OFFICIAL Dark Matter/Dark Energy Thread
  • I didn't see this posted. I'm going to post this for future announcements and discoveries, I don't think there's a better place for this.

    image

    So everything we can see in the universe, everything that has atoms, reflects light, everything we can know or see with any measuring devices we currently have.......accounts for 4.6% of the total energy of the universe.

    For those of you who haven't been mind fucked by this yet, the only person I've seen try to explain what this means and how the fuck we know about it is Laurence Krauss. He explains pretty well(for a stupid person like me) the scientific experiments that allowed us to determine all of these things about the universe. I believe this lecture is the best one out of all of the ones he's done, but they're all worth listening to if you're interested in the cutting edge of scientific discoveries of the universe.



    So all atoms are 4.6%, Dark Matter is 23%, and Dark Energy is 72%. What are Dark Matter and Dark Energy? NOBODY FUCKING HAS A CLUE. They're placeholders to show what the mystery is, a label for the things that hopefully we will find out as we send out more sophisticated instruments. This is VERY new as far as discoveries go, I believe all of this was determined in the last decade, so there are so many questions and mysteries to answer.

    This is a really huge mindfuck for anyone, I think. Quantum mechanics only account for 4.6% of the universe, and we haven't even figured that out yet. Some string theorists think dark matter and dark energy could be another universe in the multiverse 'crossing over' into ours, giving us gravity and all of these things we don't understand and can't see with our existing sensors.

    Anyways, this thread will go down pretty quick, but if I see any interesting new discoveries I'll post in here.

    Update: Just found out that they actually launched a crazy new camera to try to find out more about dark energy, here is the BBC article about that and some websites that will be posting any updated science on dark energy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19634700

    http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/DECam/camera.shtml

    http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/
    Post edited by andyrosebrook at 2012-09-18 14:27:15
    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    Posting in an @andyrosebrook thread.

    What really needs to be understood is gravity. Dark anything may not actually exist, hence the darkness.

    Scientists have failed to account for the amount of gravitation in terms of visible matter in galaxies and superclusters. The 'expansion' of the universe (dark energy) could very well not be occurring and the Big Bang Theory might be shown to be a misinterpretation of telescopic data. Red shifting may be a universally persistent effect in the universe, we need more pictures from more places. In this lecture Krauss talks about red-shifting as it would be perceived from the system Vega and how the universe would appear to be expanding from Vega if you had a telescope centered in the star system making observations. There are either infinite big bangs centered at any given point of observation, or we are seeing a distortion effect present in all locations from which we can make a physical observation.

    There are plenty of scientists working on demonstrating cosmological models which eliminate the "problem" of "dark" matter-energy by redefining gravity and time. These new definitions could lead to new hypotheses, new experiments and instruments to confirm them, new empirical data, leading to still more hypotheses. I'm not convinced the whole Dark Matter-Energy problem won't just evaporate when it's seen as part of the geometry of a physical universe and not some mysterious "force" acting on objects in it.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 01:07:18
    image
  • ^ when you say, scientists have failed to account for the amount of gravitation in terms of visible matter in galaxies and superclusters, where do you draw that conclusion from? I thought the top minds in the field generally agreed that the math was correct, and so had to invent dark matter and energy in order for the supercomputers models to reflect what we see in realty. if youre saying theyre wrong, says who and how?

    the expansion of the universe is a separate thing from dark energy. dark energy is the force that expands the universe against the pull of gravity, right? so it pairs with gravitty to form what we see as the cosmos, or expansion of the universe. just wanted to clarify so i understood what you meant when you say they may not have occured, which wouldnt make sense to my feeble brain. we can see everything expanding away from everything else. imagine being a random single point among a million evenly spaced single points within a balloon. as the balloon is blown up, everything is moving away from everything else, and yet expanding in unison. what it all means, i dont know, but thats what we mean when we talk about the expanding universe being observed identically from infinite different locations.

    where are the scientists and their models that show they eliminate this problem by redefining gravity and time? sounds interesting to me, because ive never been very persuaded by the big bang. like rogan says, its science asking scientists to believe in magic, just this one time. i dont buy it, so im def open to different viewpoints. i think the whole thing breathes and is nothing more than a dream.

    show me the documents.
    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-03 01:30:47

  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @Ghost_Hit "Dark Matter" is the plug in the hole created by the observation that galaxies don't spin themselves apart and maintain cohesive structure.

    On rotation:


    On superclusters:


    This is a pretty boilerplate lecture on models of space and time, towards the end he begins to talk about the NUMBER of models. There is not one "best" model, there is not one agreed on my most theoretical physicists, and there probably is no master theory. There is no scientific consensus in this area yet. Link to my pet model. In Verlinde's model, in a very real sense, this conversation isn't even "occuring" in any discretely definable way it only appears to be occurring. :D



    If we have to invent things to make our models look like reality than the mystery might be in the model, not the Universe itself.

    Energy is not a force, the forces are something else, energy is matter - one and the same. Gravity is defined as a force (although myself and others aren't convinced about that) alongside the Strong Nuclear and Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic Forces (actually one force, the Electroweak). Dark Matter-Energy (one thing) is not in the same category.

    I also just want to make a point about Appeals to Authority. It really upsets me that I can only show people the truth of things in this place if I place the facts in this specific fallacious context. In terms of pure epistemology you should remember that YOU are the only expert in the world. Picking people to listen to does not free you from this burden. Use your brain.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 02:18:43
    image
  • Im confused.

