Universe may face a darker future

October 31, 2014
Cosmologists use galaxies observed by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to study the nature of dark energy. Credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

Researchers in Portsmouth and Rome have found hints that , the cosmic scaffolding on which our Universe is built, is being slowly erased, swallowed up by dark energy.

The findings appear in the journal Physical Review Letters, published by the American Physical Society. In the journal cosmologists at the Universities of Portsmouth and Rome, argue that the latest astronomical data favours a dark energy that grows as it interacts with dark matter, and this appears to be slowing the growth of structure in the cosmos.

Professor David Wands, Director of Portsmouth's Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, is one of the research team.

He said: "This study is about the fundamental properties of space-time. On a cosmic scale, this is about our Universe and its fate.

"If the dark energy is growing and dark matter is evaporating we will end up with a big, empty, boring Universe with almost nothing in it.

"Dark matter provides a framework for structures to grow in the Universe. The galaxies we see are built on that scaffolding and what we are seeing here, in these findings, suggests that dark matter is evaporating, slowing that growth of structure."

Cosmology underwent a paradigm shift in 1998 when researchers announced that the rate at which the Universe was expanding was accelerating. The idea of a constant dark energy throughout space-time (the "cosmological constant") became the standard of cosmology, but now the Portsmouth and Rome researchers believe they have found a better description, including energy transfer between dark energy and dark matter.

Research students Valentina Salvatelli and Najla Said from the University of Rome worked in Portsmouth with Dr Marco Bruni and Professor Wands, and with Professor Alessandro Melchiorri in Rome. They examined data from a number of astronomical surveys, including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and used the growth of structure revealed by these surveys to test different models of dark energy.

Professor Wands said: "Valentina and Najla spent several months here over the summer looking at the consequences of the latest observations. Much more data is available now than was available in 1998 and it appears that the is no longer sufficient to describe all of the data. We think we've found a better model of dark energy.

"Since the late 1990s astronomers have been convinced that something is causing the expansion of our Universe to accelerate. The simplest explanation was that empty space – the vacuum – had an energy density that was a cosmological constant. However there is growing evidence that this simple model cannot explain the full range of astronomical data researchers now have access to; in particular the growth of cosmic structure, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, seems to be slower than expected."

Professor Dragan Huterer, of the University of Michigan, has read the research and said scientists need to take notice of the findings.

He said: "The paper does look very interesting. Any time there is a new development in the sector we need to take notice since so little is understood about it. I would not say, however, that I am surprised at the results, that they come out different than in the simplest model with no interactions. We've known for some months now that there is some problem in all data fitting perfectly to the standard simplest model."

Explore further: Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

More information: "Indications of a Late-Time Interaction in the Dark Sector." Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 181301 – Published 30 October 2014 journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.181301

Related Stories

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

July 30, 2014

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Recommended for you

Counting down to the new ampere

August 29, 2016

After it's all over, your lights will be just as bright, and your refrigerator just as cold. But very soon the ampere—the SI base unit of electrical current—will take on an entirely new identity, and NIST scientists are ...

55 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2014
We now have invisible matter transforming itself into invisible energy.

Invisible science.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
Not entirely. There are multiple mechanisms whereby this could be true within classical physics.

1, Disappearance of matter (in a curved space-time framework) would have the effect of flattening space-time, which in some situations generates the same observational result as a slight expansion of space-time.

2, Converting matter to energy would not only flatten local space-time, but conceivably transports this energy somewhere else (the bounds of the light horizon) where some of it may be absorbed by other matter, which in turn could produce an attractive force in that direction, which we would experience as an expansion, or more precisely, an opposite curvature, which is to say a universe which appears to be open when viewed from our position.

3, Converting matter to energy may expand space-time itself by a spring function acting against tensile forces in the fabric of space-time itself.

All of these assume space is a "thing" rather than a "nothing".
viko_mx
1 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2014
Assuming that the red shift in the spectrum of light coming from distant galaxies is not due to the Doppler effect, which is valid for static Euclidean, but not hypothetical expanding (to where?) Space, very strange situations will drop out and thing will come in place. But why to be simple when can be complicated? Rapid decision not to pay wages for a long time. When science is driven by financial motives, it becomes antiscience.
arom
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2014
New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be….

