These are the main results from the Planck mission as given by ESA and NASA, which collaborated in this mission. Launched in 2009, it was put in a stable orbit at the L2 Lagrange point, at a distance of 1.5 million km from Earth. Now, having consumed its cryogenic supplies, it has finished its main mission, that of mapping the Cosmic Microwave background. But the analysis of its data will take years.
The map the the sky is rather irregular, with one hemisphere having a "cold spot" not foreseen by any theory. Based on the Planck data, the age of the Universe is 13.81 billion years, and the Hubble constant is 67.3 km/s.
The Universe is 4.9% made of visible matter (so far valued 4.5%), 26.8% dark matter (so far 22.7%) and 68.3% dark energy (so far 72.8%).
So we have more dark matter and less dark energy than we thought.
Tullio

---

These are the main results from the Planck mission as given by ESA and NASA, which collaborated in this mission. Launched in 2009, it was put in a stable orbit at the L2 Lagrange point, at a distance of 1.5 million km from Earth. Now, having consumed its cryogenic supplies, it has finished its main mission, that of mapping the Cosmic Microwave background. But the analysis of its data will take years.
The map the the sky is rather irregular, with one hemisphere having a "cold spot" not foreseen by any theory. Based on the Planck data, the age of the Universe is 13.81 billion years, and the Hubble constant is 67.3 km/s.
The Universe is 4.9% made of visible matter (so far valued 4.5%), 26.8% dark matter (so far 22.7%) and 68.3% dark energy (so far 72.8%).
So we have more dark matter and less dark energy than we thought.
Tullio

Thanks Tullio!

Just posing a link.



Planck Mission Brings Universe Into Sharp Focus



PASADENA, Calif. -- The Planck space mission has released the most accurate and detailed map ever made of the oldest light in the universe, revealing new information about its age, contents and origins.

Planck is a European Space Agency mission. NASA contributed mission-enabling technology for both of Planck's science instruments, and U.S., European and Canadian scientists work together to analyze the Planck data.

BBC news article on it here.

The news from the Planck site here.

And the NASA press release is here.

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

Seriously folks, basing how the universe evolved/works on 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy is not science. It's religion.

The first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe was Georges Henri Joseph Edouard Lemaitre a Belgian Priest. This was the Catholic Church's attempt to wrap their Judaeo-Christian believe of creation in a cloak of scientific fact. The term "Big Bang" was coined by fellow scientists at the time because they thought the idea was nuts.

99% of the matter in the Universe consists of plasma. Therefore the Universe follows the Laws of Plasma Physics not the laws of regular matter such as solids, liquids and gases. Today's Astronomers and Astrophysicists are not schooled in Plasma Physics and try to explain everything using the laws of gravity. When things don't behave as they predict they conjure up things like dark matter and dark energy to explain why it didn't turn out as they had thought it would.

In regard to the cosmic microwave background measured by the Planck mission, this has nothing to do with the age of the Universe or Plank's Constant. It's simply measuring the energy level of the plasma that exists in interstellar space.

I recommend you look up the work done by Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, Halton Arp, Wal Thornhill, Donald Scott and many more.

It is just a question of time before the present day theories of how the universe came to be and functions get debunked just as flat Earth model the Ptolemaic System.

Black holes are not made out of plasma. There is one with a mass of many million Suns just in the middle of our Galaxy and it is being studied by observing the trajectories of stars orbiting it. By their orbital parameters one cane deduce the mass of the black hole.
Tullio
Nature

---

You can start by watching the following:

http://youtu.be/Q185InpONK4 STEPHEN CROTHERS: Black Holes & Relativity, Part One

http://youtu.be/CHZ5O0jTH8A STEPHEN CROTHERS: Black Holes & Relativity, Part Two

Franz

The black hole idea goes back to Pierre Simon de Laplace who thought of a body dense enough to attract light particles (later called photons) so they could not be seen. Today gravitational lensing of faraway celestial objects by an interposing mass is visible in the telescope images.
Today black holes are identified by x-ray and gamma-ray emission by matter falling into them before reaching the event horizon.
General relativity has succeeded in all experimental proofs tried so far. Experiment is the litmus test of real science.
Tullio