    As I understood from a video I saw yesterday, Stephen Hawking says that most of the universe is the "regular" matter (and not the dark matter like you say here and as I've heard on a couple Podcasts). And if you think about it it makes sense, if the Universe was made of dark matter (negative energy, or whatever they wanna call it) we wouldn't be able to perceive it.

    I'm way out of my league when it comes to quantum physics and shit, but here is the video I'm referring to (the part related to this is at around 25:00):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @libravirtus Hawking and Krauss are covering the same ground.

    In these models (not observations) the universe is mathematically flat and balanced. I think it is an error to draw an equivalence between the statements "the universe equals zero" and "the universe came from null," however.

    I think these two are desperate to have a Creation story be a part of the scientific-materialist ontological mythos.

    0 ≠ ∅
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 02:32:42
    image
  • Thanks for the videos Orgone, I will watch them tomorrow.

    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • Apocaloptimist1
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    d
    Post edited by Apocaloptimist1 at 2012-09-07 02:55:12
    Anti-Profit Permaculture Campgrounds for Creative Minds!
    http://www.CampExist.org

  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @mdd0127 I think you're mixing up some science terms there, but if I just interpret your statement analytically I think I understand what the "light being" (I call them nuerons) was trying to convey. There is a vague mathematical sense to what you're saying.

    Dark and light being defined against one another, humans have a tendency to define themselves as the real/primary and wouldn't label themselves with any term that might generate competitive imagery. I'm sure if you turned that image on it's head and made the apparent universe the real deal people would be amenable to what the wisp was telling you. Of course having that attitude going into psychedelic experience will make sure you never talk to anything that will give you that kind of information about the universe. :)
    image
  • Apocaloptimist1
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    d
    Post edited by Apocaloptimist1 at 2012-09-07 02:55:22
    Anti-Profit Permaculture Campgrounds for Creative Minds!
    http://www.CampExist.org

  • Ghost_Hit said:

    sounds interesting to me, because ive never been very persuaded by the big bang. like rogan says, its science asking scientists to believe in magic, just this one time. i dont buy it, so im def open to different viewpoints. i think the whole thing breathes and is nothing more than a dream.

    show me the documents.



    Have you watched a lot of YouTube lectures about the big bang? As far as I've understood it, they've definitely proven that the universe is expanding ever faster, and they've proven that in order to get all of the 'stuff' that the universe is made out of it had to be incredibly, unimaginably hot at an early point in the universe. Rewind time, and the only explanation is that our current universe started from a central point. A lot of these astronomers and physicists in lectures will painstakingly explain how they know this, and the series of mathematical discoveries that led to it, it's really fascinating and illuminating if you haven't looked into it, I'm not sure how you couldn't be persuaded by that.

    I don't think it's anything close to magic, science is the exact opposite of magic, it's all that we can see and prove with our existing senses. Scientists don't claim to know what was before the big bang yet, or what caused it, because they simply don't have the information needed to know that yet. We're in a very exciting time, because they're working on a lot of theories now, and perhaps in our lifetimes they'll find out some crazy shit.

    My favorite mind fuck is that we're 14 billion years into our universe now, and we have enough things within our view to calculate a few scientific facts, like the universe is expanding, came from a central point, etc. The mind fuck is that, because the universe is expanding at an exponential rate, in a few billion years we literally would not be able to see galaxies, other stars, anything outside of the system you're in. So if you imagine yourself as a human on that planet, and you didn't have information from your far ancestors passed down to you, you literally might never be able to know that other systems, stars, galaxies ever existed at all. You would be fundamentally lacking in information, and if you guessed about how the universe started you'd be wrong.

    The same thing is definitely possible where we are now. Had we been looking 10 billion years ago, who knows what we would be looking at right now? Many scientists might say that it would be better, we'd be closer to celestial objects, and better able to do calculations and see what's going on. But I think it's definitely plausible that we are in a position similar to that fictional planet 10 billion years in the future, it's possible we are in a time where it's literally impossible to understand what came before the big bang, and yes, it is even possible that we are incorrect about everything.

    Thanks for the videos orgone, I hadn't seen a lot of that information. Loved the explanation about rotation and planet formation.

    It seems like you're agreeing with me, correct me if I'm wrong, about dark matter and dark energy, in that they are just placeholders for the vast amounts of knowledge we don't have. I'm hoping that as we learn more about quantum mechanics, that will help us start to learn a little more about what's going on. But, as I stated above, I always leave the possibility that we're in a place and time where we may never know all these answers. I think it's even possible that we don't possess the sensory organs to process the information we need anyway, maybe after the singularity happens and computers improve themselves exponentially(granting that the robots don't exterminate us), they'll develop methods and instruments to measure the universe beyond the capabilities of us mere humans.

    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • "The elementary charge, usually denoted as e, is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negation (opposite) of the electric charge carried by a single electron."

    e= 1.602 x 10^-19 C (from Wikipedia)
    1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s
    e= 3.204 x 10^-26 kg/s

    The mass of a proton is:
    1.67×10^−27 kg

    If we divide the emitted charge of a proton by its mass we see that protons are emitting 19 times their own mass as charge every second.

    19.19

    The "missing" 95% is likely just charge photons.
    Post edited by hce at 2012-09-07 06:21:59
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    hce said:

    "The elementary charge, usually denoted as e, is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negation (opposite) of the electric charge carried by a single electron."

    e= 1.602 x 10^-19 C (from Wikipedia)
    1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s
    e= 3.204 x 10^-26 kg/s

    The mass of a proton is:
    1.67×10^−27 kg

    If we divide the mass of a proton by charge we see that protons are emitting 19 times their own mass as charge every second.