The findings appear in the journal Physical Review Letters, published by the American Physical Society. In the journal cosmologists at the Universities of Portsmouth and Rome, argue that the latest astronomical data favours a dark energy that grows as it interacts with dark matter, and this appears to be slowing the growth of structure in the cosmos.


Up to now we still do not know what the dark matter is, and how it was swallowed up by dark energy. Maybe it is easier if the dark matter was thought as the manifest of the dark energy ….
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
Release enough energy, and a spring can be deformed. Release still more and it can be straightened out completely. Keep going and you get necking and then total failure of the material. There is a theory called the "big rip" which claims that space-time itself may experience a total failure if Dark Energy becomes to great.

If space-time has tensile properties and mechanical properties, then space-time itself (not just matter and energy contained by it) must obey the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore when space-time is stretched or contracted, it would of necessity give off some energy as "heat" or other waste energy. This energy would exert a force, and it may not have an obvious carrier particle that we know of, as it may be a very low amplitude wave passing "inside" the space-time fabric, rather than the continuum contained by the fabric. Therefore we observe an expansion of space-time, but see no carrier particle. It would be a space-time wave.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
viko_mx:

Absolute nothing apparently would have no properties, therefore it has no capacity to resist the encroachment of "something".

So when you ask "expand. To Where?" it doesn't matter.

======
It's possible in my mind that Dark Energy may even be the "Entropy" of space-time itself, or it may be the sum of "all entropy".
movementiseternal
Oct 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
The dark side is winning.
dirk_bruere
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
Another epicycle added...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2014
Reading the paper, it is obviously bad stuff of a too common formula: taking still uncertain observations, add parameters to the fit without penalty, and observe that the new fit is better than the standard physics. Publishable as a possibility, but not useful.

Instead extraordinary claims of new physics needs extraordinary evidence, not invented evidence. (Any model with more parameters than the standard will fit better.)

@dirk: This time it _is_ an added epicycle, likely unnecessary parameters, so bad science. Modern science is usually in the business to remove epicycles, that is after all why Kepler won through.
tritace
Oct 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
I'd like to see some articles about the data not fitting the "standard simplest model" other than this one. That phrase made my antennae quiver.

He says "some months now." That suggests he has some particular prior work in mind.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
........universe is a sistem in a permenent dynamic equilibrium www.fopi.info
Urgelt
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Let's boil this down.

They're suggesting that dark matter, whatever it is, is unstable and decays in a process akin to radioactive decay in normal matter.

And that, further, when it decays, it produces dark energy.

It's all terribly speculative, but that's all right. Until we know what dark matter and dark energy are, all we've got is speculation.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
The idea of an expanding universe is necessary in order to provide the necessary for the theory of biological evolution billions of years on planet Earth. These theories can not without each other and share the same strange principles. If the universe is static, as proved correct interpretation of the physical phenomena occurring in it, we can not be sure of the its age and may be quite young. For example, the trajectory and velocity of the stars in the galaxies we can observe are such that their shape and integrity can not be maintained for more than two spins. Astrophysicists know this problem and therefore invented the invisible dark matter through which has to ensure the stability of galaxies for a long time, but even this is not enough. At the same time, the galaxies have the same composition, shape and percentage of cemical elements in the entire visible universe, which clearly shows that either these parameters do not change with time or time was insufficient for the purpose.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
I don't think the universe is infinite,s o much is proven by observation. I believe the fundamental reality is infinite, which I believe is God.

I do think the universe may be "finite but materially unbounded", meaning that it is potentially in a constant state of growth.

I find a fallacy in the theory of "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" because he assumes a line may be arbitrarily drawn between alternate universes and our own, along some "nth dimension". I find that there need not be a dimension between two universes, as they need not exist in the same vector space. He assumes all universes exist in the same n-dimensional vector space, which there is no good reason to assume that.

What is the boundary of the universe? I don't know. "Nothing" is not a vector space. The universe is a vector space (we think) and if it is expanding, as far as we can tell, the fact "Nothing" may be beyond it would seem to have no bearing on anything.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
You see, "Logos" must include the origin and foundation and totality all laws, all intelligence, all knowledge, including things not contained in a vector space, such as the notion of "is" or the notion of "equality" or the notion of "addition".

We can't even fully conceive of this problem, because everything we know directly comes from experiences within the (presumed vector space) of our universe. So our minds real when trying to thing of EFFICIENT causes and laws outside or transcending the universe we know.

