Doing without dark energy: Mathematicians propose alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration

December 14, 2017 by Andy Fell, UC Davis
“Dark energy,” a mysterious force that counters gravity, has been proposed to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Mathematicians at UC Davis and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, argue for an alternative. Galaxy cluster image from the Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: UC Davis

Three mathematicians have a different explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe that does without theories of "dark energy." Einstein's original equations for General Relativity actually predict cosmic acceleration due to an "instability," they argue in paper published recently in Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

About 20 years ago, astronomers made a startling discovery: Not only is the universe expanding—as had been known for decades—but the expansion is speeding up. To explain this, cosmologists have invoked a mysterious force called "" that serves to push space apart.

Shortly after Albert Einstein wrote his equations for General Relativity, which describe gravity, he included an "antigravity" factor called the "cosmological constant" to balance gravitational attraction and produce a static universe. But Einstein later called the cosmological constant his greatest mistake.

When modern cosmologists began to tackle and dark , they dusted off Einstein's cosmological constant as interchangeable with dark energy, given the new knowledge about cosmic acceleration.

That explanation didn't satisfy mathematicians Blake Temple and Zeke Vogler at the University of California, Davis, and Joel Smoller at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

"We set out to find the best explanation we could come up with for the anomalous acceleration of the galaxies within Einstein's original theory without dark energy," Temple said.

The original theory of General Relativity has given correct predictions in every other context, Temple said, and there is no direct evidence of dark energy. So why add a "fudge factor" (dark energy or the cosmological constant) to equations that already appear correct? Instead of faulty equations that need to be tweaked to get the right solution, the mathematicians argue that the equations are correct, but the assumption of a uniformly expanding universe of galaxies is wrong, with or without dark energy, because that configuration is unstable.

An unstable solution

Cosmological models start from a "Friedmann universe," which assumes that all matter is expanding but evenly distributed in space at every time, Temple said.

Temple, Smoller and Vogler worked out solutions to General Relativity without invoking dark energy. They argue that the equations show that the Friedmann space-time is actually unstable: Any perturbation—for example if the density of matter is a bit lower than average—pushes it over into an accelerating universe.

Temple compares this to an upside-down pendulum. When a pendulum is hanging down, it is stable at its lowest point. Turn a rigid pendulum the other way, and it can balance if it is exactly centered—but any small gust will blow it off.

This tells us that we should not expect to measure a Friedmann universe, because it is unstable, Temple said. What we should expect to measure instead are local space-times that accelerate faster. Remarkably, the local space-times created by the instability exhibit precisely the same range of cosmic accelerations as you get in theories of dark energy, he said.

What this shows is that the acceleration of the galaxies could have been predicted from the original of General Relativity without invoking the cosmological constant/dark energy at all, Temple said.

"The math isn't controversial, the instability isn't controversial," Temple said. "What we don't know is, does our Milky Way galaxy lie near the center of a large under-density of matter in the ."

The paper does include testable predictions that distinguish their model from dark energy models, Temple said.

Explore further: New insights on dark energy

More information: Joel Smoller et al. An instability of the standard model of cosmology creates the anomalous acceleration without dark energy, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science (2017). DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0887

Related Stories

New insights on dark energy

October 2, 2017

The universe is not only expanding - it is accelerating outward, driven by what is commonly referred to as "dark energy." The term is a poetic analogy to label for dark matter, the mysterious material that dominates the matter ...

Do dark matter and dark energy exist?

November 22, 2017

Researchers have hypothesized that the universe contains "dark matter." They have also posited the existence of "dark energy." These two hypotheses account for the movement of stars in galaxies and for the accelerating expansion ...

New supernova analysis reframes dark energy debate

September 13, 2017

The accelerating expansion of the Universe may not be real, but could just be an apparent effect, according to new research published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study—by a ...

Recommended for you

Breaking down the Wiedemann-Franz law

August 13, 2018

A study exploring the coupling between heat and particle currents in a gas of strongly interacting atoms highlights the fundamental role of quantum correlations in transport phenomena, breaks the Wiedemann-Franz law, and ...

Magnetic vortices observed in haematite

August 13, 2018

Vortices are common in nature, but their formation can be hampered by long range forces. In work recently published in Nature Materials, an international team of researchers has used mapped X-ray magnetic linear and circular ...

130 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gculpex
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2017
Good explanation!
javjav
5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2017
If that is correct, the expansion rate should be a bit different on each direction
CubicAdjunct747
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2017
If that is correct, the expansion rate should be a bit different on each direction

Isnt that what the cosmic microwave background radiation map shows us anyway?
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2017
Whether or not a person is satisfied with this really depends upon what your expectations are. If you expect the solution to come from a mathematician, and harbor no expectations that there must be a physical reason for WHY these things are happening other than "creator", then sure, this will do.

But, realize that there are actually an infinite number of possible solutions with this approach -- because you've basically ventured from actual physics into metaphysics.

If your expectation, by contrast, is that there must be an actual physical explanation (not just math), and that cause-and-effect must be preserved (since this is the domain of physics), then Edwin Hubble's former assistant offered the most physical explanation to date for these redshifts: that that ASSUMPTION that redshift can only have one cause is wrong, and that redshift also contains an inherent component that relates to age.

All of the attempts since Arp have been more math than physics.
JustinWaters
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2017
@ HannesAlfven

Don't these mathematicians have a physical explanation on how this would work? They claim the expansion of space is due to our galaxy being in a less dense area of the universe. It seems that it's the dark energy / cosmological constant hypothesis that offers the mathematical fix without physically explaining how it works.
billpress11
2 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2017
I think HA has a valid point, it may very well be they will find another explanation for the observed red-shift in the future. There are several other explanations already out there, here is the one I find most likely:
http://www.scribd...of-Physi
cs
someone11235813
4 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2017
I was under the impression that the dark energy provided the missing 70% of stuff that was needed to explain the flatness of the Universe. So even if these maths are correct then we are back to the flatness problem again, are we not?
Eikka
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2017
Whether or not a person is satisfied with this really depends upon what your expectations are. If you expect the solution to come from a mathematician, and harbor no expectations that there must be a physical reason for WHY these things are happening other than "creator", then sure, this will do.

But, realize that there are actually an infinite number of possible solutions with this approach -- because you've basically ventured from actual physics into metaphysics.