    19.19

    The "missing" 95% is likely just charge photons.


    @hce Don't come in here with your fancy numbers and logic. I want a Ted talk or a Google News story, something reputable that I can post on facebook and people will think I'm smart. If it's not a professor of a university I'm intellectually intimidated by I'm going to assume what you said was false. Once you show me someone with letters behind their name, I will reverse my position 100% without examining any features of the actual argument.

    In all seriousness though, that sounds interesting. Is this you or something you read?
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 21:16:19
    image
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.

    It seems like you're agreeing with me, correct me if I'm wrong, about dark matter and dark energy, in that they are just placeholders for the vast amounts of knowledge we don't have. I'm hoping that as we learn more about quantum mechanics, that will help us start to learn a little more about what's going on.



    What I'm opposed to is the names "Dark Energy and "Dark Matter" load the inquiries with particular notions of how to treat these phenomena. Imagine our attempts to figure out what is going of if we called them "Dark Spirits".

    That the universe is expanding from a single point is not the only way of interpreting this data, and none of this will have anything to with quantum mechanics. It'll be a new theory with new mechanics more than likely.

    Calling things we can't see and don't understand "energy" or "angels" doesn't make sense to me and there are perfectly valid theories not featured on the History or Science Channels that give us a universe that is not expanding at all and don't conflict with any observation. My claim is that the mainstream interpretations of red-shifting are demonstrably false and the scientists propagating alternative theories to the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe will be vindicated eventually.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 21:17:21
    image
  • orgone said:

    hce said:

    "The elementary charge, usually denoted as e, is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negation (opposite) of the electric charge carried by a single electron."

    e= 1.602 x 10^-19 C (from Wikipedia)
    1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s
    e= 3.204 x 10^-26 kg/s

    The mass of a proton is:
    1.67×10^−27 kg

    If we divide the mass of a proton by charge we see that protons are emitting 19 times their own mass as charge every second.

    19.19

    The "missing" 95% is likely just charge photons.


    @hce Don't come in here with your fancy numbers and logic. I want a Ted talk or a Google News story, something reputable I can post it on facebook and people will think I'm smart. If it's not a professor of a university I'm intellectually intimidated by I'm going to assume what you said was false. One you show me someone with letters behind their name however, I will reverse my position 100% without examining any features of the actual argument.

    In all seriousness though, that sounds interesting. Is this you or something you read?


    An ANALYSIS of DARK MATTER by Miles Mathis (PDF)
    Post edited by hce at 2012-09-03 21:30:00
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @hce Seems like an interesting guy, I'll check out some of his stuff.
    image
  • What i'm getting out of this...

    Gravity is the result of the action between that which, has mass or consists of the periodic table, flying through the unknown/dark properties at incredible breakneck speeds...

    What are zooming threw ?...cause it would seem the reaction is the cause or source of the gravity...

    Which brings me to the higgs bozen particle shit...

    Couldn't a sizeble amount of those particles zipping through space bonded together, create a distortion in the gravity field creating the black hole phenom ?
  • I'm confused, orgone. I shouldn't listen to scientists with PhDs. A guy that posts a complicated math equation(that you state you do not understand) on a message board seems more believable than mainstream science. Dark matter and dark energy shouldn't be called those names for some reason. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the expansion and explanation of the universe. Nobody has proven that the universe is expanding, however there are no plausible alternative theories yet. Am I getting your thoughts on this correct?

    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.

    I'm confused, orgone. I shouldn't listen to scientists with PhDs. A guy that posts a complicated math equation(that you state you do not understand) on a message board seems more believable than mainstream science. Dark matter and dark energy shouldn't be called those names for some reason. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the expansion and explanation of the universe. Nobody has proven that the universe is expanding, however there are no plausible alternative theories yet. Am I getting your thoughts on this correct?



    You should just realize that scientists with PhDs are all forwarding different theories, some compatible with the others, some mutually exclusive. I was only joking with @hce, to me logic and mathematics (which I did happen to understand, I just needed to read the article to find out how and why those facts were being highlighted) trump all letters and titles that apes give to one another. If an idea makes zero sense I won't give it a chance no matter how many people believe it or how respected those people are by other people.

    The problem I have with Dark "Matter and Energy" is that that term tethers people's mind to a series of wrong answers by assuming they are kind of like regular matter-energy, or are analogous in some way. We could very well be dealing with something completely different, or - given the mathematical constancy of the red-shifting phenomenon - a cosmological optical illusion.

    The only fact (observation) we have is that of cosmic red-shifting, the interpretation of this fact is expansion in one school, distortion in another.

    @BetterOffHere I can't answer your question because of a few confused definitions. The "force carrying" subatomic particles like bosons have very different properties from atomic particles like protons and neutrons. It's almost a shame we use the same word for both objects.

    Generally speaking gravity-entropy is the name for what happens when matter-energy interacts with space-time.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 22:55:33
    image
  • Apocaloptimist1
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    orgone said:




    The problem I have with Dark "Matter and Energy" is that that term tethers people's mind to a series of wrong answers by assuming they are kind of like regular matter-energy, or are analogous in some way. We could very well be dealing with something completely different, or - given the mathematical constancy of the red-shifting phenomenon - a cosmological optical illusion.



    I thought that this was a given. It's just easier to give something a name than to say, "that crap that is beyond out understanding at this point".

