Dark energy is real, say "astronomers"


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Dark energy is real, say "astronomers"

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next
Author Message
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284034 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 12:03:17 UTC
Last modified: 15 Sep 2012, 12:11:34 UTC

Dark energy is real, say "astronomers"

News from the Royal Astronomical Society;
Dark energy, a mysterious substance thought to be speeding up the expansion of the Universe is really there, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich.

After a two-year study the scientists conclude that the likelihood of Dark energy's existence stands at 99.996 per cent. Their findings are published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Watch a Youtube video by astronomer Tony Darnell discussing this news;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpomfWEr5Dk (8 minute video)

Royal Astronomical Society News article;
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2167-dark-energy-is-real-say-portsmouth-astronomers

Science paper;
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2125

- - - - - - -
My personal opinion - By Johnney Guinness;
I firmly stand over my claim that there is no Dark energy and there is no Dark matter! I say this with 100% confidence! I have no doubt what so ever!

These guys, these astronomers, have a very big shock coming to them when they find out that all their years of work is proven to be complete rubbish.

I actually can't believe they have the arrogance to claim they are 99.996 per cent sure that Dark energy exists. I mean 99.996% is absolute confidence. They only way you could claim that much confidence is if you had multiple ways of checking your measurements. But they don't! All they are doing is, in simple terms, looking at pictures!

There is a big shock coming.......soon!

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3407
Credit: 345,919
RAC: 134
Italy
Message 1284050 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 12:54:33 UTC

Read this;
Dark energy
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284117 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 16:05:35 UTC - in response to Message 1284050.

Read this;
Dark energy
Tullio

Ok, i read it. So what? Its more of the same rubbish?

John.

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3407
Credit: 345,919
RAC: 134
Italy
Message 1284133 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 16:46:48 UTC - in response to Message 1284117.

Read this;
Dark energy
Tullio

Ok, i read it. So what? Its more of the same rubbish?

John.

First, it is not rubbish. It is science. Second, why using the double quotes on the 'astronomers' term?. They are doing research, you are only talking.
Tullio
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 7945
Credit: 4,012,446
RAC: 891
United Kingdom
Message 1284166 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 17:41:44 UTC
Last modified: 15 Sep 2012, 17:44:47 UTC

I've had a Revelation.

Amazing insight...

I've just deciphered what Johnney 'means' all along...



He must be swimming and dreaming in the Dark Energy of...


GUINNESS!


(He could sign up for some adverts ;-) )

I'm sure it's all well researched :-)


Cheers,
Martin


... Or is there something there of substance? Is this all viral marketing on the trail to launching his world beater book?...
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284190 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 18:36:38 UTC - in response to Message 1284133.

Read this;
Dark energy
Tullio

Ok, i read it. So what? Its more of the same rubbish?

John.

First, it is not rubbish. It is science. Second, why using the double quotes on the 'astronomers' term?. They are doing research, you are only talking.
Tullio

Tullio,
I'm just pointing out the latest research on Dark energy. I'm specifically pointing out this article because these astronomers say they are almost 100% sure!! They say they are 99.996% sure that dark energy exists. Now that is an incredible level of certainty. If you "believe" the research, then nobody need ever again have any doubt that Dark energy exists. For all intensive purposes, its case closed and nobody can ever again say anything to disprove Dark energy.

This is where i come into this;
I have 100% proof that Dark energy does NOT exist. But at this moment in time, i'm not yet willing to publish my proof. But as i said before, people will find out the truth when the time is right. And that time will come soon!

I always use "double quote marks" to highlight words and make them stand out. Yes, i admit this is probably my own bad English grammar and its possible i should use 'single quotes'. I'm sorry, even though English is my first language, i'm not very good at writing it.

John.


____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284193 - Posted: 15 Sep 2012, 18:43:32 UTC - in response to Message 1284166.
Last modified: 15 Sep 2012, 18:46:05 UTC

I've had a Revelation.

GUINNESS!

(He could sign up for some adverts ;-) )

I'm sure it's all well researched :-)

Cheers,
Martin

... Or is there something there of substance? Is this all viral marketing on the trail to launching his world beater book?...

Martin,
I will tell you a secret about Johnney Guinness......

I don't drink! I haven't had an alcoholic drink since i started crunching for this SETI project back in September 2006. My avatar, my paddy's in space team website, and all the Guinness pictures and images i produce are my way of staying away from drink. I just like the Guinness branding. But i don't drink anymore! But before September 2006, i used to drink like a fish. I had to stop.