If your expectation, by contrast, is that there must be an actual physical explanation (not just math), and that cause-and-effect must be preserved (since this is the domain of physics)


Did you not notice that your're just kicking the can further down the road, and anybody who's dissatisfied with your answer can say "Well, if you're satisfied with that, but here's WHY it really happens!"

Science is really concerned with what happens, not why it happens. People just confuse "why" with "how".
swordsman
1 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2017
More likely to be a "shrinking" universe.
michbaskett
1 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2017
I can't help but notice there is no mention of the gravity needed to keep galaxies together which has been a problem that Fritz Zwicky first noticed back in the 1930's if memory serves me right. This is another aspect of the dark energy hypothesis. Are the authors ignorant of that or is it simply not mentioned here in this short article?
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2017
The pendulum example seems like Catastrophe Theory to me.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2017
This seems very much like a couple of proposals we've seen over the last several months for eliminating dark energy. The basic idea seems to be that empty space expands faster than space filled with filaments and dark matter and galaxy clusters.

We're going to have to wait for more data to find out for sure, I think.
FredJose
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2017
"The math isn't controversial, the instability isn't controversial," Temple said. "What we don't know is, does our Milky Way galaxy lie near the center of a large under-density of matter in the universe."

Well, now ain't that just dandy!
This brings us back to the fact that red-shift when taken as a spatial transformation actually shows that our milky way is within a million light years from the center of something - whether the universe itself or something else. Look up research done on red-shift quantization if not familiar with this assertion.

sascoflame
Dec 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
fthompson495
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2017
Dark energy is the outflow of dark matter associated with our universal black hole.

'Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids'
http://www.spaced...999.html

"Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies."

Our visible universe is in the outflow of a super-supermassive black hole. As ordinary matter falls toward the super-supermassive black hole it evaporates into dark matter. It is the dark matter outflow which pushes the galaxy clusters, causing them to move outward and away from us. The dark matter outflow is dark energy.

The galaxy clusters which have been pushed for longer than we have are accelerating outward and away from us
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2017
"Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies."
Some of the energy, I suppose. But essentially all of the spacetime. For example the spacetime volume of iron 56 has been estimated to be 13 trillion times that of its nuclear matter. There is no way the black holes can absorb all this spacetime. So the black holes are essentially relieving the atoms of their locked up spacetime and keeping the nuclear matter. Also probably ejecting most of their atomic electrons. Essentially like supernovae in slow motion. No wonder space is expanding.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2017
Re: "Don't these mathematicians have a physical explanation on how this would work? They claim the expansion of space is due to our galaxy being in a less dense area of the universe."
So the presence of matter makes space be less dense? Surely not in terms of matter density. But in terms of energy density or whatever it is that causes spacetime to expand, I think so. That is quantized matter does not expand - else it would not be quantized. So it gets the squeeze. Ergo gravity as the energy density of spacetime is reduced in the presence of quantized matter. Other fluctuations in the energy density of spacetime besides the presence of matter is what we see as dark matter I should think. For example around supernovae.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2017
This is really just changing one math solution for another. Once we unravel the mystery of dark matter, I wouldn't be surprised if it found a solution for dark energy as well.

I agree with people above on the uncertainty of red shift interpretation. Scientists should be working on experiments to test their assumption. For instance, assuming expansion, red shift values depend on distance rather than velocity. This means the red shift values should be increasing over time due to objects becoming ccontinually further away. If red shift is 100% accounted for say just velocity, then the values would not be changing unless their velocities are changing.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2017
...I wouldn't be surprised if it found a solution for dark energy as well.
Me neither. Before the time of first light there sure was lots of dark energy - as a matter of fact all of it. Then stars formed and we begin to see visible light. But there's still plenty of gas out there for new star formation. Most if it - like about 70% - would still be available for transition to stars, black holes, etc, by the force of gravity. But in the process the atomic energy is released as a previously locked up form of energy trapped in quantized matter. So it was collected at the BB in the form of atomic energy and is now being released in the form of expanding spacetime by black holes and supernovae etc.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2017
it is a mathematician playing with equations. Cosmology has basically been taken over by mathematicians in recent decades,
......actually it started right after Einstein published General Relativity in 1916 when Schwarzschild publish his Black Hole Mythical Math, only to have Einstein trash the hell out of it with this paper:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses", Albert Einstein-1939

The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

.......but living on this site are numerous ones who also imagine they are smarter than Einstein, but who like Schwarzschild never saw a Differential Equation they could solve.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2017
I can't help but notice there is no mention of the gravity needed to keep galaxies together which has been a problem that Fritz Zwicky first noticed back in the 1930's if memory serves me right. This is another aspect of the dark energy hypothesis. Are the authors ignorant of that or is it simply not mentioned here in this short article?
Dark energy != dark matter. They're different. You should do some reading about that.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2017
I can't help but notice there is no mention of the gravity needed to keep galaxies together which has been a problem that Fritz Zwicky first noticed back in the 1930's if memory serves me right. This is another aspect of the dark energy hypothesis. Are the authors ignorant of that or is it simply not mentioned here in this short article?

Dark energy != dark matter. They're different. You should do some reading about that.


......and what you should do Schneibo, is take a course in Thermodynamics like I have, and learn why ENTROPY & DARK ENERGY cannot exist inside the same space alongside that of the other. But you don't know what ENTROPY so how could you be expected to comprehend anything about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it's the same problem all asstrophysicists have.

Dark energy != dark matter. They're different.
......no, they are not "different", they are exactly the same, NON-EXISTENT.

Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2017
@Benni'......no, they are not "different", they are exactly the same, NON-EXISTENT.' Nice try but you've got it wrong 'non-existent' entities are different too...think before making sweeping statements.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2017
I can't imagine bothering to argue with someone who can't do math or someone who thinks everyone should drink urine.

It's an obvious complete waste of time.
Mimath224
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2017
Really, I don't know why all the fuss and indignant posts etc. There is something going on out there in the universe that we basically don't understand. The anomaly connected to the . expansion of our universe and another that makes stars behave as though there was 'extra' gravitational effects. And of course yet another, Dark Flow. At present they seem to be quite separate issues. As far as I'm concerned 'dark' something or other is just a place name for an effect that we have yet to find the cause. I dislike the term 'dark' because it seems just to be just a lazy way of saying we don't know. Why didn't mainstream science stick to unambiguous terminology describing the observed or calculated effect. Dark flow for example, is supposed to be a peculiar velocity concerning galaxy clusters so why not call it that, pvgc? Nope, got to introduce a 'mysterious' element so people can sit around arguing...It just seems so childish FROM BOTH CAMPS. Ah well, that my 'rant' over,
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2017
you simply must know, why you can get cancer, i.e. the causal origin rather just description of cancer for finding the effective solution.