    Anti-Profit Permaculture Campgrounds for Creative Minds!
    http://www.CampExist.org

  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @mdd0127 Why not call it "Dark Time" or "Dark Gravity"? These things are defined in relation to one another. The root of the problem is that most working scientists have been taught to give primacy to a materialist metaphysics for no arguable reason.

    ***Anticipated Public Existential Panic***
    I know people can't fathom the idea that some of their good friends here may be willing and happy denizens of Chapel Perilous so let me give you a little branch to hold. All of these scientific theories can be analyzed through the lens of pure Information Theory. I don't and you don't have to speculate on the state of affairs outside of your mind to critique the work of the rationalist-materialist set effectively.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-03 23:48:11
    image
  • If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, how can the universe be expanding?
    The only thing worth doing is that which I can do by will alone... everything else is just passing time. (*)
  • @orgone i dont have time for 3 hours of vid, but i see the scientists mentioned in the title and you refer to a "he" in the paragraph about countless models. im just looking for a name.

    no idea why youre going on about some "appeal to authority", but very orgonish.
    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-05 21:02:18

  • mdd0127 said:

    When tripping pretty hard on mushrooms a long time ago, a light being told me (and I'm paraphrasing here) that all things that appear to us as real get the energy that they need to hold their form in our dimension by attracting what we call dark energy to them, then they "poop" dark matter, which creates more of the non energy stuff needed to create our dimension of physical reality and the other dimensions that coexist with ours. It explained that gravity was the friction of the dark energy being pulled through the apparently solid/real matter towards larger objects and that the vibrational frequency of the dark matter that gets expelled as waste determined which dimension it became a part of. I don't know what qualifications the light being had but it sounded pretty good to me at the time.

    I used to be a big math nerd and read a bunch of books about quantum mechanics and string theory. I even took a couple of physics and math classes at UNO. After trying to replicate some of the conclusions that the gurus of the time were reaching, I dismissed it all as quackery and decided to have fun in life instead of working on multi page equations that can only be "solved" by using a variable or two that can mean whatever they need to mean to make the equation solvable.



    that is interesting shit. great post. feel free to not paraphrase the experience.

    every since i started mushrooms, i give much more weight to experience rather than evidence in this dimension we barely understand a tiny fraction of. i used to flat out discount 90% of theories out there. now i cant discount more than 1%, cuz who the fuck really knows ya know?

    its funny to listen to people who think they do.

  • If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, how can the universe be expanding?



    ill try to repeat some concepts imagined by others far smarter than i:

    once you go to the quantum level, that law seems to fail to apply, but regardless, because things move apart... that doesn't require energy as objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force - newton law - i cant remember which. maybe its this simple, but no one knows with 100% certainty.
    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-06 08:31:12

  • Ghost_Hit said:

    sounds interesting to me, because ive never been very persuaded by the big bang. like rogan says, its science asking scientists to believe in magic, just this one time. i dont buy it, so im def open to different viewpoints. i think the whole thing breathes and is nothing more than a dream.

    show me the documents.



    Have you watched a lot of YouTube lectures about the big bang? As far as I've understood it, they've definitely proven that the universe is expanding ever faster, and they've proven that in order to get all of the 'stuff' that the universe is made out of it had to be incredibly, unimaginably hot at an early point in the universe. Rewind time, and the only explanation is that our current universe started from a central point. A lot of these astronomers and physicists in lectures will painstakingly explain how they know this, and the series of mathematical discoveries that led to it, it's really fascinating and illuminating if you haven't looked into it, I'm not sure how you couldn't be persuaded by that.

    I don't think it's anything close to magic, science is the exact opposite of magic, it's all that we can see and prove with our existing senses. Scientists don't claim to know what was before the big bang yet, or what caused it, because they simply don't have the information needed to know that yet. We're in a very exciting time, because they're working on a lot of theories now, and perhaps in our lifetimes they'll find out some crazy shit.

    My favorite mind fuck is that we're 14 billion years into our universe now, and we have enough things within our view to calculate a few scientific facts, like the universe is expanding, came from a central point, etc. The mind fuck is that, because the universe is expanding at an exponential rate, in a few billion years we literally would not be able to see galaxies, other stars, anything outside of the system you're in. So if you imagine yourself as a human on that planet, and you didn't have information from your far ancestors passed down to you, you literally might never be able to know that other systems, stars, galaxies ever existed at all. You would be fundamentally lacking in information, and if you guessed about how the universe started you'd be wrong.

    The same thing is definitely possible where we are now. Had we been looking 10 billion years ago, who knows what we would be looking at right now? Many scientists might say that it would be better, we'd be closer to celestial objects, and better able to do calculations and see what's going on. But I think it's definitely plausible that we are in a position similar to that fictional planet 10 billion years in the future, it's possible we are in a time where it's literally impossible to understand what came before the big bang, and yes, it is even possible that we are incorrect about everything.

    Thanks for the videos orgone, I hadn't seen a lot of that information. Loved the explanation about rotation and planet formation.