John.
____________

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1082
Credit: 383,845
RAC: 4,171
United States
Message 1284353 - Posted: 16 Sep 2012, 2:42:48 UTC

I would think that people with religious faith would rejoice over the discovery and verification of the existence of dark energy and dark matter. Since they are such a complete mystery they should give new hope regarding the location of heaven and hell and a new possibility for the existence of an afterlife, angels and such.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3407
Credit: 345,919
RAC: 134
Italy
Message 1284462 - Posted: 16 Sep 2012, 14:06:49 UTC

Johnney, you cannot qualify other people's research as "rubbish" even if you don't agree with them. You are simply insulting them.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284497 - Posted: 16 Sep 2012, 16:13:20 UTC - in response to Message 1284462.
Last modified: 16 Sep 2012, 16:21:09 UTC

Johnney, you cannot qualify other people's research as "rubbish" even if you don't agree with them. You are simply insulting them.
Tullio

Good point Tullio,
It was a bad choice of words. I should not have used the word rubbish. It was inappropriate of me to use that word. I apologise!

Let me try again;

The work these astronomers done is absolutely worthless. They spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers Euros working on fictitious Dark energy, that nobody has ever detected, that nobody has ever seen, nobody has ever touched, nobody has ever photographed, at any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. The scientific evidence for the existence of Dark energy is speculative at best! So even though nobody has ever detected Dark energy, and its a "theoretical construct" derived from mathematics, these astronomers have the nerve to claim 99.996% certainty that Dark energy exists. Its an outrage to the whole global scientific community!!

No, its utterly shocking that these astronomers have been allowed to publish their science fiction paper. This is total and utter denigration of science, and an embarrassment that they are being allowed to mislead the global scientific community, and the general public. This is the pinnacle of bad science!

Thanks Tullio, you were right. I did need to reword my description!
John.
____________

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1366
Credit: 612,166
RAC: 1,678
Message 1284502 - Posted: 16 Sep 2012, 16:23:51 UTC - in response to Message 1284462.
Last modified: 16 Sep 2012, 17:19:32 UTC

Hi tullio!

If you happen to have a look at pictures being taken of distant galaxy clusters, you may notice that several of these galaxies are bent in shape.

Not because of their natural shapes and appearances, but because gravity which is thought to be invisible in these objects, but still is present and in the end representing objects thought of as having been created out of mass, is bending the light which has been emitted from such galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Gravity is the result of the presence of matter. Since the energy particles being detected from these objects are having mass, they came from angles and positions which can not be directly measured. In many cases such distortions reveal even more distant objects, not only because of their redshift but because of their apparent appearances. The light from these objects have been bent in space by tremendous amounts of matter, which again is assumed to be directly related to gravity itself. Again, e=mc2. Therefore both mass as well as energy should be related to gravity.

But what is really gravity then? Can it be explained on its own, or is it always related to or associated with something else which always is present?

We just happen to know that gravity also is bending time. Time is only a constant on its own.

I almost forgot to mention energy in all of this. Is should definitely not be forgotten. Is it still particles - and where are their masses then?

Neutrinos are thought to be massless, but they are still particles. Are they assumed to be representing energy, perhaps?

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,416
RAC: 141
Korea, North
Message 1284521 - Posted: 16 Sep 2012, 17:07:20 UTC

I assume that Dark matter is a name assigned to something we don't understand. Clearly there is something there. It doesnt act like stuff we can and do detect. I'm betting we'll eventually figure out what exactly it is.

As I've mentioned before. matter isn't distributed haphazardly or in odd concentrations. Clearly if dark matter were different than local matter we'd see it locally. We don't. So either we aren't able to detect this particular type of matter over great distances.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3407
Credit: 345,919
RAC: 134
Italy
Message 1284678 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 3:03:44 UTC
Last modified: 17 Sep 2012, 3:04:47 UTC

Dark matter and dark energy are different things. One, dark matter, was called "missing mass" by Fritz Zwicky around 1935 and is related to the dynamics of spiral galaxies. It has never been contested as it is related to Newtonian mechanics, not even relativity. Dark energy is related to the fact that the expansion of the Universe (Hubble's law, although it should have been called Hubble-Lemaitre's law) seems to be accelerating This is based on the measurement of "standard candles", supernova Ia explosions, in distant galaxies. Both derive from astronomical observations and astronomers are investigating them using the gravitational lens effect on light foreseen by General Relativity.
I have no knowledge of Johnney's theories since he does not publish them and hence I cannot judge them.
Tullio
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2349
Credit: 1,161,092
RAC: 145
United States
Message 1284737 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 9:32:37 UTC - in response to Message 1284678.

You know, Fritz Zwicky came up with the idea of "Tired light" to explain the apparent red shift of light from receding galaxies. He postulated that there was really no Doppler shift but that rather light lost energy in it's very long travel in the Universe.

Since the frequency is directly related to energy, he surmised that this was the reason for the change in wavelength. This has of course been roundly discredited and the ostensible acceleration has been attributed to Dark Energy or the energy contained in the Vacuum.