That is still a "how" relationship, not a "why" relationship. The causal reason to cancer, or any physical phenomenon, is how it happens, not why it happens, because the question "why" is fundamentally the metaphysical question: "why are the laws of reality as they are". Answering how cancer happens is possible, answering why it happens is impossible because you're fundamentally asking why the universe is.

You simply misunderstood Feynman's point, and mine.

Feynman's point about the magnets was that he cannot explain it to you, because he doesn't know the ultimate answer. In normal parlance we can use "how" and "why" interchangeably, but really we're always talking about the how, not the why. The distinction is simply an artifact of language.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
The fact that the group is mathematicians publishing in a journal devoted to science is a give away, as is the fact that they claim that, 1) the cosmological constant of GR is a fudge factor and then chose to put it identically zero, 2) reproducing the known instability of FLRW universes is an accomplishment, 3) the universe is 50 % older than observations tell us, and, 4) replacing the homogeneity and isotropy of FLRW universes with a local inhomogeneity to explain observed acceleration is an accomplishment.

Besides breaking observations on age and persistent absence of local inhomogeneities, they want to replace a simple physics of vacuum energy with universe scale waves without explaining the value of the vacuum energy and how the sum of energies add up to exactly zero (flat space) in the current cosmology. And I am sure the critique can be much expanded, I got these damning problems from quickly browsing the arxiv version.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2017
I can't imagine bothering to argue with someone who can't do math or someone who thinks everyone should drink urine.

It's an obvious complete waste of time.


Well then, if you would like to have us believe that YOU have the appropriate math skills, then prove Einstein was wrong with this:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

C'mon there Nomath & Schneibo, tell us all about why Einstein was wrong & put up the Differential Equations like he did in this paper...........can't do it, so you keep up with the name calling tirades.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
Commentators that claim against known fact they know what dark energy, dark matter (or unrelated black holes or 'why/how' philosophy) are, yet does not manage to publish like the math group, gets the consideration they are due (none).

@CA747, sm, FJ: The cosmic background radiation shows isotropy is 10^5 times the anisotropy - so no nearby inhomogeneity - and that the universe is expanding (cool).

@HA, bp: Red/blueshift of light has many sources, ranging from trivial (relative velocities to a light source) to cosmological. Cosmic redshift is long identified as caused by universal expansion and the dark energy modulation as a specific change in expansion among others (but now dominating). You can read about it in Wikipedia on basic cosmology.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
@mackita: "why it took so long the physicists to realize it"!?

The FLWR cosmology instability was found by its discoverer at the outset, and it in turn was a nontrivial, early example of GR use: this is famous physics history. [ https://en.wikipe...r_metric ]

But it is true that GR, the foundation of current cosmology, needs observation to arrive at the parameter values of specific universes. Which is why you cannot dodge flat space by disregarding dark energy.

@CR: The current cosmology is based on "laboratory" physics, with the universe as the ongoing lab experiment. Sure, we cannot repeat or poke, but we do observations as usual and the continuing success of our physics show that there is no math problem (since famously you cannot derive physics from axioms but need observation). Cosmology is like biology in that sense, one universe and one tree of life to study -
so far.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
@Merrit, Benni: Dark energy != dark matter. And dark energy and entropy coexist according to observations, with no problem. (Since entropy is the availability of energy states in statistical physics, its most accurate theory, so it depends on the existence of various forms of energy.)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2017
@Merrit, Benni: Dark energy != dark matter. And dark energy and entropy coexist according to observations, with no problem. (Since entropy is the availability of energy states in statistical physics, its most accurate theory, so it depends on the existence of various forms of energy.)


You are as completely CLUELESS as Schneibo, Nomath, et al. You like they need to take a course in Thermodynamics & learn at least a little SOMETHING about ENTROPY & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I've had 3 semesters of Thermodynamics in my 6 years attending Engineering School majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering, and in studying the Laws of Conservation of Energy rationally educated minds know Infinite Energy out of NOTHING (Dark Energy) is an absolute impossiblty. Such an OPEN UNIVERSE MODEL would suck all the entropy out of the system rendering it to zero at the speed of light.

You know, guys like you need to cease trying to be smarter than Einstein.
ellbeeyoo
not rated yet Dec 16, 2017
Very interesting and well presented argument. I am not a physicist but the dark energy solution has always bothered me. We are certain of dark matter as we see its effects even if we don't see the matter, but dark energy has nothing going for it except for explaining the expansion rate. In that respect it is a little like string theory; works great on paper, but in reality, not so much. Dark energy is used to account for 70% of the mass of the universe, so it needs to either be discovered or abandoned so that we can truly understand the universe. There is a possibility that dark energy is simply vacuum energy, which would explain a lot, but that is just a guess with nothing to support it at this time. This has to be the most important area of research for cosmologists is we are to truly advance the science and the search for the TOE.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 16, 2017
@mackita
...the Hubble constant is wavelength dependent.
You mean different red shifts for different frequencies? Just checking.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 16, 2017
@ellbeeyoo
Dark energy is used to account for 70% of the mass of the universe, so it needs to either be discovered or abandoned so that we can truly understand the universe.
I think it was discovered when we discovered quantized matter. It was saved up at the BB for later use. Why blow it all in one big shot? Save a little for later. Let gravity release it as needed. Life is much more fun that way, don't you think?
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 16, 2017
@Benni
You like they need to take a course in Thermodynamics & learn at least a little SOMETHING about ENTROPY & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Just wondering - do they teach anything about entropic gravity in Thermodynamics nowadays?
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2017
@Benni
You are as completely CLUELESS as Schneibo, Nomath, et al. You like they need to take a course in Thermodynamics.....


As usual Benni, it is YOU that has need of an education. Your garbled interpretations constantly show that your claims of having received one to be a lie. If you actually want to understand entropy in a universe with dark energy you should look at some work done by someone who DOES understand the physics. E.g. here is a paper called "Dark Energy and the Entropy of the Observable Universe";

https://www.mso.a...isv2.pdf
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2017
@Benni
Well then, if you would like to have us believe that YOU have the appropriate math skills, then prove Einstein was wrong with this:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939


Have you actually read this paper that you so often cite?