1plus4=5=True. (plus sign is broken on this board sometimes).

A=GM/R^2 = True

How does "reality" know this is true? How does it work every time? We see no physical control mechanism for enforcing this addition (or multiplication, etc,) in gravity, for example, it simply appears to work. The equation we know is not reality. It is a description/model of reality, yet it works.

How does reality know the definition of "equals"? or "plus"?
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM:

Why are astrophysicists not afraid to mention "Model Dependent Reality" problems in their books, but they mostly won't touch the problem I mentioned above?

I admit Hawking touched very briefly on it when he said something like, "What breathes fire into it all?" Yet he now denies the possibility of God as a "fairy story", even though he once admitted there had to be a Being (something to breathe fire into it all) in his own book.

Instead, today we have Dawkins and Krauss claiming along with Hawking that "from nothing comes everything and for no particular reason, because we think it must have."

The Bible claims God made everything from "Nothing," but the difference is the God is an Efficient cause.

Cosmologists propose neither material nor efficient cause for "the
(Absolute) Nothing becoming something," contrary to their own axioms, and then try to use this to deny God.

You could say they believe "Nothing disproves God."
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
@Returners

"The Bible claims God made everything from "Nothing"""

In fact God made everyting from light (energy). There is a big difference.
SteveS
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
@Returners

"The Bible claims God made everything from "Nothing"""

In fact God made everyting from light (energy). There is a big difference.


King James Bible
Genesis

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness.

So what did he make the light out of? and how?
Toffeenose
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
I have a calculation using the Kottler metric (the analytical solution to Einstein's field equations including spherically symmetrical matter [baryonic and dark] and a cosmological constant) that predicts this finding.....it also generates the initial and final values of the total matter/dark energy ratio.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
Energy and matter are eternal in the hierarchy space, but where they came from is pointless question.

"Аnd God divided the light from the darkness"

This means that Creator has defined the laws of physics and properties of the vacuum of space in our universe.
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
Energy and matter are eternal in the hierarchy space, but where they came from is pointless question.

"Аnd God divided the light from the darkness"

This means that Creator has defined the laws of physics and properties of the vacuum of space in our universe.

Ok, you don't believe the Bible is true so where are you getting your information from?
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
This means that Creator has defined the laws of physics and properties of the vacuum of space in our universe.

So just how did the creator do this then?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
Is there a man on this earth who knows the answer to this question?
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
Is there a man on this earth who knows the answer to this question?


In other words you don't have an answer.

You don't believe the Bible is true, you have no idea how this creator of yours creates, so where are you getting your information from?
tritace
Nov 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
Do you really believe, that the Bible reveals the creator's tricks? Even if you would believe in it firmly, it will not lead you to its understanding at least a bit.
Oh you do not get what point Steve is trying to bring forward do you? I am not surprise one bit. Let me spell it out for you. T-h-e-r-e i-s n-o s-c-i--e-n-ce i-n t-h-e B-i-b-l-e and, let me add, or in any other religious books.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
So viko turns out to be another religious fanatic with a conspiracy theory about the entire scientific establishment.

Thought so. You can tell when they start pretending we don't know anything about stars.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
@SteveS
I do not know how the Creator created our reality, but that's the least of our problems. I do not think any man will ever understand this. More important is to know the principles of life and to comply with them. And to know why we are here on this planet and what is our higher purpose.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
"The Bible claims God made everything from "Nothing"""
In fact God made everyting from light (energy). There is a big difference.
@viko_mx
in fact, you are absolutely wrong in this
you are interpreting what you read to say something it does not
the quote, nor the translation, either one, indicates "made from light" in any way, shape or form, in any of the original texts, from muslim and jewish to modern christian (unless you have some idiotic translation altered specifically by creationists, which means, by your own bible, you are doomed to hell for altering the word and intent of your own creator)
I do not believe in the dogma of evolution, because there is no facts to catch
ignoring the overwhelming evidence already supplied from various links which is the foundation of Evolution, proving that he is nothing but another troll creationist that cannot comprehend science nor how to argue it logically

you are a troll

& you have YET to refute ANY science with science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
More important is to know the principles of life and to comply with them. And to know why we are here on this planet and what is our higher purpose.
@viko_mx
argument from ignorance
argument from a blatant fallacy is reason to assume the rest of the argument is invalid as well, and given that there is evidence your book was altered and cherry picked for personal reasons (called the cannon) and then the authors were not the original people assigned authorship, then your argument is completely off the charts stupid

how can you base principles and purpose on fallacious arguments?
how can you assume that your religion is valid when it is based upon a fallacy?
that is like dividing by zero and coming up with a prime number... it is NOT going to happen, so you know you are wrong no matter how you look at it...

you've not even realised that your book may not be the best, original or even real!
who's religion is the best? xtians? jewish? muslim? buddhist?

