'Dark energy' targeted in European space mission

Dark energy and dark matter are two completely different things. Dark matter contributes to holding galaxies together. Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. This article needs to be fixed.

accelerated expansion of the Universe

is worthy of a Nobel Prize, because . . .

It confirms that neutron repulsion [1] causes neutrons to be emitted faster from smaller fragments of parent neutron stars - as water evaporates faster from smaller water droplets - in our infinite, cyclic cosmos [2].

1. "Neutron repulsion", APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?", Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...g102.htm

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

accelerated expansion of the Universe

is worthy of a Nobel Prize, because . . .

You're not even an igNobel, you're so wrong.

Dark energy and dark matter are two completely different things. Dark matter contributes to holding galaxies together. Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. This article needs to be fixed.

I agree, for a short article, it's a mess. A small amount of review would've helped.

Dark energy and dark matter are two completely different things

Some physicists are making money with the opposite stance:
Dark Fluid: Dark Matter And Dark Energy May Be Two Faces Of Same Coin, Is Dark Matter & Dark Energy the Same Thing?
http://www.scienc...4056.htm
http://www.dailyg...att.html

At the water surface, the ripples are condensing around sources of surface waves like the light around massive objects surrounded with dark matter from remote perspective.

http://people.rit...4565.jpg

But from perspective of the observer at the water surface, who is using the surface ripples for observation the same phenomena appears like expansion of space-time with distance with accelerating speed, i.e. like the dark energy.

Spam is not a reasoned response to my questions. Nor do the Nobel prize winners support you nor does their research support you.

Indeed it DISPROVES you. Can't have a cyclic universe that has ACCELERATING expansion.

So just how do Neutron Stars form when neutron repulsion is alleged by you to be so powerful that it stops Black Holes from forming no matter how large the mass?

Ignoring the question won't magically make you right Oliver. The ideas are contradictory and I bet even the Plasma Universe Cranks can see that now that it has been pointed out.

Join The Cause. Force Physorg To Enforce Their Own Rules On Oliver.

COUNTER SPAM OLIVER NOW.

Ethelred

from perspective of the observer at the water surface, who is using the surface ripples for observation the same phenomena appears like expansion of space-time with distance with accelerating speed

No. In your over-simple analogy, the accelerating expansion with distance would manifest as the frequency of the ripples changing while they propagate, and disproportionately so for distant vs. close-by sources. Water doesn't work that way; you'd have to come up with some kind of an expanding fluid medium (perhaps an expanding gas) instead.

So just go back to Ether, admit that there's no experimental way to detect it or interact with it -- and therefore no useful VERIFIABLE theory of its structure can be constructed -- and leave it at where it's been for the last 100 years.

The biggest question, which no one has ever answerewd is just what? constitutes the fabric of space which is expanding in the first place. We silly beings are carried along with the flow, looking from the inside trying to deduce what it is that is carrying us along. Whether that flow is increasing at an exponential rate or not, just what? I ask is expanding? Does anybody know? Saying all of space doesn't answer the question it simply obviates it. Yet for 100 yrs or more the ether has been defunct, with no substitute provided, so just what, will someone, somewhere, somehow, please advise me constitutes the "fabric" of space?

Well I could quote Dr. Feynman, so how about I do that or quote whoever actually said it first.

Shut up and calculate

Or I could put my own way.

Its just numbers. The numbers that constitute the Universe work in such away the numbers that constitute humans beings perceive those numbers as reality. We can drill down through the layers of numbers that emerge from other numbers until finally we reach a point where the numbers are all there is. The numbers are the way they are because those numbers CAN form a viable universe so do they exactly that.

Not because something makes it so but because nothing stops it from being so. That is, since it can exist why wouldn't it.

To quote others here. Hey its just a thought.

But not in this case, because in this case, its just numbers.

Or if I was to post it all the bloody time it would just be Cranking.

Ethelred

@Ethelred,

Numbers are human constructs; they don't actually exist in reality. They are human constructs every bit as much as any other cognitive abstraction, such as every single word in this post.