---

You can start by watching the following:

Doesn't really lead anywhere. His main point is that Einstein's field equations are a one-body solution, but the universe isn't one-body, so therefore they don't work. He doesn't explain why they don't. You can determine the gravitational attraction of a single mass in G.R. because it is a factor of the curvature of spacetime, without needing a second unit mass to pull against as Newton's gravity does.

He's also forgetting the ample confirmation that Einstein's field equations do work. Attempting to disprove General Relativity mathematically is all well and good, but it has so far passed every test that has been thrown at it (ie gravitational redshift, time dilation, the equivalence principle, relativistic frame-dragging.) If he has a good point, he should publish and be subjected to peer review, also explaining why experiments that confirmed G. R. are wrong, or how his hypothesis could explain them better. This is how science is done, not by making YouTube videos.

He does have a point about black holes though: they don't *really* happen, and I'd better qualify a blanket statement like that... there's nothing wrong with the General Relativity behind them, rather, there's a component of General Relativity itself that scientists who discuss black holes always overlook for simplicity's sake: gravitational time dilation!

Here's the not-too-difficult equation for gravitational time dilation:



r0 is the Schwarzchild radius of the body, at which point the escape velocity becomes c, the speed of light, r is the radius of the body (the collapsing star in this case), t0 is the passage of time within the star and tf is time outside. The important component of the equation is the last one. As the star collapses, r approaches r0 so the fraction approaches 1, and thus t0 approaches zero, asymptotically. Why asymptotically? Because t0 is the passage of time within the star, which is approaching zero.

So, seen from the outside, a collapsing star would *appear* to form a black hole. As it collapsed, it would appear to do so more and more slowly, and get redder and dimmer until it was invisible, at progressively lower frequencies until it was completely undetectable by emission. It would be a tiny fraction away from being inside its own event horizon/Schwarzchild radius, but to actually get there would take an infinite amount of time. It would have all of the properties associated with a black hole by being a few billionths or so of a part away from actually being one, but it could never actually get there for an outside observer. The only way to even to try see it get there would be to jump into one! The observer (assuming they weren't instantly ripped to pieces by the tidal forces) would catch up to the timeframe of the collapsing star, which then could be seen to enter its own Schwarzchild radius. By doing this, an eternity would then pass outside and the universe would end! So it may not be possible at all. Do primordial true black holes exist? I'm not sure. But the math is pretty clear that point masses and infinite gravitational densities can't form, at least while we are watching!

Because of this effect, the astrophysicist George Greenstein proposed that black holes be called "frozen stars" instead.

So, it turns out both "sides" are correct. Black holes do exist as collapsed stars where the escape velocity is 99.9...% of c (and you can pile as many 9s after that as you like), the emission of photons is an undetectable few per year (also approaching zero as time passes) and all the other properties assigned to and confirmed through observation from black holes are there (gravitational lensing, jets, emissions of X-rays from matter pulled into it, etc.) as well as the (asymptotic) approach of infinite density and gravitational field strength, but they don't exist insofar as we can never have enough time to actually get to that last tiny fraction of completeness, never mind infinite density!

I hope this puts the "controversy" to rest but I doubt it will. ;^)

---

... but they don't exist insofar as we can never have enough time to actually get to that last tiny fraction of completeness, never mind infinite density! ...

Similarly so, infalling material 'never gets there' within the lifetime of our universe...