    It seems like you're agreeing with me, correct me if I'm wrong, about dark matter and dark energy, in that they are just placeholders for the vast amounts of knowledge we don't have. I'm hoping that as we learn more about quantum mechanics, that will help us start to learn a little more about what's going on. But, as I stated above, I always leave the possibility that we're in a place and time where we may never know all these answers. I think it's even possible that we don't possess the sensory organs to process the information we need anyway, maybe after the singularity happens and computers improve themselves exponentially(granting that the robots don't exterminate us), they'll develop methods and instruments to measure the universe beyond the capabilities of us mere humans.



    ill just throw out responses in the order you wrote:

    ya, the acceleration and expansion of the universe is pretty well agreed upon. as recent as 2011, the nobel prize for physics went to 3 guys who measured the properties of supernovas to determine this conclusion, but check this out:

    (its just one other possibility. how many plausible ones can be reached over just the next 100 years?)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44690771/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/accelerating-universe-could-be-just-illusion/#.UEfs-41lQZY

    "Now, a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The false impression results from the way our particular region of the cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expanding faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down — just as would be expected from what we know about gravity."

    there is a lot more in that article if anyone is interested...


    ya the evidence for the big bang is compelling for sure. i know i dont even know all of it, but when you study how much we DONT know about the universe especially at the quantum level, versus how much we DO know... i just think its too early to lean toward any one theory. im ok with not knowing even what i believe to be most likely, let alone pick a side.

    ya if we expand forever we'll never see stars outside our galaxy. pretty trippy. i wonder if there would be less pointless existential angst on the planet if it were that "simple".

    pretty funny. when it all comes down to it, all of us are just spouting what makes the most sense from our perspective.

    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-05 21:05:52

  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    Ghost_Hit said:

    @orgone i dont have time for 3 hours of vid, but i see the scientists mentioned in the title and you refer to a "he" in the paragraph about countless models. im just looking for a name.


    orgone said:

    There is not one "best" model, there is not one agreed on my most theoretical physicists, and there probably is no master theory. There is no scientific consensus in this area yet. Link to my pet model. In Verlinde's model, in a very real sense, this conversation isn't even "occuring" in any discretely definable way it only appears to be occurring.



    If you don't have time for three hours of research ... could you please stop making false statements about quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, and the expansion theory of the universe doesn't either. It seems like you're forcing yourself into this mysterious position with regard topics that aren't at all mysterious. There are mysteries in the Universe, but the quantum world is not all that mysterious, just counter-intuitive and strange to creatures living on classical scales.

    Like I stated before, as other scientists have, as well as the article you just posted previous, the notion that the Universe is expanding at all may be erroneous. Even when we figure out how everything runs into everything else with complete precision there will still be mysteries for us to explore in the sciences. Let's give ourselves credit where credit is due. @Ghost_Hit I promise if you spend more than three hours studying anything in this world you will be able to understand it. In the age of the internet time is really the ONLY obstacle to learning anything you want.


    image
  • The universe MAY not be expanding, but all of the math and visual observation SEEMS to indicate it is expanding, right? Unless you can post some math or visual observation that indicates another theory, I'd love to hear about a new theory that has evidence for it.
    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • We are the fractal constituents of the universal brain. The universe is but the larger organism we live within, exploding out at birth and multiplying and expanding like cell division as it grows. The suns and stars that form the galaxy clusters are in essence the neurons transmitting information through light. Our thoughts travel at the speed of light and we are now learning we can transmit information at incredible speeds by bending and controlling light, and encoding it into the photons themselves. We are the atomic matter of a larger organism operating on the same physiological constructs we already understand in the human body and novel computing. The question is can we reach the singularity and allow the universe to become self-aware before our little niche destroys itself. Will the hard coded dual error correction code we live within prevent this from happening so that we or any future emergent intelligence will be unable to spring consciousness into the machine to keep the system stable? Are we just the vibrating matter of an ant's frontal lobe destined to perish and implode as the creature slowly matures and dies before we are able to liberate it?

    /no sleep for 32 hours weeeeeeeeeee. Cool vids!

    Carry on
    Post edited by oneonth3run at 2012-09-06 03:02:11
    Kill those fucking vamps. Kill 'em all. Climb out of the shit pit, embrace the light.

    Get up mutha fucka, and go do what you gotta do.
  • wow this is a lot of reading i have to do to catch up here, and i read as much as i could so forgive me if i'm restating someone's theory. But anyways, here's my take on the subject.

    From what I understand, dark energy is a place holder name for the force that is pushing apart the galaxies at an accelerating rate. Of course if we ever discover what it is, we'll probably also discover it's not what comprises 74% of the universe, since I imagine that number is derived from determining how much energy would be required to exert such force through conventional means, or processes that are currently known. Since we don't know much about it, I see it possible that perhaps the "amount" of this energy may be far less, or not existing at all if it turns out to be a miscalculation contributed by our inability to perceive accurately the actual behavior of the universe. I know this is a bit vague, but so is our understanding of it. I personally think the math is correct and dark energy is a real force, but perhaps it is a lack of energy that creates the illusion of force.

    Allow me to ellaborate. I'm fairly certain we don't have a complete understanding of what "space" actually is, that is to say we don't yet know the complete list of properties that the fabric of space has. So let's say our universe is expanding; at a certain point the atoms, or whatever the contents of the space may be, are stretched so thin that the "zero point" (google it if you don't know about it, i'm sure someone has mentioned it already, you can't have a discussion about dark energy without zero point technology) energy pushes the universe in its entirety outward. Or to play on the "illusion" aspect, maybe there is no actual "pushing" or force, but instead when a pure vacuum is formed and there is truly nothingness (I'm not sold on the idea of nothingness, in my view if nothingness ever existed I see no reason why it would become something and cause the big bang) the fabric of space takes on unknown behaviors and causes space to actually grow, or perhaps relocate its material similarly to osmosis, giving the illusion that it is exerting force when in fact space is just 'growing'. Or something, lol.