NONE OF THEM
Captain Stumpy
4.9 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
model of AWT
ZEPHIR
aw/daw is a model based upon a set of fallacies which are proven, with empirical data and experimentation, to be false.
There is proof of your religious belief in them to be false here: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
there is further proof in that you cannot bring empirical evidence to the table proving any of your comments and resort to analogous double talk like farting duck ripples on a pond with water-strider's and transverse waves

TROLL ELSEWHERE
you are every bit as bad as the religionist idiots who cannot comprehend that religion is a dogmatic institution that is designed to control others and to form cliques for the sake of segregation and isolation from reality
it is easier to control others that way

separate your faith from your science
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
@Da Schneib
Faith in the Creator does not make you religious. I am calm and reasoned unlike you who became nervous lately, ended with yours arguments and started with qualifications. I argued with facts that can be verified, but you argue with compromised hypothesis. I'll remind you that the reason for the aggression is always fear, uncertainty or injured ego.The rating system is quite interesting and biased in this forum. This is some kind of moral support that you need.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
"ignoring the overwhelming evidence already supplied from various links which is the foundation of Evolution, proving that he is nothing but another troll creationist that cannot comprehend science nor how to argue it logically"

Misrepresentations are not evidence of anything. Do you know at all how to prove anything in science? I asked you to explain evolutionary processes in the cell but you are not able to do it because do not understand this problems. Yours is not science but ideology. You do not understand microbiology and genetics, so you collected few links and give them as flyers to your opponents in the forum to proof your point of view.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
I argued with facts that can be verified, but you argue with compromised hypothesis
@viko
before you think i am schneib... i am answering this because you are wrong-

if you argued with facts that can be verified, why are you not including links to those references in your posts?
fail
where is his compromised hypothesis?
fail

lie much?
the reason for the aggression is always fear, uncertainty or injured ego
or dealing with the overwhelmingly stupid who ignores empirical data for the sake of a religious belief while refusing to prove any of their conjectures...
The rating system is quite interesting and biased in this forum
the rc argument? really?
maybe you get downvotes because you offer no evidence?
maybe because you've not substantiated your own claims?

there are some good reasons to downvote your posts... i still fail to see where you've given links to verifiable reputable evidence that is of the same caliber as my peer reviewed science

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
Misrepresentations are not evidence of anything
@viko/rc
then quit making them
and start proving your conjecture
Do you know at all how to prove anything in science?
yes, but this is not science, this is a discussion on science
and it is apparent that you do not comprehend why empirical evidence from a reputable study trumps your conjecture, which means you had better brush up on the scientific method
this is not a philo site or a religious one, it is a science site, and even the rules say
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)
but given that so much of so many other pseudoscience posters are still here, you have a chance with that one
small though it is

Captain Stumpy
4.9 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
Yours is not science but ideology.
@viko/RC
no, my argument is about what can be proved, and what can be taken as real
(my background is from being an investigator)

your argument, which is based upon a faith and religion, is all about ideology, and manipulating the argument and the evidence to somehow support your conclusions, which is not science in any way, shape or form
You do not understand microbiology and genetics, so you collected few links and give them as flyers to your opponents in the forum to proof your point of view
I understand far more than you do, apparently
Maybe i was just a paramedic firefighter Truck Captain, but from what i have seen, you have yet to make any kind of a reasonable argument that was not tainted by your faith

which means?
you argue from faith (ideology)
i argue from evidence

Who do you think would win in a court or debate?
the one who could prove his argument or the one who was faithful to his belief?

faith=/=science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
one last thing before i go
Do you know at all how to prove anything in science?
Let me tell you something that i do know

you have no idea what it means to put forth evidence and make any kind of discovery in science...
in order to get to the level of the study and be accepted, there are rigorous steps that must be taken, from conjecture, to hypothesis up to Theory

not in the common usage definition of the word, but the scientific use: the scientific lexicon uses the word to mean
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]
one thing they left out: being able to repeat the experiment
https://en.wikipe...c_theory

so when you ignore all the cumulative science with a comment denigrating evolution, then it only proves that you have no idea what science is, or how it is proven

MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2014
Groundless imaginative speculation.

