PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Ripples in Spacetime Could ...



Fraser
2005-Mar-18, 05:33 PM
SUMMARY: An international team of astrophysicists have developed a new theory to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe, known as "dark energy". Instead of a mysterious energy which is pushing matter apart at an accelerating rate, the team believes it could be the natural outcome of ripples in space and time created during the earliest moments of inflation after the Big Bang. These ripples could extend beyond what we can see with our telescopes, so we can only calculate their existence.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/ripples_spacetime_dark_energy.html)

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

lswinford
2005-Mar-18, 07:23 PM
The "ripples" and "waves" discussed will certainly be fodder for the science fiction types who've been relying so frequently on FTL travel by 'warping' space.

Hmm...
if we've "dark matter" near our galaxy, as commonly reported,
and it is a repulsive force, as commonly reported,
then when galaxies approach or collide
then what used to be described as either
a mutual gravitational draw
or a random vectoring intersection of the diffusion of galaxies about the universe
gives way to a third dynamic
wherein there is more 'dark matter' propelling a galaxy into an intersecting path with another, or there is less 'dark matter' between the colliding pair between them than elsewhere about them.

This is fun to muse, kind of like whether a certain geologic rift segment is pushing a plate against and under (subduction) still a third is the driving force for continental drift, or whether mantle flows generate high and low pressure points that cause crustal plates to behave like cold and warm air masses, so that vucanism and earthquakes are but a solid corellary to atmospheric weather dynamics with their fronts and storms moving around high and low pressure regions.

Thanks for the mental exercise.

iantresman
2005-Mar-18, 11:30 PM
When in 1929 Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is in fact expanding,
He may have discovered evidence that is consistent with the theory of an expanding universe, but this is not proof.


We realized that you simply need to add this new key ingredient, the ripples of spacetime

Imaginary dark ripples supporting imaginary dark matter. Where's the science? No doubt they could be used to explain the Voyager anomalies, which if you turn it around, prooves the existing of ripples.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

vet
2005-Mar-19, 02:37 AM
look at my previous 'ex post facto' post on space/time behaving as a fluid, constantly renourished and pushed outwards---from 'the source of 'initial conditions.' a fluid in motion has ripples---the CBR has ripples. the question remains---when are 'specialist going to adopt the tools of generalists?'


until then? it's a 'tower of babel'----thank ya, thank ya very much.........

GOURDHEAD
2005-Mar-19, 03:12 AM
Imaginary dark ripples supporting imaginary dark matter.


if we've "dark matter" near our galaxy, as commonly reported,* and it is a repulsive force, as commonly reported, Is sufficient care being taken to distinguish between dark matter and dark energy?

The shmoo version of the Higgs field described here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3813&hl=shmoo%20field&st=15) is looking better as more is learned.

Greg
2005-Mar-20, 03:40 AM
I like the idea of trying to describe dark matter and dark energy as different manifestations of the same poorly understood phenomenon or characteristic of the universe on a large scale. When it comes to the scale of the universe we may be like microbes in the soil trying to understand the nature of what causes rain. Since we have no to-scale model of the universe in our backyards, we may be missing some of the phenomena that only manifest themselves on a vast scale such as is the cosmos.

antoniseb
2005-Mar-20, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Greg@Mar 20 2005, 03:40 AM
I like the idea of trying to describe dark matter and dark energy as different manifestations of the same poorly understood phenomenon or characteristic of the universe on a large scale.
I think that in less than a decade we will understand dark matter very well, but will still be looking at models that explain dark energy. I think dark matter probably will be understandable without needing to know whether brane theory is correct, as it operates on a very local scale. Dark energy, on the other hand, is something that we do not know whether is absolutely uniformly spread across the universe or not.

iantresman
2005-Mar-20, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 20 2005, 12:00 PM
I think that in less than a decade we will understand dark matter very well, but will still be looking at models that explain dark energy.
Plasmas are well known to transfer energy "invisibly"; for example, a simple glow discharge is said to operate in "dark current" mode.

Hannes Alfvén writes in his Cosmic Plasma (p.28) that "The electric current description shows that it is possible to _transfer energy in an 'invisible' way_. As an example we can take the transfer of energy in the auroral circuit which transfers energy from a moving plasma cloud C to the region of release D through electric currents in B1 and B2.

"The energy is transferred [..] not by high energy particles or waves, and not by magnetic merging or field reconnection. It is a property of the electric circuit (and can also be described by the Poynting vector)."

Problem solved?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

antoniseb
2005-Mar-20, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by iantresman@Mar 20 2005, 12:16 PM
a simple glow discharge is said to operate in "dark current" mode.
How ironic that something called a "dark current" can be described as a "glow discharge". It is invisible, and yet it is observed. It glows, but it is dark. No wonder it is claimed that only a few people understand the complexities of plasma science. I'd say that if THIS is the nature of dark energy, the mystery is not solved, it has only just gotten deeper.

iantresman
2005-Mar-20, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Mar 20 2005, 12:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Mar 20 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-iantresman@Mar 20 2005, 12:16 PM
a simple glow discharge is said to operate in "dark current" mode.
How ironic that something called a "dark current" can be described as a "glow discharge". It is invisible, and yet it is observed. [/b][/quote]
To be more accurate, a discharge tube has three modes of operation:

1. Dark current: Lowest current density (invisible to humans)
2. Normal glow: higher current density
3. Arc discharge: highest current density.

This is illustrated here. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/e-sun2.jpg
Source: www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm)

Regards,
Ian Tresman