Perhaps the bending of light due to gravity changes its frequency. I believe that nothing travels and that a photon is merely a propagated wave disturbance in the electromagnetic field of free space. If free space bends due to gravity then perhaps the frequency of the wave changes. Certainly the distance would be different due to an increased path length.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284740 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 9:38:34 UTC - in response to Message 1284678.
Last modified: 17 Sep 2012, 9:42:03 UTC

I have no knowledge of Johnney's theories since he does not publish them and hence I cannot judge them.
Tullio

Tullio,
Ok, here is a question for you.

Have you ever heard of anyone, an astronomer or physicist, on the TV or in books, saying anything like the things i say about Dark energy, Dark matter, Black holes, etc, etc? Have you ever heard anyone be so loud and vocal claiming that none of these things exist?

Tullio you have to admit, i'm very persistent. For the last year and a half, i have continuously repeated the same message in one way or another. Tullio its good to be skeptical, but do you think i am raising any valid points? Are you even suspicious that maybe i might be right? Maybe, hidden in among all the complex maths, there might be an error that people are not seeing?

John.
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29571
Credit: 9,013,120
RAC: 28,332
United Kingdom
Message 1284746 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 10:29:36 UTC

Johhney knows that for the most part I agree with his interpretations of both Testaments of the Bible. I agree with previous ET visitations, I agree certain ancient monuments may have been built with alien knowledge although not actual help. But I think he is mistaken about this maths flaw.

Big bang
Dark matter
Dark energy
Black holes
Time travel
Higgs Boson

They are all things that we think may exist, some theoretically, but at our current stage of knowledge we can't prove it. Johnney has looked into things trying to find a clue to understand how it might be proved. In doing so he found this 90% approximation in quantum mechanics relating to orbitals. He thinks he has found a fatal maths flaw, I am convinced he hasn't. I think he has convinced himself though that he is right.

Lets face it for over 100 years since Einstein, there have been very many thousands of PhD scientists all over the world, researching these very conundrums, with the latest equipment, how likely is it that they would have not seen this apparent "flaw". How likely is it that our friend in Ireland has done that without their background and resources. I think he has fallen into the trap of wanting too badly to find answers and grabbed at a straw in the wind.

All scientific experiments are carried out and written up allowing for an element of error. They use the Poisson distribution curve and statistics to state the results within a +/- confidence & probability level.

Instead the diagrams are approximate representations of boundary or contour surfaces where the probability density |ψ(r,θ,φ)|2 has a constant value, chosen so that there is a certain probability (for example 90%) of finding the electron within the contour.

Orbitals

There is no error, just science being realistic in their results.

I would say to Johnney, concentrate on this old book he has found, finish the work off there and let us know his results. Leave this other stuff to one side, it's deflecting him from what he can best be doing with his time.



Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1284770 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 12:24:14 UTC
Last modified: 17 Sep 2012, 12:35:53 UTC

Chris,
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I know it can be difficult to trust some of the things i say, but i do present some very good arguments!

The 2 discoveries are indeed separate;
1. The "Old book".
2. The Maths error.

But there is a connection between the two that i rarely talk about. I have said very little about what connects the two discoveries. When i discuss the maths error, i try to keep the discussion to pure science and nothing else. I try not to mention the old book. People discussing science don't want to hear me blathering on about God.

But Chris, i will tell you the connection between the maths error and the old book because it unavoidable - The front page, or the front cover of the old book has something on it. Whats on the front cover, which i haven't fully decoded yet, is God's name. But its written in code. And God's name also has the maths error contained in his name. Or if i say it more correctly, God's name does NOT have the error that currently exists today in science.

Chris i know i am correct about finding the maths error because its written on the front page of the old book, God's book. In effect, God has told me that i am correct about the maths error. The maths error confirms the old book, and the old book confirms the maths error. They are directly connected!

Or if i say it correctly, God's name does NOT contain the error that currently exists today in science. God got it right, and human scientists got it wrong!

John.
____________

Lynn
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 2580
Credit: 326,428
RAC: 459
United States
Message 1285000 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 23:53:53 UTC - in response to Message 1284770.

It's real. We need to know more about it. Just a news update.

Monster camera preps for dark energy search

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3407
Credit: 345,919
RAC: 134
Italy
Message 1285047 - Posted: 18 Sep 2012, 4:10:53 UTC
Last modified: 18 Sep 2012, 4:11:26 UTC

Johnney, science has no Book of Revelation. There is no scientific Book coming from God. The Bible is not a scientific text. We Catholics have learned this from Galileo. You are trying to bring us back to the Middle Ages. You will not succeed.
Tullip
____________

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1190
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 125
Canada
Message 1285094 - Posted: 18 Sep 2012, 8:55:26 UTC
Last modified: 18 Sep 2012, 8:56:01 UTC

In my mind, there were never been any big bang, no black holes nor white holes, no dark matter but maybe some kind of black energy which should more be called invisible energy :P
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Dark energy is real, say "astronomers"

Copyright © 2014 University of California