Do you really understand its implications?

Actually, it is obvious that you do not. All Einstein proved in this paper was that BHs could not be formed in dissipationless systems. Since none of the models of BH formation we now have are dissipationless, the paper is irrelevant to modern theory.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2017
@Benni


You like they need to take a course in Thermodynamics & learn at least a little SOMETHING about ENTROPY & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


Just wondering - do they teach anything about entropic gravity in Thermodynamics nowadays?


EG employs a completely different USE of the classical definition of the WORD "entropy" as applied to distribution of energy within a closed system in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The simplest way to understand ENTROPY within the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics boils down to simply stating that it is THE DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM, it is an immutable law of physics.

The word "entropy" can be applied to anything so long as it is used in the context of statistical probability of random scattering of anything. ENTROPIC GRAVITY is not the same discussion as DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY, always understand first the definition of a word within the context of that which is under discussion.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
Actually, it is obvious that you do not. All Einstein proved in this paper was that BHs could not be formed in dissipationless systems. Since none of the models of BH formation we now have are dissipationless, the paper is irrelevant to modern theory.
..............hell's bells man, even you don't know what you just wrote, and if Einstein were here today he wouldn't either. Where did you Copy & Paste this drivel of foolishness from?

RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2017
@Benni
.............hell's bells man, even you don't know what you just wrote, and if Einstein were here today he wouldn't either. Where did you Copy & Paste this drivel of foolishness from?

Just because you don't understand it does not make it untrue. If you DO understand it then explain where dissipation occurs in the paper (after all you claim to understand the math). And then explain Einstein's summary of his findings (copy and paste below) in the context of a dissipative system.

Einstein's summary;
" The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 16, 2017
@Benni
Just wondering - do they teach anything about entropic gravity in Thermodynamics nowadays?
EG employs a completely different USE of the classical definition of the WORD "entropy" as applied to distribution of energy within a closed system in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Ergo they don't teach anything about entropic gravity. Obviously. So do they teach anything about thermal energy density besides your closed system?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
even you don't know what you just wrote, and if Einstein were here today he wouldn't either. Where did you Copy & Paste this drivel of foolishness from?

Just because you don't understand it does not make it untrue. If you DO understand it then explain where dissipation occurs in the paper (after all you claim to understand the math). And then explain Einstein's summary of his findings (copy and paste below) in the context of a dissipative system.

Einstein's summary;
The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light

Rguy, it's the standard misapplication you black hole enthusiasts have for applying KE=1/2mv² to an
electro-magnetic wave to create the phony photo-sphere of a BH, that old relic of 19th century hypothesis of BH creation that Schneibo drags out & puts up from time to time.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
The existence of black holes can be actually argued by general relativity from many other perspectives, than just limiting speed of light
......and just how do you propose limiting the speed of light? No one's ever done it, they just keep proposing it like Rguy when he & Schneibo imagine there is a way of subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to the law of kinetic energy, KE= 1/2mv² & thereby suggesting gravity has the same effect on an elecro-magnetic wave that it does on mass.

RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2017
@Benni

Rguy, it's the standard misapplication you black hole enthusiasts have for applying KE=1/2mv² to an
electro-magnetic wave ....


More garbled nonsense. Nobody that understands physics applies KE=1/2mv² to photons, The fact that you think that they DO again shows your lack of understanding of the physics that you are trying to discuss.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
Rguy, it's the standard misapplication you black hole enthusiasts have for applying KE=1/2mv² to an
electro-magnetic wave


More garbled nonsense. Nobody that understands physics applies KE=1/2mv² to photons, The fact that you think that they DO again shows your lack of understanding of the physics that you are trying to discuss.
.....and the fact that you actually believe an electro-magnetic wave can be subjected to Escape Velocity speciifically derived from the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy is also the reason you don't understand:

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

You see Rguy, first you need to take 1st & 2nd Semester Physics & learn the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy, until then you will never comprehend how & why they are different.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
So do they teach anything about thermal energy density besides your closed system?


Well of course, but within the the kinetic Energy Equation a constant for temperature must be included as well as Boltzman.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2017
I've had 3 semesters of Thermodynamics in my 6 years attending Engineering School majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering, and in studying the Laws of Conservation of Energy rationally educated minds know Infinite Energy out of NOTHING (Dark Energy) is an absolute impossiblty. Such an OPEN UNIVERSE MODEL would suck all the entropy out of the system rendering it to zero at the speed of light.
...
Were they taken at the beginning of your six years, or the end of it?
And was it the same semester, taken over 3 times?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2017
@RNP and @Benni.

From @RNP to @Benni:
If you actually want to understand entropy in a universe with dark energy you should look at some work done by someone who DOES understand the physics. E.g. here is a paper called "Dark Energy and the Entropy of the Observable Universe";

https://www.mso.a...isv2.pdf
While @Benni may not be an 'expert' re ENTROPY concept, he at least knows NOT to mis-apply the localized/closed INCREASING ENTROPY view to INFINITE/ETERNAL UNIVERSE 'system' whose spatio-temporal extent/parameters CAN NOT BE 'BOUNDED' as in that 'exercise' of your linked 'paper'! Hence Lineweavers etc arguments/conclusions therein are FLAWED, ERRONEOUS and yet more MISLEADING BB/Expansion etc based ASSUMPTIONS/EXERCISES that CONFUSE more than 'explain' anything/everything. The INFINITE/ETERNAL extent/process has MAXIMUM ENTROPY 'overall', hence why that 'paper' treat ONLY 'OBSERVABLE' 'arbitrarily bounded' context. Beware! :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2017
While @Benni may not be an 'expert' re ENTROPY concept, he at least knows NOT to mis-apply the localized/closed INCREASING ENTROPY view to INFINITE/ETERNAL UNIVERSE 'system' ...

Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what he is doing.
What if it's an ALMOST bounded system?
Like a 'governor' or even just a leak?
Still infinite, but with a "throttle"...
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2017
And I see Ira hasn't been able to fix that bot-voting problem he's had all these years...
Maybe you could send him a whole new computer system for Christmas?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
While @Benni may not be an 'expert' re ENTROPY concept
......dead on wrong, I AM an expert in the application & design aspects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics famously called ENTROPY, it's also the reason I know how not to mis-apply KE=1/2mv² & spill it over into laws of physics governing Electro-magnetic Waves, mistakes like Schwarzschild & RNP make that prompted Einstein to write:

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

The reason WhyGuy & RNP do not comprehend my explanation for the above is simply because neither of them have the educational background in the deeper aspects of the Laws of Physics that they're able to comprehend the already given explanations, so they start talking to themselves & come up with funny answers & present questions to me that make no sense.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2017
The reason WhyGuy & RNP do not comprehend my explanation for the above is simply because neither of them have the educational background in the deeper aspects of the Laws of Physics that they're able to comprehend the already given explanations, ...