    I heard someone refer to dark matter as anti-matter and I'd just like to point out that name is already being used, for something called anti-matter. In any case, my understanding of dark matter is that it is a cloud-like body of "matter" (although immeasurable in the conventional sense that matter is measured) without which cosmic clusters would not have had the strength to bond together to form galaxies. Seems simple enough, so what is it, and why is it essential to our universe's formation? Obviously our understanding of dark matter is more concrete than dark energy since we can more readily measure its interaction with matter, or rather its effect on matter since it doesn't seem to directly interact with matter. But it seems as though wherever matter is, dark matter is, like some sort of concave frame in another dimension upon which matter lies. It almost seems as though dark matter is directing normal matter where to go and where to congregate, although the two are not directly bound. My take is that it's some sort of matter (normal matter perhaps) primarily based in another dimension. Don't get too hung up on the dimension thing though, the easiest way I can explain it is as follows...

    The total sum of dimensions, of which there are infinite, comprise all space, (perhaps "locations" is a better word since it's not necessarily the same thing as the fabric of space). Anything that exists or occupies a place on the x, y, and z axises, lies within all dimensions, or rather it is only in one place (excluding quantum mechanics for now) but able to be perceived through any dimension. The dimension in which something primarily resides is determined by the vibrational frequency of its material, and dark matter is simply something that is vibrating on a different frequency, but is perhaps resonating and influencing things on our frequency. Perhaps the big bang produces a complete spectrum of vibrational frequencies in the same way a rainbow produces an entire visible light spectrum, so that they compliment each others existence and allow each dimension, or vibrational frequency to exist. In other words, each dimension's function is dependent on the other dimensions in the same way that our galaxies were allowed to form with the help of dark matter. But I digress. I lost my train of thought because it's 5 am, and I just realized I'm writing an essay here, sorry about that but it's quite an expansive topic, no pun intended. To wrap up dark matter, it may or may not be normal matter that is vibrating on either a higher or lower frequency than that of the plane to which human perception is bound, and therefore limited by. the same reason why we may be missing a critical factor in understanding dark energy that could be right in front of our faces.

    podguys.libsyn.com
  • orgone said:

    Ghost_Hit said:

    @orgone i dont have time for 3 hours of vid, but i see the scientists mentioned in the title and you refer to a "he" in the paragraph about countless models. im just looking for a name.


    orgone said:

    There is not one "best" model, there is not one agreed on my most theoretical physicists, and there probably is no master theory. There is no scientific consensus in this area yet. Link to my pet model. In Verlinde's model, in a very real sense, this conversation isn't even "occuring" in any discretely definable way it only appears to be occurring.



    If you don't have time for three hours of research ... could you please stop making false statements about quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, and the expansion theory of the universe doesn't either. It seems like you're forcing yourself into this mysterious position with regard topics that aren't at all mysterious. There are mysteries in the Universe, but the quantum world is not all that mysterious, just counter-intuitive and strange to creatures living on classical scales.

    Like I stated before, as other scientists have, as well as the article you just posted previous, the notion that the Universe is expanding at all may be erroneous. Even when we figure out how everything runs into everything else with complete precision there will still be mysteries for us to explore in the sciences. Let's give ourselves credit where credit is due. @Ghost_Hit I promise if you spend more than three hours studying anything in this world you will be able to understand it. In the age of the internet time is really the ONLY obstacle to learning anything you want.




    i have time for countless hours of research. i dont have 3 hours for vids you recommend in a thread. my questions didnt require video, or lessons, just your sources. im still waiting for them in regard to your specific statement. you said, "Scientists have failed to account for the amount of gravitation in terms of visible matter in galaxies and superclusters."

    when you make a blanket assertion like that statement, (especially when its your first of the paragraph) it is beyond reasonable to ask where you got that conclusion from. a video is not a source, as videos have sources. no experiment on the cosmic scale originates in a lecture. see the diff now? if something sounds suspicious to me, i ask for sources and investigate. its called critical thinking and analysis. so where is your source specifically please? youtube aint it.

    if youre going to claim that i made a false statement, it would help if you mention what i said, and what exactly you are correcting. i know that makes you sound more correct by leaving it out, but theres common sense rearing its ugly head again...

    i never mentioned thermodynamics specifically. i mentioned newton to someone else entirely. im familiar with both. did you have a point to make with that part? cuz if so:
    "If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science."
    - Albert Einstein

    this is my favorite bit... when you said, "the quantum world is not all that mysterious, just counter-intuitive and strange to creatures living on classical scales". here are some people who may disagree with you and your "understanding" of quantum anything orgee:

    "Quantum mechanics is magic." Daniel Greenberger

    "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman.

    "Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense." Roger Penrose

    "Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it." Niels Bohr

    "It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory." Michio Kaku

    "[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." Albert Einstein


    im afraid i'll have to side with the above SCIENTISTS on quantum mechanics, no offense.


    Yes, in the article i mentioned it offers a universe that is contracting, but this is determined in that instance by measuring the brightness of supernova and using calculus, not by "redefining gravity and time" as you say. i asked for that source too.

    but honestly nevermind breh, i got this.