Numbers -- and the rules that govern them -- are useful modeling tools, in that they allow us to construct complex models of reality at a certain level of experience: where reality is discrete and distinctly quantized. Whether that is true at the deepest levels, remains to be seen; for all we know, the true underlying fabric of the cosmos might still be 'analog' rather than 'digital' -- or perhaps neither, empirically inaccessible, and altogether out of our human range of experience and thus utterly indescribable via numbers or any other sort of experience-derived modeling tool.

@Daleg,

The answer to your inquiry is that we don't know. And it's possible that we will never know. Then again, we might find out within the next hour. Isn't that exciting? :-)

Numbers are human constructs; they don't actually exist in reality.

I am really talking about the mathematical principles behind the numbers and the logic. We think we have discussed this before.

Numbers -- and the rules that govern them -- are useful modeling tools,

That is one way to look at it. It is not the only way. Change your point of view and then this will make more sense to you.

Whether that is true at the deepest levels, remains to be seen; for all we know, the true underlying fabric of the cosmos might still be 'analog' rather than 'digital'

Analog is still numbers. There is an infinite quantity of irrational numbers for every real number AND this would be true whether humans, or any other math user, existed or not.

Basically you are mistaking human communication via numbers for the principles that produce those numbers no matter who does the looking.>>

Ethelred, I am not convinced that 'Analog is still numbers'. Can you resolve a decreasingly small quantity in infinitely smaller slices of time? Using math expressions to indicate 'approaching' or 'moving to' seems to acknowledge a flaw in quantification of signals. Reminds me of the idea that if you keep going halfway to somewhere, you can never get to your destination.

Ethelred, I am not convinced that 'Analog is still numbers'.

Can you even write about analog without using numbers? I mean beyond the level of just using the word analog to differentiate from digital.

Look at this way.

An analog measurement of current is a just the amount a dial get deflected BUT it is actually just a sloppy way to count the number of electrons passing a given point.

Can you resolve a decreasingly small quantity in infinitely smaller slices of time?

Can you HAVE an infinitely small slice of time? At present it seems reasonable that there is a minimum time scale called Planck Time. However if you want to go what may be a completely meaningless shorter time scale well I didn't bring up irrational numbers for nothing. They are infinitely long but still are actual numbers.>>

Using math expressions to indicate 'approaching' or 'moving to' seems to acknowledge a flaw in quantification of signals.

Calculus was created to deal with this sort of thing. It tends to use numbers.

Reminds me of the idea that if you keep going halfway to somewhere, you can never get to your destination.

Exactly, that was first put forth by a Greek named Xeno. That is where calculus came from. The concept of limits.

I finished reading a book on that a couple of weeks ago.

The clockwork universe : Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the birth of the modern world / Edward Dolnick.

http://ipac.anahe...term=The clockwork universe %3A Isaac Newton%2C the Royal Society%2C and the birth of the modern world %2F&index=ALLTITL

I wonder if the link will work.

Ethelred

HEY ORAC! JOIN IN OR PISS OFF YOU GUTLESS WANKER.

Ethelred

Change your point of view and then this will make more sense to you.

Treating a mere model as fundamental reality is a basic error. The same error underlies all religions.

Analog is still numbers.

That is not my meaning. Numerical thinking leads to a quantization of everything. Quantized space, quantized time. A corpuscular view of the universe. Yet, that same quantum theory contains a schizophrenic dualism within it, a notion that the universe is not corpuscular at all: where everything is a smooth and continuous surface stretching across the entire infinite universe with no boundary and no threshold cut-offs as to magnitude at any point. More importantly still, the dualism of quantum theory hints that perhaps the true reality is neither discrete nor continuous but something other; that perhaps these perceptions are merely that -- cognitive information compression artifacts, if you will.

You see, the problem with a corpuscular/quantized universe, is that such a view is inherently internally incomplete. Any attempt to construct a truly complete theory, and you inevitably wind up with some kind of a cellular automaton model, but all such models presume some sort of a "grid", containing at each point some kind of a state-recording nodule, and offering some means for those nodes to interconnect and exchange information. The very notions of stasis or even adjacency require some kind of an additional, external, in itself unquantizable and uncomputable canvas or scaffold -- one that has to somehow be defined without resorting to infinite computational or logical recursion.