All frozen in infinite time!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

All I know is that GPS works because of GR. Otherwise it would not.
Tullio

---

If Uncle Albert was wrong (and he may very well have been) any replacement theories will have to explain all the predicted and observed results of relativity. No small task considering how subtle yet demonstrably real those effects are.

tuillo is 100% correct: GPS does work and if general relativity is wrong then it's replacement theory will have to explain why GPS works despite using a flawed theory.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

If Uncle Albert was wrong (and he may very well have been) any replacement theories will have to explain all the predicted and observed results of relativity. No small task considering how subtle yet demonstrably real those effects are.

tuillo is 100% correct: GPS does work and if general relativity is wrong then it's replacement theory will have to explain why GPS works despite using a flawed theory.

Most probably this paradox is the same as the one we had between Newton &
Einstein. On the large scale Newtons theories worked but not on the small
scale. So along came Einstein to rectify this with his own discoveries. Perhaps
GPS is one of those things that works on the large scale but will fail on the
small scale. But overall, has nil effect on how we use this GPS here on Earth.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Here's another video for you folks to watch and comment on.

http://youtu.be/t8tqgntbjyE Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott

BTW, nice feed back from all of you.

Franz

If Uncle Albert was wrong (and he may very well have been) any replacement theories will have to explain all the predicted and observed results of relativity. No small task considering how subtle yet demonstrably real those effects are.

tuillo is 100% correct: GPS does work and if general relativity is wrong then it's replacement theory will have to explain why GPS works despite using a flawed theory.

Most probably this paradox is the same as the one we had between Newton &
Einstein. On the large scale Newtons theories worked but not on the small
scale. So along came Einstein to rectify this with his own discoveries. Perhaps
GPS is one of those things that works on the large scale but will fail on the
small scale. But overall, has nil effect on how we use this GPS here on Earth.

Considerably more than just GPS would have to be explained by any new theory. Time measurement differences exactly in accordance with general relativity have been measured to the limits of the accuracy of out instruments.

Mass changes exactly as predicted have been observed.

Gravitational lensing has been observed. Indeed, it has become an important tool in the astronomer's kit-bag.

The list goes on. Any new theory would have to explain these observations.If they can't then the new theory fails.

It should also be pointed out that some of the flaws in Newton's theory were know at the time they were presented. Though not certain, it is probable that Newton himself knew his theory was fatally flawed.

Special Relativity is just over a hundred years old and General Relativity is coming up on a hundred years. In that time both have passed every honest test presented.

It is going to take a lot more than a few you-tube links to some peudo-science that hasn't been peer reviewed and raises more questions than it answers to convince me to toss Relativity aside.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Gravitational lensing has been observed. Indeed, it has become an important tool in the astronomer's kit-bag.

Ah... I knew there was one I was missing from gravitational redshift, time dilation, the equivalence principle and relativistic frame-dragging, all predicted by G.R. and confirmed by observation (some of which to a high degree of accuracy.)

---

Gravitational lensing has been observed. Indeed, it has become an important tool in the astronomer's kit-bag.

Ah... I knew there was one I was missing from gravitational redshift, time dilation, the equivalence principle and relativistic frame-dragging, all predicted by G.R. and confirmed by observation (some of which to a high degree of accuracy.)

Yes, by the Gravity Probe 2 satellite of Stanford University.
Tullio

---

Here's a few more videos for you folks to ponder.

http://youtu.be/UlFVUozGWyU JAMES SORENSEN: Halton Arp & the Big Bang

http://youtu.be/HgdJcghkri4 WAL THORNHILL: From Cosmic Currents to the Electric Sun

Franz

You don't make science with videos. You have to submit your ideas to referred journals and have them discussed by other scientists. This is called peer-review.
Tullio

---

For those who understand french, french scientific journal reports on recent discoveries (Planck).

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=318397311620774

---

Peer review didn't do Galileo any good.

Anyone with a radical new idea that stirs up controversy and that conflicts with the current dogma will never even get a chance to get published in a journal for peer review.

Anyone that doesn't toe the party line will find him/herself out of a job very quickly.

In regard to the videos, these were from a conference of scientists with similar backgrounds. One of the videos was from a conference held by NASA. These were not videos put together by some kook in his/her basement.

Franz