    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-06 08:29:20

  • @ghost_hit..... awesome.

    perhaps @orgone has an "understanding" of the things he's heard in videos or read, giving him an overconfidence and confusing the understanding of what he's heard with truly knowing the inner workings of quantum mechanics. For example, I understand that according to quantum theory, there is no speed limit, objects can be in two places at once, and matter behaves differently when observed. That doesn't mean I have any clue what the fuck is going on here. It seems simple enough to just accept that quantum physics is in fact counter-intuitive to other fields of physics, but if your curiosity stops there you have a problem. Those scientists that you quoted perhaps have an understanding of what they observed, but they've detached that understanding from knowledge, which is a subtle yet important distinction.
    podguys.libsyn.com
  • Eckofall said:

    @ghost_hit..... awesome.

    perhaps @orgone has an "understanding" of the things he's heard in videos or read, giving him an overconfidence and confusing the understanding of what he's heard with truly knowing the inner workings of quantum mechanics. For example, I understand that according to quantum theory, there is no speed limit, objects can be in two places at once, and matter behaves differently when observed. That doesn't mean I have any clue what the fuck is going on here. It seems simple enough to just accept that quantum physics is in fact counter-intuitive to other fields of physics, but if your curiosity stops there you have a problem. Those scientists that you quoted perhaps have an understanding of what they observed, but they've detached that understanding from knowledge, which is a subtle yet important distinction.




    I think its more that orgone and ghost hit don't like each other and like to talk shit about anything.
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.

    The universe MAY not be expanding, but all of the math and visual observation SEEMS to indicate it is expanding, right? Unless you can post some math or visual observation that indicates another theory, I'd love to hear about a new theory that has evidence for it.


    SOME OF THE MATH. Very important to note that math can show if a theory can or cannot be true, experiments test, and observations come after experiments. That an interpretation is mathematically sound doesn't amount to much. Every mutually exclusive String Theoretical picture of the universe is internally consistent mathematically. Again there are lots and lots of theories in the video I posted above "The End of Space-Time." The interpretation that red-shifting means expansion is just that, an interpretation.

    @Eckofall
    Admittedly rambly, but I like what you were saying in the first two paragraphs. Thanks for offering an interpretation instead of just attacking one's that differ from your pet understanding. No one's being attacked here - except maybe me for some reason.

    Ghost_Hit said:

    i have time for countless hours of research. i dont have 3 hours for vids you recommend in a thread. my questions didnt require video, or lessons, just your sources. im still waiting for them in regard to your specific statement.


    I don't even think you tried to watch the videos, you've made no statement about their content. Those people are reading you primary research... I don't know what you think a source is. That's a professor, talking at a school, about published materials.

    Ghost_Hit said:

    you said, "Scientists have failed to account for the amount of gravitation in terms of visible matter in galaxies and superclusters."


    The onus is not on me or competing scientists who I am talking about (and not claiming to be) to dis-prove Expansion Theory. All you would have to do is show the work of the Expansion Theorist that has met their burden of proof. There hasn't been one. That is why there is disputation in the scientific community.

    For you to argue that there is ZERO disputation tell's me you're not actually looking at the information you asked me to provide to you. If you're not interested in having a discussion, but rather siding with one school of thinking in physics warn me ahead of time.

    Ghost_Hit said:

    when you make a blanket assertion like that statement, (especially when its your first of the paragraph) it is beyond reasonable to ask where you got that conclusion from. a video is not a source, as videos have sources.


    I don't know where you went to school, but videos are citable sources. My statement was not made about the Universe, my statement was made about scientists and their publications. Show me your proof Mr. Expansion Theorist, because I'm not exactly sure how to prove a negative statement in logic.

    Ghost_Hit said:

    no experiment on the cosmic scale originates in a lecture.


    No experiment on the cosmic scale HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. See the diff now?

    Keep worshipping people you feel are beyond error, but EINSTEIN WAS WRONG for not believing in the validity of quantum mechanics. He considered it a competing theory and wasted the last productive years of his life fighting it.

    If you want to believe that scientists are just complete charlatans and no one understands what they're talking about, if you want to say that published articles on quantum computing are fabrications, if you want to replace your beloved "critical thinking" with out-of-context quotations of people who's names you think will intimidate me out of using my brain, go for it.

    Clearly if you look at my posts critically it's obvious I'm not trying to get any legitimate ideas out there, I'm just trying to make myself look smart in front of everyone on the Duncan Trussell Forum, rite?

    Everything I have said in this thread amounts to "Scientists disagree with other scientists and some of their ideas make more sense than others."

    I'm sorry this has caused such great offense. I'm done. My behavior is obviously beyond appropriate.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-06 13:23:29
    image
  • Well, you're saying you believe 3 videos more than you believe mainstream science. You're saying scientific consensus is wrong, and that you think you are smarter than the scientific community.

    I admire your passion, but I think you should expect some disagreements on this subject. I didn't see anyone attacking you personally, just trying to have a debate.
    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.

    Well, you're saying you believe 3 videos more than you believe mainstream science. You're saying scientific consensus is wrong, and that you think you are smarter than the scientific community.

    I admire your passion, but I think you should expect some disagreements on this subject. I didn't see anyone attacking you personally, just trying to have a debate.



    I don't care what you think "mainstream" science is. I am not saying the scientific consensus is wrong - I'm saying the idea that there IS A CONSENSUS is wrong. These are not my arguments, I have pointed you to the ideas of disputing SCIENTISTS (since that seems to be the holy clergy here) on this issue.

    If you think I'm making personal arguments then my decision to leave this thread was the correct one. I have made no personal claim to truth in this thread. A belief in a "scientific community" can only be borne of someone operating completely outside of it. Nevertheless, continue to believe your interpretation of what I am saying is more important than what I am saying. I'm through attempting to communicate with people who refuse to read the sentences I write with care.

