From the big announcement: "Pinpointing supernovae in the faraway universe is similiar to watching fireflies in your back yard. All fireflies glow with about the same brightness. So, you can judge how the fireflies are distributed in your back yard by noting their comparative faintness or brightness, depending on their distance from you."
All fireflies do NOT glow with about the same brightness. This has relevance because both redshift and luminosity of supernovae are affected by change in c, making "dark energy" unnecessary.
5:46 PM, November 16, 2006
dark-matter said...
Dark energy properties are not dependent on particle matter, nor the progress (or existence) of time. It therefore does not depend on the existence of gravity (but not the other way around). This indicates that dark energy is a fundamental cause of the Big Bang. It plays the role of THE true 'background' where all other forces and matters play out, including such things as the creation of particle matters with quantum properties, the reason why massless matter must travel in 3D and why there is an upper speed limit to that travel. Dark energy is not virtual particles.
10:31 PM, November 16, 2006
Anonymous said...
L. Riofrio said... “…. making "dark energy" unnecessary.
I am all for making the dark energy unnecessary. However there may be a more physical or “close to experience” way of getting rid of it.
For instance consider the role that the formidable pressure found at the center of a star might play in gravitational phenomena. A simple formula for that pressure is given by g*rho*r where g is the surface gravity, rho the mean density and r is the radius of the star. Imagine a star that is divided up into two hemispheres--a day side hemisphere and a night side hemisphere. Assume further that because of the Tully Fisher law and my experiments (to find out more click my name), the day side surface gravity is slightly less than the night side surface gravity and that this difference is equal to A the centripetal acceleration of the star around the galactic center.
If this is the case then formula for the force of the day side hemisphere on the night side one, would then given by (A-g)*rho*r*(pi*r^2). Here (pi*r^2) is the cross sectional area of the star. The force of the night side hemisphere on the day side one would be given by g*rho*r*(pi*r^2). Subtracting the two forces, the net force that would then centripetally accelerate the star towards the galactic center would be A*rho*pi*r^3.
If the star is located in the “Newtonian regime” of the galaxy, the Newtonian expression for that force that would centripetally accelerate the star towards the galactic center would be GMm/r^2.
This can be written as A*m where A = GM/r^2. Expanding the mass part of this expression it becomes A*rho*4/3*pi*r^3. Thus when compared to A*rho*pi*r^3 it can be seen that the two expressions only differ by a factor of 4/3. This slight difference between the two expressions should not be a problem because it was assumed that rho as a function of r is constant and we know in practice it is not. Here we have almost two equivalent formulas. The old tried and true one that does not work well beyond the solar system or the one that requires luminosity to have a slight attractive power?
This is taking too long. If you want to know how the near equivalence of the two above expression coupled with the coincidence of the dimming and acceleration of the universe can get rid of the dark energy click my name.
NASA will host a media teleconference with Hubble Space Telescope astronomers at 1 p.m. EST Thursday, Nov. 16, to announce the discovery that dark energy has been an ever-present constituent of space for most of the universe's history.
Reporters must call Ray Villard at the Space Telescope Science Institute Press Office, Baltimore, at: 410-338-4514 (villard@stsci.edu) or Cheryl Gundy at 410-338-4707 (gundy@stsci.edu) for participation information. Images and graphics about the research will be posted shortly before the start of the briefing at:
Briefing participants: -- Adam Riess, astrophysicist, Space Telescope Science Institute and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore -- Mario Livio, senior astrophysicist, Space Telescope Science Institute -- Louis-Gregory Strolger, astronomer, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Ky. -- Sean Carroll, senior research associate, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.
Audio of the event will be available on the Internet at:
"NASA announces Discovery of Dark Energy..."
3 Comments -
From the big announcement: "Pinpointing supernovae in the faraway universe is similiar to watching fireflies in your back yard. All fireflies glow with about the same brightness. So, you can judge how the fireflies are distributed in your back yard by noting their comparative faintness or brightness, depending on their distance from you."
All fireflies do NOT glow with about the same brightness. This has relevance because both redshift and luminosity of supernovae are affected by change in c, making "dark energy" unnecessary.
5:46 PM, November 16, 2006
Dark energy properties are not dependent on particle matter, nor the progress (or existence) of time. It therefore does not depend on the existence of gravity (but not the other way around). This indicates that dark energy is a fundamental cause of the Big Bang. It plays the role of THE true 'background' where all other forces and matters play out, including such things as the creation of particle matters with quantum properties, the reason why massless matter must travel in 3D and why there is an upper speed limit to that travel. Dark energy is not virtual particles.
10:31 PM, November 16, 2006
L. Riofrio said...
“…. making "dark energy" unnecessary.
I am all for making the dark energy unnecessary. However there may be a more physical or “close to experience” way of getting rid of it.
For instance consider the role that the formidable pressure found at the center of a star might play in gravitational phenomena. A simple formula for that pressure is given by g*rho*r where g is the surface gravity, rho the mean density and r is the radius of the star. Imagine a star that is divided up into two hemispheres--a day side hemisphere and a night side hemisphere. Assume further that because of the Tully Fisher law and my experiments (to find out more click my name), the day side surface gravity is slightly less than the night side surface gravity and that this difference is equal to A the centripetal acceleration of the star around the galactic center.
If this is the case then formula for the force of the day side hemisphere on the night side one, would then given by (A-g)*rho*r*(pi*r^2). Here (pi*r^2) is the cross sectional area of the star. The force of the night side hemisphere on the day side one would be given by g*rho*r*(pi*r^2). Subtracting the two forces, the net force that would then centripetally accelerate the star towards the galactic center would be A*rho*pi*r^3.
If the star is located in the “Newtonian regime” of the galaxy, the Newtonian expression for that force that would centripetally accelerate the star towards the galactic center would be GMm/r^2.
This can be written as A*m where A = GM/r^2. Expanding the mass part of this expression it becomes A*rho*4/3*pi*r^3. Thus when compared to A*rho*pi*r^3 it can be seen that the two expressions only differ by a factor of 4/3. This slight difference between the two expressions should not be a problem because it was assumed that rho as a function of r is constant and we know in practice it is not. Here we have almost two equivalent formulas. The old tried and true one that does not work well beyond the solar system or the one that requires luminosity to have a slight attractive power?
This is taking too long. If you want to know how the near equivalence of the two above expression coupled with the coincidence of the dimming and acceleration of the universe can get rid of the dark energy click my name.
10:19 AM, November 27, 2006