Eu contraire, mis amigos...
I comprehend exactly what you are trying to explain.
I just disagree with your conclusions...
Your educational background might even be the constraint holding you back! ( or mis-application of it...)
"Knowledge is what remains after you've forgotten everything you learned in school..."
and...
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
Wanna guess who said that...? :-)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2017
Photons don't have kinetic energy. That's because they don't have mass.

KE = mv²/2

If there's no m, there's no KE. That's not even college physics; they teach it in high school.

Give it up, @Lenni.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2017
Photons don't have kinetic energy. That's because they don't have mass.

KE = mv²/2

If there's no m, there's no KE. That's not even college physics; they teach it in high school.

Give it up, @Lenni.


Finally Scheibo, you've learned it !!!!!! I'm making progress here!!!!

Now can you move to the next step? That being, there is no quantity of GRAVITY that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave to zero from light speed to create a body of something from which an electro-magnetic wave cannot escape?

Uh, oh, I sense a fanciful Escape Velocity dissertation coming up next, and I should remind you before you get started on that funny farm stuff, that Escape Velocity equations are derived directly from 1/2mv², Kinetic Energy.

Next.........I can just tell this is again gonna be boatloads of fun with you Schneibo.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2017
@Lenni is making inane claims again. Example: "...there is no quantity of GRAVITY that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave to zero from light speed..."

Try to retain a grip on reality, @Lenni. Or at least on high school physics.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2017
@Benni 'Uh, oh, I sense a fanciful Escape Velocity dissertation coming up next,...' Not sure why you thought so since EV is for objects with mass. Ah ha, yep I see where you're going with this (which MIGHT be, I emphasize 'might', a mistake) but take no notice of me, I'm just following your discussion with Da Schneib etc...interested to see what happens.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2017
@Lenni is making inane claims again. Example: "...there is no quantity of GRAVITY that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave to zero from light speed..."


OK Schneibo, what according to you must be the quantity, number, value, calculation, etc, that you claim exists that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave from light speed to zero?
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2017
To discard all these unfamiliar and frustrating and fatamorgans, the "tycoon of science" is discarding and finding a logical solution, one has to understand and accept the structure of the universe, which science has no concept, but invents false theories and something that rejects nature as a pollution of consciousness.
These few conclusions can solve all these bumps.
 1st-universe is a sphere of infinite radius, filled with substance AETHER, from which matter is formed. This rejects stupid conclusions: the phenomenon of BB, the spread of the universe
 2. Gravity and magnetism, as two basic phenomena, have an indestructible relationship and origin with Aether substance, in such a way that the gravity is Aether's relationship to the solid state of matter (mainly quarks, electrons and positrons), and magnetism is the ratio of Aether and gluon, which represent the energy state of matter.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2017
 3. Aether is the basis for the formation of matter, which means it is necessary to reject, as an illogical and unnatural existence: BB, dark matter, dark energy, the expansion of the universe, the appearance of GV, the theory of relativity, Lorentz transformation, the use of these various movements with which science "explains" the causes of the expansion of the universe.
Why did Fainman not know what to say about magnetism? Because he did not understand the relationship between Aether and the gluon.
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
Why does science think that the spread of the universe is accelerating? Because he does not know the way in which the celestial bodies are moving Here, none of you, and nobody from science knows, why our moon has a "stuck and unchanging look" on the neighborhood of the Earth?
What is entropy? This can only be explained if the behavior of Aether is known in which everything is "submerged" from matter, ranging from quarks to clusters of galaxies.
When this behavior of the month is realized, then all of this above will be overturned, and from Einstein, Habl and Lorenz.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
Aether guys.........just one question: Does aether have gravity?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
Once the aether is supposed to explain gravity, then it cannot "have gravity" by itself: it must form it instead. This is principal stuff following from pure semantics - you even don't have to know anything about it... ;-) But in my experience most of people who are twaddling about aether there and here have actually no idea, what https://en.wikipe..._aether. Or better to say, they even don't care (like @milnik above), because they don't have to in their proclamation. For them the #aether is simply the synonym of #alternative_science: does mainstream science disagree with something? Then its all about aether! Nuff said.


You sound like Schneibo trying to explain Black Hole formation.
Steelwolf
not rated yet Dec 17, 2017
Ummm, Shneib, a Photon's energy is considered ALL 'Kinetic energy':

https://www.physi....232106/

and:
https://physics.s...a-photon

What was that about Highschool level data?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2017
Milnik,
1ST - the Universe is an ALMOST infinite quasi spherical volume, FILLED with - space. (Along with matter in all it's various iterations, Planck sized up to (even exceeding) Galactic super-cluster size. And energy in all it's iterations. )
Any structure you may see is derived from that aforementioned space, matter and energy, via a few specific rules that specify how energy, matter and space interacts with other matter, space and energy.
And it's ALL in motion...
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2017
OK Schneibo, what according to you must be the quantity, number, value, calculation, etc, that you claim exists that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave from light speed to zero?
I will reply with my own question: what is the speed of an electro-magnetic wave with a frequency of zero?
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2017
@Benni
...there is no quantity of GRAVITY that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave to zero from light speed to create a body of something from which an electro-magnetic wave cannot escape


Another masterpiece of nonsense from our resident expert in gibberish!

As you would know if, as you claim, you really understood General Relativity, light is not slowed done by the gravity inside the event horizon of a black hole (that is impossible). It is simply that the gravity induced curvature of space-time in that region is such that all paths a photon can take end at the centre of the BH. I.e it can not find its way out.

As I keep pointing out, every time you post you advertise your lack of scientific education,
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2017
It is simply that the gravity induced curvature of space-time in that region is such that all paths a photon can take end at the centre of the BH. I.e it can not find its way out.


......and you have pics of this? If you don't, you'll never prove such a phenomena exists. Or maybe you even have some math for this?

