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.

---

Read this;
Dark energy
Tullio

---

Read this;
Dark energy
Tullio

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

John.

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

---

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: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

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.

---

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.

---

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. This no longer applies in light of current events.

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

---

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.

---

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?

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

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

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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

Monster camera preps for dark energy search

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

---

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

Tullio,
Yes to everything you said.
Science IS the book of Revelation!
God did write a science book, i have it, and i'm working to translate it!
And yes, the Bible has tonnes of science. But its coded!
Yes, i'm also a Catholic, and we did learn lots from Galileo.

I'm not trying to bring us back to the middle ages. I'm trying to catapult us forward to the point in time where science and religion reunite. For 5,800 years of human history, God's word was King. About 150 years ago scientists started to split away from God and religion. But i'm the link that will pull the two back together again. You can't have science without religion. And you can't have religion without science!

Not succeed Tullio??

I now work for God. God is my employer and i am his servant. I labour day and night to do God's work. And with God's help, i will succeed. The Lord is my shepherd, he guide me through the valley of darkness. I will succeed!

John.

---

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

Michel,
I'm glad someone else agree's with me...:)

John.

---