You need, in other words, a pre-existing non-numerical framework that serves to give rise to numerical dynamics. But then, what is the truly fundamental construct: the underlying framework, or the secondary processes that it would hypothetically engender?

And that's just one way to approach it...

Yes this is philosophy. BUT it answers MANY questions, most of which are only of philosophical value. I do not use it to answer HOW the Unviverse works. I use to answer those questions that you cannot answer with science. See how often people say questions of how the Universe could have started is irrelevant. The questions ARE relevant, they just aren't science. Math answers those questions better than anything else I have seen as even a god is beholden to mathematical principles even if it isn't aware of them.

The answer to your inquiry is that we don't know. And it's possible that we will never know.

True. BUT it seems likely to me that space-time is a fundamental property of Universe OR maybe we are really lucky and it isn't. I don't think it would be possible to manipulate such a fundamental property of a universe unless it is an emergent property of something even more fundamental.

Ethelred

Yes this is philosophy. BUT it answers MANY questions

Those are not answers. They are your equivalent of "God did it".

The questions ARE relevant, they just aren't science.

Of course they are science. They are just unanswerable at the moment. Maybe they will have answers some day, maybe not. But that's how it is.

The correct response is not to weave "answers" out of fantasies and thin air, but to simply admit the objective truth: we do not know. Period.

Treating a mere model as fundamental reality is a basic error. The same error underlies all religions.

No. I am proposing that the math IS the reality. Not a model.

et, that same quantum theory contains a schizophrenic dualism within it,

No. That isn't in the math. Its in the Copenhagen Model which I think is crap and more scientist than ever agree on that.

where everything is a smooth and continuous surface stretching across the entire infinite universe with no boundary

That is not from QM. It is from GR and only with an open Universe and even there in an expanding universe it is not infinite.

Borders have problems. You get effects near borders that don't occur away from the borders. So banishing them makes the math easier and the theory uniform for all the Universe.>>

More importantly still, the dualism of quantum theory

The actual math is wave based and the alleged duality simply isn't there. However even when dealing with paired properties Fuzzy Logic can deal with it and not have a duality. The pair becomes a single fuzzy number.

You see, the problem with a corpuscular/quantized universe, is that such a view is inherently internally incomplete.

I don't see that.

you inevitably wind up with some kind of a cellular automaton model, but all such models presume some sort of a "grid",

I was expecting to see that error. A grid simply makes it easier. String Hypothicists claim it can be done without a grid. I see no reason that grid has to exist.

containing at each point some kind of a state-recording nodule

Nah. I suspect it makes it easier to deal with though.

and offering some means for those nodes to interconnect and exchange information.

Local exchange. No grid needed and the means can be contact.>>

The very notions of stasis or even adjacency require some kind of an additional, external, in itself unquantizable and uncomputable canvas or scaffold --

No and no and no. A grid is not needed. Even if it exists it could still be quantifiable and computable. We work with grids all the time. Ever since Des Carte.

You need, in other words, a pre-existing non-numerical framework

No. Just claiming it does not make it so.

But then, what is the truly fundamental construct: the underlying framework, or the secondary processes that it would hypothetically engender?

Math.

And that's just one way to approach it...

Actually it was way to make it all go away with unneeded assumptions or rather a need to make the idea go away was the basis of the assumptions.

Ethelred

Those are not answers. They are your equivalent of "God did it".

No. Math did it. I did point out that it is philosophy and not science. God did it does NOT answer questions as a god must deal with the math and cannot create the principles of math.

Of course they are science.

Not really.

They are just unanswerable at the moment.

Or may never be answerable. In either case. AT THE MOMENT, they are not PRESENTLY science questions. What is limited to philosophy changes over time.

The correct response is not to weave "answers" out of fantasies and thin air, but to simply admit the objective truth: we do not know. Period.