The last time Scneibo tried to model a photo-sphere he used Escape Velocity equations derived from KE=1/2mv², maybe you can do better? Just don't make the same mistake of subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to math reserved only for kinetic energy, although that's probably what you're about to do.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 17, 2017
@Benni
It is simply that the gravity induced curvature of space-time in that region is such that all paths a photon can take end at the centre of the BH. I.e it can not find its way out.
....and you have pics of this? If you don't, you'll never prove such a phenomena exists. Or maybe you even have some math for this?
After all, just go out on a clear night and see all those beautiful black holes emitting starlight!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
Still waiting for your answer, @Lenni. You're dodging, ducking, and weaving. That means you're trying to pretend I never asked, which is a lie.

Here's the math, @Lenni:

v/v₀ = √(1 - 2GM/r₀c²)

Perhaps you can tell us what it's derived from.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2017
@Benni
It is simply that the gravity induced curvature of space-time in that region is such that all paths a photon can take end at the centre of the BH. I.e it can not find its way out.


......and you have pics of this? If you don't, you'll never prove such a phenomena exists. Or maybe you even have some math for this?


Of course there is maths for this! Its called General Relativity. As for your questions about "pics",,,,

GROW UP!!! ...... and then try to learn some physics.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
Oh, and BTW @Lenni, it's not nice to lie about what people say. And you seem to do it in every thread you post in. Is that all you've got, @Lenni the Liar?

Here's your lie:
The last time Scneibo tried to model a photo-sphere he used Escape Velocity equations derived from KE=1/2mv²
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2017
I'll give you a hint, @Lenni: you've seen the equations the redshift equation above is derived from before. In fact, you've seen me post them before.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2017
Again, I have to emphasize: SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW THE LAWS OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE SKY BODIES, and therefore invents many illogical theories. Why are galaxies so moving? Here's the answer: Earth and moon are moving around their common center of mass, and the moon and Earth together around the common center of our solar system, and the solar system (its center of mass) moves around the center of the mass of our galaxy and so on, down to the most complex groups heavenly bodies.
What is the center of the mass? It is the point between the two bodies around which these bodies move under the influence of a constant accumulation of the potential and kinetic energy of these two bodies, but under the influence of gravity, magnetism and led by the influence of Aether, without which there is neither mass nor movement or any phenomenon in the universe.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2017
In addition, from the total energy accumulation of two bodies, if this amount is analyzed, it will be seen that there is a component in that sum, a part of the kinetic energy of radial velocity, which causes both the spin bodies and their sinusoidal movement around their center of mass. If applied to any celestial system of the body, it will be seen how the trajectory of these bodies or collections, such as the solar system, the galaxy, and cluster of galaxies, looks like. Since this doctrine has not been understood, she seeks to find a solution from the imagination of individuals who, without the knowledge of natural laws, try to force the constraint to his "KNOWN"? That's why this story of the movement of galaxies has nothing to do with natural laws.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2017
Really Schneibo: v/v₀ = √(1 - 2GM/r₀c²), ν =v₀ √(1 – 2(GM/rc²)

........you don't know this is not an equation for solving VELOCITY of an EM Wave within a constant gravity field? Of course you woudn't be clued in by the fact that speed of light is already entered as a constant in the denominator?

So why then do you think frequency & wavelength of an EM Wave have any correlation to it's speed? And when energy on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum is zero no such EM Wave exists because EM Waves cease to exist if they do not have inherent Spectrum Energy above zero.

I know, maybe you should try working time dilation into this? Well, no that wouldn't work either, because that is based in Kinetic Energy Escape Velocity math which has nothing to do with the Electro-magnetic Spectrum for Energy content of an EM Wave above zero energy.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
@Lenni the Liar does it again:
you don't know this is not an equation for solving VELOCITY of an EM Wave within a constant gravity field
I say again, it's not nice to lie about what people said.

You don't have any answer to what the speed of an EM wave with zero frequency is.

You can't do the math, or even identify the meaning of the equation I posted, far less the derivation of it.

This apparently is all you've got: lies.

Go ahead and lie some more, @Lenni the Liar. Then make it obvious by bobbing and ducking and weaving some more.

Lying is, among other things, boring.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 17, 2017
v/v₀ = ď��Ĺ�(1 - 2GM/r₀c²)
Thanks @DS. After sniffing around info on Schwarzschild BHs it appears he found a zero in the denominator for the gravitational force at the event horizon and they call this a singularity. I always thought it was some infinite density 0f matter somewhere around the center of the BH. Interesting that you can have an infinite force with a finite amount of mass. Seems like there should be a message there.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 17, 2017
cont
And then there are all these stories about passing through the EH and not telling any difference. Doesn't seem to add up.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2017
You don't have any answer to what the speed of an EM wave with zero frequency is.


......and your reading comprehension is as bad as your comprehension for distinguishing the difference between Kinetic Energy vs. Electro-Magnetic Energy, witness by:

when energy on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum is zero no such EM Wave exists because EM Waves cease to exist if they do not have inherent Spectrum Energy above zero.


Why is it so incomprehensible to you that at ZERO frequency on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum EM Waves are NONEXISTENT, something that does not exist cannot be described as something moving at any speed or velocity. I know Schneibo, math & science are tough, that's why you live here as a career & I have a high technology career job.

Hey, Rguy, the next time you see a photon bouncing around on the surface of a BH, take a pic of it & post it where we can all see what a slow motion EM Wave looks like.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
@Lenni, I don't know what "inherent Spectrum Energy" means. If you're going to use your own eclectic and non-standard terminology, nobody's going to be able to tell what you're saying.

And you're lying again:
Why is it so incomprehensible to you that at ZERO frequency on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum EM Waves are NONEXISTENT
That was exactly my point; apparently you're not smart enough to get it.

That equation says that there is some ratio of mass to radius (which are the only two variables on the RHS of the equation-- neither G nor c varies as far as anyone can tell) beyond which the frequency of light observed far from the surface of a body becomes zero, i.e. "NONEXISTENT [sic]."

What you've just done is not only agree with me but also assert the existence of black holes despite your earlier (and apparently current) denials they exist.

And if you knew any science you'd know that. Just about everyone else does.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
But the real question here, @Lenni, is when you're going to stop lying about what people said.

I repeat:
And you're lying again:

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that at ZERO frequency on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum EM Waves are NONEXISTENT


That was exactly my point
That is you typing a direct lie about what I said. It's irritating, obvious, and boring.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2017
What you've just done is not only agree with me....