We have little idea what dark energy and dark matter even are, aside from the effects we have observed, which does implies that they exist. There are no grounds, whatsoever, by which any mechanism could even be considered for "dark energy erases dark matter".

@viko_mx
Groundless imaginative speculation.

If there is one thing we understand very well, it is how faith has always been a reliable and comfortable stand-in for knowledge before mankind began comprehending the universe we are in. Faith, by definition, is belief in spite of evidence. That's not a viable stand to take in reasoned discussion.

Your statement:
"I do not know how the Creator created our reality, but that's the least of our problems. I do not think any man will ever understand this."
pretty much kicks you out of the advanced study group.

Here's something you can believe - if you're in a science class, you're probably flunking.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2014
King James Bible
Genesis

So what did he make the light out of? and how?
"Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these... the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you." Leviticus 11:3-6

-So why did he forget how rabbits are made?

-And speaking of creation, why are there 2 conflicting creation myths in the bible?
http://skepticsan...nts.html

-And why does the book describe major things we know never happened, and people we know never existed? And why is jesus an obvious copy of a dozen godmen from earlier religions?

Why did god write a book which fails to describe the world he created?

-You cant debate the bible without acknowledging its gross errancy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2014
Faith in the Creator does not make you religious. I am calm and reasoned unlike you who became nervous lately
Ahaaahaaaa I love how godders like to explain their stupor as some sort of inner peace.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
@tritace
The space has a structure which is a transmission medium for information, electromagnetic waves and matter. Behavior of material particles depends on this medium. The key is in the properties of the cosmic vacuum. I'm closer to the idea of ​​eter than elastic space and other mathematical games. Cosmic vacuum may change its electromagnetic permeability depending on the presence of a concentrated mass or energy, or one another factor. This changes the behavior of electromagnetic waves and the force interactions between elementary particles. No need to be flexible. The water carries the waves but is not elastic medium. The idea of ​​expanding space in my opinion is not intuitive and creates more problems than it solves.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2014
Cliffs: We think the math says this, but we aren't sure.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Where did you see this pink elephant? The proponents of the theory of evolution become nervous when someone starts asking awkward questions and exposed the weaknesses and contradictions in it. Then start personal attacks due to lack of arguments. In fact, this pseudoscience or rather religion has fallen into a stupor, because it can not explain the reality around us and constantly have to sew with white thread another strange hypothesis (patches). Its supporters have no scientific arguments but emotional reasons to believe in it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
The proponents of the theory of evolution become nervous when someone starts asking awkward questions and exposed the weaknesses and contradictions in it
@v-tard
the problem is, you been given empirical evidence proving evolution whereas you have offered absolutely nothing proving your POV of "exposing weakness and contradictions" in evolution

this means you've given no proof of anything other than ignorance and dedication to a faith that is full of lies, but even your faith condemns the blatant liar, which you are doing
Its supporters have no scientific arguments but emotional reasons to believe in it
the problem with this statement is that it applies to only YOUR arguments
you are the only one not giving proof, whereas you can see links/proof/evidence in all the evolution arguments given to you

you are delusional
and a troll
mooster75
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2014
Energy and matter are eternal in the hierarchy space, but where they came from is pointless question.

"Аnd God divided the light from the darkness"

This means that Creator has defined the laws of physics and properties of the vacuum of space in our universe.

Okay, go with that. God created the laws of physics. Just don't get any more detailed than this, and then the religious among us can quit having these public crises every hundred years or so when they realize reality no longer matches up with their beliefs. It really gets old after a while...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
I have a lot of trouble believing that people who claim the drunken maundering of stone age sheep herders in a magic book called "The Babble" is better than On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, A. Einstein, published as Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in Annalen der Physik. 17:891, 1905, are serious. What drugs do you have to take to believe this? Can I have some?
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2014
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicswor...ws/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.g...023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra" Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
tritace
Nov 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.