea, now it is official written in the book, approved !

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by binomialtheorem

 

As I said, it's still a theory. Dark matter hasn't been observed, it's just that some force we're currently CALLING dark matter is currently the best explanation we have.

The article in the OP is talking about dark energy. You seem to think the terms dark matter and dark energy are interchangeable. That's a bit saying light and gravity are interchangeable. They aren't.

Dark matter is not a force. It is a (proposed) form of matter which does not affect electromagnetic radiation but does produce gravity. Dark matter is thought to exist due to the observed gravitational characteristics of galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Dark energy is the (proposed) force which causes the accelerating expansion of the Universe.

ok, I can not sleep anyway so let my try to explain what the scientist has proven.

1. if Einstein was right there should be no expansion in the Universe, or at least not accelerating
2. if Einstein was right, Galaxies should move a little different than they actually do, faster inside slower outside what is not the case... some stars in the outside areas of galaxies move faster then inside
3. if Einstein was right, Light should have one speed, what it doesn't

so what they have actually proven is, Einstein was wrong!!!
now... to prove him right Black Energy and Black Matter is need.
it is very good they told us before this kind of energy or matter is a hypothetic one and there is no way to prove it...

if a proof that proves something wrong is proving it right then let 21st May 2011 be the end of all

reply to post by Phage
Apologies Phage, you are correct that I was crossing terms - I was not trying to conflate the two, just getting distracted with other things and getting sloppy in keeping terms straight.

My points were just to clarify that this study hasn't proved the existence of dark energy, just that is disproved the supposed involvement of gravity. I'll try to lend more attention to avoid mixing terms moving forward (sidenote - I blame ye Olde English).

reply to post by KrzYma and others

but one question... how do you confirm the existence of something that you yourself [say can never be touched], seen or proven [to exist]?

I don’t think anyone’s saying dark energy can’t be proved to exist, although it cannot, as you say, be seen or touched. The answer to your question is that you infer its existence from the effects it has on that which can be seen and touched. Matter, for example. That is just what we are doing. We still don’t know what dark energy is, but we are certain now that it exists.

The following rather scary example may help explain things. In the early days of AIDS, people were dying like flies from a certain complex of symptoms. The symptoms were obviously being caused by something – everyone knew that – but until the AIDS virus was identified, no-one knew what the cause actually was. Our position now with respect to dark energy is like doctors’ position with respect to AIDS in those days. We know something is causing space to expand metrically. We don’t know what it is, so we call whatever it is ‘dark energy’. The name is just a placeholder for something we know exists but cannot identify. When we learn more about it, we shall probably change the name to something more appropriate.

I read your Wankel-engine story in the other thread with interest and sympathy. It seems to me that you’ve let your disappointing experience with your teacher shape an attitude that has rather spoilt your capacity for further education. That’s a pity, don’t you think? Perhaps you should reconsider your views about conventional science; if you go round insisting that Einstein was wrong, you can’t blame people for thinking you don’t know what you’re talking about and can’t be very clever. Which is a shame because the fact is you probably are quite clever, just badly misinformed.

Sorry for correcting your English in the quote, but the original really was a bit confusing.

What happens when the Miguel Alcubierre's 'Warp Drive' runs into 'repulsive' Dark Energy space?

reply to post by Astyanax


Hi Astyanax,
thank You for correcting my English. Yea, it's my third language an I must admit I need way more experience in it. I know how difficult some extensive conversation can be if every single word I do not know jet must been search, what still doesn't make this word really right in the context.

My Wankler Engine story is just an example how science and teaching works, always was and hopefully not but will work in the next future. Anyway, not passing the "Wankler" test had no input on my education at all.

I'm also not walking around screaming "Einstein was wrong!" I do it here as it is a conspiracy forum and this alone actually makes all of us here "not believers" some king of

now back to "theory of relativity" , "expanding universe", "dark energy/matter" and all the other spooky stuff...
I will only write some lines on this as I'm not writing down a new theory neither have any experiments that proofs my thoughts

"The speed of Light"
it is based on an assumption, all proved experiments were done on Earth, earth's gravitation field. After that this assumption was projected into other space galaxies and dimensions.
One of the first evidence that was the proof for the constant speed of light was the Michelson Experiment.
This experiment only shows us that there is no Ether in witch Universe "flows"
It has nothing to do with light's speed !!
Later scientist has measure the speed but as I said, all that experiments were done in the same environment, Earth's gravity Field ( actually the whole solar System and every moving Mass in it