OK Schneibo, now let me see if if can get this straight.........you in one short quip claim that I "agree with you", then in the next short quip turn around & say this:
"And you're lying again"
.

So, if I'm agreeing with you, and everything I'm saying is a LIE, then that means you are lying about everything you're writing, logical deduction right?

Schneibo, you're a real hoot. Do you see better why I make it so clear that I only come to the Commentary section of this site for it's ENTERTAINMENT VALUE? It's so entertaining bantering with the funny farm crowd here.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2017
You lied again, @Lenni. Let's examine this:
you in one short quip claim that I "agree with you", then in the next short quip turn around & say this:
And you're lying again
Yep. See, what you're doing is pretending I said:
everything I'm saying is a LIE


It's irritating, obvious, and boring. I said exactly what the lie is. I quoted it, and said exactly how it's a lie. You can worm, squirm, dodge, duck, deny, bluster, bob, and weave, but you have no answer for what you yourself say. And every post you make, you tell another lie.

now let me see if if can get this straight
Fail.

Now, are you going to admit you just said black holes exist, or are you going to keep trying to lie?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2017
are you going to admit you just said black holes exist


.....just as soon as you cough up the pics you've been hiding.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2017
@Lenni switches to another lie.

The black hole at the center of M87 images from Hubble have been shown to you, @Lenni. You're lying again.

C'mon, @Lenni, quit lying. There isn't anywhere to dodge, anywhere to hide, anywhere to duck, anywhere to deny, anywhere to bob, anywhere to weave. Everyone can see you're lying, and it's pretty disgusting to watch. What's the matter with you, anyway? Can't you stop?
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 17, 2017
@Benni
...when energy on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum is zero no such EM Wave exists because EM Waves cease to exist if they do not have inherent Spectrum Energy above zero.
How about that zero frequency 12V electro-magnetic spectrum energy in your car battery? That would have no EM wave but it sure would seem to get from your battery to your starter somehow when you turn your ignition switch on, wouldn't it?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 18, 2017
@Seeker, from your viewpoint the frequency is not zero but one.

You do after all have to turn it on.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2017
@mackita,
I see that you do not want to embark on a detailed analysis and understanding of what I am talking about AETHER substance. You say that I did this only because science does not know how to solve some problems, so I put in my theory for this, although I want to put myself in the solution of this problem. but without evidence.
Explanation:
AETHER is a substance that can not be measured in any way, but the effects of this substance can be observed on all that is formed in the form of various forms of matter.
Aether does not possess any physical properties, nor does it have "its own magnetism."
Magnetism occurs due to the interaction of Aether and gluon, and gravity, due to the interaction of Aether and the "solid" aggregate state of matter (mainly particles with quarks). I am trying to find a non-tycoon scientific institution, to bring all this to me, and there are several hundred pages and text and formula, but I have not found it yet, as you did not find dark matter.
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2017
It does not matter if anyone wants to change the direction of the movement of science, because the time will come soon enough for people to become embarrassed and begin to believe in the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), who is the Creator and us (but many unconscious) human beings. I'm not giving up what I get intuitively, without experiments. My experiments are: deep immersion into the subconscious, and closed eyes in peace, and I'm looking for answers to the causes of the phenomenon and what science makes on the basis of its fatamorgana.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2017
@mackita This means that we should focus on increasing the level of individual consciousness that leads us towards the ACU!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 18, 2017
@DS
@Seeker, from your viewpoint the frequency is not zero but one.

You do after all have to turn it on.

Was thinking about during transmission. Sorry.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2017
@Milnik: Nice stuff - https://imgs.xkcd...ory.png?

That was some pretty dry sarcasm there, Mack...:-)
Don't think Milnik picked up on it...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2017
@Whydening Gyre nor has mackita read or viewed material regarding a QAT approach. Measurements of the proposed classical Aether are possible...for those who follow AWT.
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2017
The one who does not know the structure of the universe and who does not respect the existence of his Creator, which is the SEU, has nothing to do with the foundations of religion. Nuke is totally embarrassed when he is struggling to create himself a third entity in the universe, which does not respect the SEU. This, if God is mentioned, you all jump as fools to show that this is the realm of religions. This is evidence that you entered the zone of "dark activity" as you believe in dark matter. Who correctly understands God, this is not religious, but a true believer, because he believes in truth, and the truth is what our individual consciousness represents to us, which through intuition establishes a connection with SEU and ACU.
The Spirit of the Universe (SEU) forms everything from Aether, and it is just a component of the MEEU, both in us and in the universe, and the SEU is the manager of everything in the MEEU.
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2017
Once you understand this, you will understand Aether and matter and magnetism and gravity and you will no longer believe in the stupid theories of Einstein and his fans.
I am also for science, but the one that develops towards the understanding of the structure of the universe, in which we, human beings, are the last patent of SEU. Whoever does not accept that, there is no spark of the SEU in itself, and that is the soul, and him, his free will, the water through a part of the universe, as a man leads a little dog with him, his beloved, whom he loves because the dog respects him, and it is known why.
jpdemers
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2017
If the rate of expansion in different directions is different, what we see in the CMB might be distorted by the presence of different red-shifts in different directions.
Wish I had the math chops to follow the theory here!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2017
If the telescope is fixed on Earth, what will it "catch" on the screen, only for one second, if the planet rotates around its axis, then around the center of the mass with the moon, then it moves around the sun.
While the photon arrives on the screen, only for 1 second, how much will the telescope's direction in the universe move?
Can this be confirmed by these measurements by those experts?
someone11235813
not rated yet Dec 27, 2017
coined by Feynman, once he got into a corner with question "how magnets work?" He deliberately modified it to a question "why magnet works" and evaded just the answer, which the science was supposed to answer according to his own philosophy.


