In search of dark energy, two new telescopes:
Nature
Tullio

---

In search of dark energy, two new telescopes:
Nature
Tullio

Excellent telescopes. Very valuable to the science community!

But they are never going to see any Dark energy, or Dark matter. Why? Because they are both theoretical constructs that only exist in the computers and the minds of astronomers.

They would have better luck using the new telescopes to look for fairies and unicorns. At least fairies and unicorns might actually exist.

John.

---

It looks like dark matter played a pivotal role in the formation of the Milky Way. See this "Nature" article:
Milky Way formation
Tullio

---

It looks like dark matter played a pivotal role in the formation of the Milky Way. See this "Nature" article:
Milky Way formation
Tullio

Speculation based on a theoretical mathematical construct that only exists in astronomers computers.

Show me the physics experiment that can detect Dark matter and then i will go back and re-read the article.

John.

---

We simply need to send a probe to bring back some of this dark matter--right ??

We simply need to send a probe to bring back some of this dark matter--right ??

William my old buddy,
I second that motion! Will we send the Star Trek Enterprise? And will you command the ship? I will be your first mate!

John.

---

Astronomers can't do any experiment. They can only observe the sky, as they have done since the time of Galileo.
Tullio

---

And still the light bends.

So... If not by the presence of time and gravity, by what other effect is the light being bent from a straight line path?


(Strictly speaking, the light is still following a straight line, it's just that from our vantage point, we deduce the path to be not so straight... Why?... ;-) )

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

Astronomers can't do any experiment. They can only observe the sky, as they have done since the time of Galileo.
Tullio

Why can't they Tullio?

You can do experiments. I can do experiments. So astronomers can do experiments too if they need too. There is nothing to stop them. You can't sit at the cutting edge of astronomy, with a billion dollar telescope at your disposal, and preach to the world, scientific discoveries that are not true. And then use the excuse that you weren't able to carry out experiments to check your science results.

John.

---

And still the light bends.

So... If not by the presence of time and gravity, by what other effect is the light being bent from a straight line path?


(Strictly speaking, the light is still following a straight line, it's just that from our vantage point, we deduce the path to be not so straight... Why?... ;-) )

Keep searchin',
Martin

So Martin,
With all the scientific knowledge you have in your head, and all the scientific knowledge you have at your disposal on the internet, you can't think of any way to bend light?

Ahhhhhhh....here's one off the top of my head; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism_(optics)

There are many more ways to "bend" light. And to give it the appearance of red-shifting.

John.

---

So God put Giant invisible prisms in space. NICE...

You forget that the light that enters a prism is split into its constituent wavelengths. This doesn't happen in space.

We see galactic lensing and no prism effect.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I make this short since it is Friday once again and time to "celebrate".

But we are living in a three-dimensional world where time is thought of as being the fourth dimension.

Meaning that we may put c in somewhere and t in somewhere.

Assume x, y and z are the three dimensions, c is the speed of light and t is time.

You may get something like x,y,z [some arithmetic operator] c = t

So which operators to choose then? And what is the meaning of the "=" next?

Anyway, gravity is supposed to be bending time. Since it is thought to be bending space as well (the three known dimensions), these elements are interconnecting or interacting with each other.

Also, for Isaac Newton's three standard equations (or laws) for movement in the Universe (of which the third such is a quite complex one), there should exist one or more corresponding such equations (or laws) for a Universe where the laws of Quantum Theory or Quantum Mechanics is considered valid or fundamental.

Albert Einstein was able to conclude that either at the speed of light and maybe also in a very strong gravitational field as well, the position of an object relative to a specific point of time can not be calculated.

Is this the same way of thinking as Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? It should all be a subject matter which is related to mathematics.

Because of this, the field of mathematics has to be adjusted in order to include those fields where uncertainty is the prevalent factor and certain things (including the position of objects) can not be predicted in advance, either because the measurement itself affects the object's position or because of the Quantum Mecanics factors/elements themselves.

Also, when considering the balloon universe diagram or picture illustrated by Johnney Guiness a little earlier on (Message 1287223), it may perhaps be possible of thinking of the Universe as continually "warping" - meaning that it possibly is continously doing so in both space and time.

We see galactic lensing and no prism effect.

Leave your contacts in for too long or look behind you at night thru the back window of your car if you have heating wires and you will see the same multiple images.

Good thoughts and comment there from our Music friend.

Note that time is merely something that we measure. Also, an essential assumption for all of physics is that of "causality" and how that implies the single direction for the "arrow of time".

And then also, "time is an illusion".


For another thought: Is the Planck timescale too small for us to experimentally see any artefacts?


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

We see galactic lensing and no prism effect.

Leave your contacts in for too long or look behind you at night thru the back window of your car if you have heating wires and you will see the same multiple images.

So... We are looking through multiple galactic distance discontinuities?

Or our Universe is suffering a drunken Friday?? ;-)


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

Also, when considering the balloon universe diagram or picture illustrated by Johnney Guiness a little earlier on (Message 1287223), it may perhaps be possible of thinking of the Universe as continually "warping" - meaning that it possibly is continously doing so in both space and time.

musicplayer,
Got to stop you there. I posted the picture of the balloon universe as an example of a mathematical paradox that is being shoved down peoples throat. I presented it as an example of bad science, not something to try to solve.

John.

So we have to take it on faith that dark matter and dark energy exist. Isn't that ironic.

---

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.

So we have to take it on faith that dark matter and dark energy exist. Isn't that ironic.

No Bob,
You don't have to believe it on faith. You can use your common sense and reject Dark matter and Dark energy theory, just like i do. I totally and utterly reject both theories because of lack of any testable scientific evidence. Neither have ever been "detected" with any man-made scientific instrument. They are both just theoretical constructs with very thin evidence to back up the theories.

John.

So we have to take it on faith that dark matter and dark energy exist. Isn't that ironic.

No Bob,
You don't have to believe it on faith. You can use your common sense and reject Dark matter and Dark energy theory, just like i do. I totally and utterly reject both theories because of lack of any testable scientific evidence. Neither have ever been "detected" with any man-made scientific instrument. They are both just theoretical constructs with very thin evidence to back up the theories.

John.

And you replace the theories with "God did it" for which there's even less generally available evidence. Bravo.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And you replace the theories with "God did it" for which there's even less generally available evidence. Bravo.

imagine if on 1 of your atoms, and its electrons, there are some 'living beings' living on it...

do you think it s possible they would 'feel' your presence, your existence ?
can you say, or can they say "YOU" created them ?

My imagination, thus my creation. Or is it your idea, thus your creation? "They" can't say anything as "they" do not exist.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...