Wrong. The reason it is wrong is that philosophical reasoning can lead to seeing a way to test the ideas at which point they become science. It is often an attempt to grasp at what we can know even if, indeed especially if, it cannot done at the moment.>>

At present I cannot even come close to seeing a way to test how the Universe, or rather the laws of our and possibly other universes, might have come to be. So it isn't science. The point I am really making is that mathematical principles are not dependent on humans, gods, or even a specific universe. So why shouldn't they be the basis of all possible universes?

Ethelred

Ethelred, the link works and I'll grab a copy from my local library, its several thousand kilometres closer.

Numbers are an approximation of real analog values. Pi for example can only precisely be described without using numbers.

Exactly, that was first put forth by a Greek named Xeno. That is where calculus came from. The concept of limits.

Indeed and confirms that special techniques (tricks?) are required for Math and numbers to match real analog signals/values. Xeno/Zeno simply showed that using numbers we could never reach a destination and therefore are not a precise representation of analog reality.

As long as I don't drink all the beer in my glass in one long gulp (tempting as it is), there will always be some left is demonstrably not true (though i can dream) because I'm going to the shops now to buy a six pack for tonight.

That is not from QM. ... Borders have problems. ... The actual math is wave based and the alleged duality simply isn't there.

So, that wave math -- does it contain any "borders with problems"? Or do those waves extend out to infinity, and out to infinity carry arbitrarily small magnitudes?

String Hypothicists claim it can be done without a grid.

Do they? How can strings be in contact, how can they have any notion of location or position? Where does "position" come from? What 'volume' holds those strings? What context provides a string's "shape"?

We work with grids all the time. Ever since Des Carte.

My point exactly. Math vitally depends on coordinate systems. No mathematical construction makes any sense in absence of those coordinate systems, with their implicit dimensionality and order. That's where math fails as a fundamental description of reality: the truly fundamental thing in math is the coordinate system itself, not the manifold constructed on top of it.

Why is the Red Brigade so annoyed by an accelerated expansion of the Universe?

God did it does NOT answer questions as a god must deal with the math and cannot create the principles of math.

Odd statement. If man can define arbitrary systems of math using arbitrary sets of rules with the only constraint being that those rules are self-consistent according to their own internal logic, why couldn't a god?

I cannot even come close to seeing a way to test how the Universe, or rather the laws of our and possibly other universes, might have come to be. So it isn't science.

There is no testable theory here, but that doesn't mean the QUESTION itself is unscientific. Any question concerning the nature or the processes of the universe is a scientific question.

Math did it.

This answer, for instance, is utterly unscientific. It is a kind of religion, just replacing "God" with "Math". After all, if math could pre-exist the Universe, then Math had to exist in a context outside the Universe. Which is what exactly, if not part and parcel of the Universe?

Pi for example can only precisely be described without using numbers.

Not if Planck's Constant constrains the minimum size and time intervals. Pi is not a real world number in any case and can only produced with Math AND it would vary with the flatness of space. Don't mistake numbers for the entirety of mathematical principles.

That is my preferred local library. About a mile or three north of Disneyland. The main reason I read it was to get another perspective on the time period from the one I got in Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle.

Indeed and confirms that special techniques (tricks?) are required for Math and numbers to match real analog signals/values.

Only with some things. Well most things are curves so most things. Again Planck's constant can take care of that. They are tricks only the mathematical sense.

Ethelred

Why is the Red Brigade so annoyed by an accelerated expansion of the Universe?

Why does Oliver accuse others of making personal attacks and then makes personal attacks like that one.

Why do you keep lying about everyone that disagrees with you Oliver? Did you learn that from Lysenko?

Now about those questions you would rather lie about others than deal with. Here is the most recent one you have been evading in your cowardly Lysenko trained way.

You have made it quite clear that you think there is something you call neutron repulsion and it stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.>>

If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Ethelred

Why not address and try to explain the data and observations?

1. "The Sun's origin, composition and source of energy", 36 LPSC 1041 (2001)

www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf

2. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", JFE 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

3. "Is the Universe Expanding?" The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

4. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

5. "Origin and Evolution of Life Constraints on the Solar Model", J
ournal of Modern Physics 2, 587-594 (2011)

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

we have, alot better than you can. your ignorance and inability to see reality is blinding you to that.