@mackita, that is entirely incorrect. He simply explained that in order to ask a how OR why question one needs to be in a framework where one can allow something to be true already. Otherwise you keep asking how or why forever. He did not evade the question at all he just said the questioner did not have enough knowledge of physics for any answer to make any sense.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 27, 2017
..."why magnet works"...
I have never met such resistance as I have with my conjecture about magnetism. That is, it works because of the orientation of virtual particles in virtual particle pair creation. Because these particles are charged they will form strings at random. If they are encouraged to line up in some particular direction, as for example by the passing of high-speed charged particle cosmic rays, and the majority of particle pairs are, for example, collapsing, then you get a force of attraction, otherwise repulsion.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
@seeker2,
If you accept the existence of Aether substance, then everything is simply explained, related to all phenomena in the universe, such as the most important: magnetism, gravity, light, and everything else.
Magnetism: this is the mutual indestructible relationship between Aether and gluon (free gluons found in neutrons), and a special story about quark gluon plasma (mostly magnetars).
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
@seeker2,
If you accept the existence of Aether substance, then everything is simply explained, related to all phenomena in the universe, such as the most important: magnetism, gravity, light, and everything else.
Trouble is, @milnik, those who have all the answers also have all the questions. And yours might not be one of them. In which case, I guess you just have to find another Maharishi.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
@S..2,
I and you are the same!
I do not even know what Maharishi is, as you do not even know what AETHER is !!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
@S..2,
I and you are the same!
I do not even know what Maharishi is, as you do not even know what AETHER is !!
Ergo I would not make a very good Maharishi I guess. Sorry.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
@S2,
Who is this Maharishi, really?
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
@S2,
Who is this Maharishi, really?
Maybe some snake oil salesman. Or maybe sells Aether theory or whatever. Some type of magic elixir. Has all the answers and all the questions. Might even cure your lumbago. Not sure about that though.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2017
@S2, Here I am offering you Aethera pill that successfully cures dementia that destroys the possibility of recognizing the true causes of the phenomenon. If you know the true cause of the phenomenon, then you can answer all the questions of those who do not have a clue about this phenomenon, nor what it is like.
Why do people ask a lot of questions related only to the elucidation of one phenomenon? Because they do not know the true cause of this phenomenon. So, one answer is sufficient for countless unconstrained questions. So is my Aether substance without which there is nothing in the universe, nor can it move.
And I advise you to get serious and use awareness and intuition to find out the true causes of the phenomenon.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 29, 2017
...use awareness and intuition to find out the true causes of the phenomenon.
I understand. Scrap this silly science stuff. Right?
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2017
It's true, Seeker2, and now you are on the road to better understand everything that today's "science" creates a new dogma, which can become one of many variants of religions, which have nothing to do with the true structure of the universe.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 29, 2017
After all, @milnik, science-based is one of the government's new seven forbidden words. See http://www.lohud....2059001/
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2017
Cont
Especially noxious is the term evidence-based. Who needs evidence when you have alternate facts and intuition?
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2017
Intuition is your logistics and lobbying, which allows you to have effective weaponry for the defense of the unconscious, and these weapons are EVIDENCE.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 29, 2017
Intuition is your logistics and lobbying, which allows you to have effective weaponry for the defense of the unconscious, and these weapons are EVIDENCE.
Right. We didn't need any evidence to know Saddam had WMDs, we had intuition.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2017
False and deliberate deliberations, based on the evil qualities of those who sue someone, have nothing to do with intuition. So it's not clear to you what intuition is!
Intuition is the current connection of our individual consciousness with the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU), which enables us to find out the TRUE CAUSES OF THE POSTER. So everything is known about this phenomenon, there is no speculation, misinterpretation, deception, and misconduct such as the Hague Tribunal and those who accused Saddam H.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 30, 2017
...those who accused Saddam H.
So did Saddam really have WMDs or is that question even relevant?
milnik
not rated yet Dec 30, 2017
Americans know that, if they want to tell the truth. It is important that Saddam was hanged, the state destroyed, the mess was established. This has affected many other countries, as well as Serbia, where 27 countries are "culturally, humane and well-intentioned", with 2,000 aircraft devastated by the state for 90 days and thrown there, only 10000 tons of depleted uranium bombs, which collapse only 4 billion years . It is "a gift to powerful, poor countries.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 30, 2017
Americans know that, if they want to tell the truth....
Yes let's not just tell the truth but the whole truth. Not just what happens to fit your agenda.
milnik
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
The black holes can not be formed from gases, because gravity collects gases into the bundles of matter (celestial bodies-all the way to clusters of galaxies), when gravity accumulates these bodies at great distances and forms a black hole in which they "suck" these bodies and turn them into Aether from which these bodies were formed. Such a black hole can not release any spray of matter or some radiation. This can happen at the boundary of critical mass and gravity. If there is Aether, which is logical, why invent something dark and matter and energy. People who persistently repeat it without any evidence, maybe they are some new sect in the science of intent to engulf people and thus make billions of dollars on false theories.
milnik
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
Large particle collisions also work on this policy, and when they get a "new" particle, they are praised that they have found something new. But they are unaware that this particle is currently a certain type of Aether under increased magnetism and speed of movement.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
...why invent something dark and matter and energy.
Only to describe the evidence.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2018
What particles, obtained in particle collisions, exist as permanent in nature?
Do you think they are bozons, say Higz bozon. These particles, obtained in collisions and formed from fragmented protons, neutrons, electrons, in mixed collisions, can only be those that are an integral part of the particles before the collision. Can a particle be obtained in the collision of two protons, that it is 600 times greater than the proton. Only those who do not know what is happening in these processes can claim it. In which chemical element -atom, there are: Z boson with mass 91.19 Gev / č ^ 2, or V boson with mass of 80.39 Gev / č ^ 2? If they build some fields, where are these fields? And this measure, with which the mass is expressed (c ^ 2), has no logical connection with the formation of mass. There is no formula: F = m.č ^ 2, there is no logic, nor can it calculate the energy of some mass.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 01, 2018
correction: F=m.c^2, ..Gev/c@2, W bozon
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
correction: F=m.c^2, ..Gev/c@2, W bozon
Maybe for bozo the clown? Anyway definitely in compliance with CDC directives about the seven forbidden words.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
cont
Time to call out the mystics?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
correction: F=m.c^2, ..Gev/c@2, W bozon
How about E=ma?
milnik
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
It's all clear to me what appears in the universe and that's why I do not need mystics.
And this is your formula: E = m.a, I do not know what it means if E-energy. F = m.a, which is the force created by the acceleration of the mass m.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
...F=m.c^2,
...F = m.a, which is the force created by the acceleration of the mass m.
Ergo a = c*2. Interesting.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
Error writing-correction,
The energy is: E = m.c ^ 2,
Power: F = m.a,
m = mass, and, a = acceleration
therefore you marvel and write: a = c ^ 2, which is absurd!
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
Sure seems that way. Also power = f?

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.