    I cannot pour fluid into a cup that's already overflowing with its own contents.

    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-06 15:52:58
    image
  • @Eckofall thank you for reminding me that yes in fact, i am speaking english. your last sentence summed it up great. that distinction between perceived understanding and knowledge is EXACTLY the heart of the issue here. im saying this "knowledge" is nothing more than perception, is ultimately an illusion, and cant possibly give birth to blanket assertions about "reality", let alone argued. im on team "i dont know", as opposed to team "i know" when it comes to quantum theory and how its phenomena affect whatever state the universe is in.

    @TomButler its not people i dont like, its their over-inflated egos (including my own of course if i dont watch it). that voice in the head that says, "i'm better than that person. i know more about the real nature of ________ than that person. i can verbally run that person over." ya, THAT gets confronted in no uncertain terms, but with as much respect as i can, given my own faults. orgones a cool muthafukka who is just doing what he thinks is best for him, if somewhat abrasively. how can i fault that? honestly, i hope he gets the ego in check before life does it for him the hard way. i like the guy, but only when he's not trying to teach something.

  • @orgone no "such great offense" happened my friend. thx for the consideration.

    i will tell you, imho, where you went a lil outta line, and i can do it with a question. orgone, do you need someone guiding your research, someone to encourage you to spend time studying, suggesting how to think about quanta, reminding you what to remember, and straight out assuming the role of a teacher, completely unsolicited, by someone on this board? cuz neither do i. its called being a grown ass man. am i getting through here?

    i wonder what would happen if 2 respected scientists sat down on a stage and one started pulling that "appropriate behavior"... youre presumptuous and arrogant in your assumptions, and when they are false, you look foolish, which is a shame, because your book knowledge is no fool.

    okay for the record, here is a link to what a primary source is, jesus christ...
    http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html
    http://lib1.bmcc.cuny.edu/help/sources.html
    http://www.libraries.iub.edu/index.php?pageId=1002226

    orgone said:

    No experiment on the cosmic scale HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. See the diff now?



    in the krauss video, he shows how a big imaginary triangle can calculate the curvature of the universe in the same way we can calculate the earths curvature. so theres one cosmic scale experiment right off the top of my head. might want to rethink that statement too. why are you arguing semantics in one breath and yet claiming to be so misinterpreted the next?

    jeez there is no point here. maybe youll listen to neils bohr:

    "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-06 17:37:04

  • orgone said:

    I don't care what you think "mainstream" science is. I am not saying the scientific consensus is wrong - I'm saying the idea that there IS A CONSENSUS is wrong. These are not my arguments, I have pointed you to the ideas of disputing SCIENTISTS (since that seems to be the holy clergy here) on this issue.

    If you think I'm making personal arguments then my decision to leave this thread was the correct one. I have made no personal claim to truth in this thread. A belief in a "scientific community" can only be borne of someone operating completely outside of it. Nevertheless, continue to believe your interpretation of what I am saying is more important than what I am saying. I'm through attempting to communicate with people who refuse to read the sentences I write with care.

    I cannot pour fluid into a cup that's already overflowing with its own contents.



    hey andy, i didnt know jesus could backpedal so fast... i mean, that is a GOD's analogy he ended with. fucking LOL
    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-06 16:31:23

  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @Ghost_Hit If quantum mechanics was a natural phenomenon instead of a human creation, I would be inclined to agree with you.

    Again, you guys are making this about @orgone, I'm trying to talk about Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories.

    You keep wanting to talk about @orgone, his ego, his outlandish assumption that he can understand human contrivances as well as other people can, and if @orgone see's the world in the same nebulous terms as @Ghost_Hit. You then follow all of this by equating intellectual laziness and giving up on undertanding with humility. 'Grats.

    Ego aside at least I have the courage to directly address you instead of this passive-agressive talking about somebody as if they're not there bullshit.
    image
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @Ghost_Hit Also if you edit the entire content of a previous post I was responding to, I wouldn't expect a direct response. Can you ask new questions in new posts so I don't have to keep re-reading the entire thread each and every time I try to address what you're trying to say?

    In brief response I will just say that I like people who know what the fuck they're talking about and correct me when I say something wrong. Most people just want to "have an understanding" whether that understanding is correct or not. I'm not sorry you don't like my tone, I talk to people that talk this way all the time. It's kind of how we know who's serious about their ideas and who's just spouting off at the mouth, looking at the stars mouth agape and saying, "WOOOOOOW!"

    Also youre describing a THOUGHT experiment based on an interpretation of data. I'm really starting to think most of our diffuculties stem from a poor understanding of what science is, what a repeatable experiment is, what an fact/observation is, and what a theory is. Why am I doing this to myself? Must be that raging fucking ego.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-06 17:50:51
    image
  • @everyone anyone who has still agreed to be part of this thread know anything about this?

    http://richardgill.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2006/10/03/the-past-is-particles-the-future-a-wave

    the past is a particle and the future is a wave. that just sounds sexy.

    @orgone at the bottom of the article is one example of how adults in the scientific community resolve "objections" without insulting eachother. why cant we do this? i think it may have something to do some golden rule theory. are you familiar with that one?

    edit: i accidentally made a double post earlier, and so turned the empty double into a response. you'll figure it out. no sneeky deception going on, calm down. you ever heard of the word de-escalate? i mean, you ask yourself why youre doing it, so why are you?

    our difficulty stems from the fact that you dont value mutual respect. you seem to value superiority. youve done all the drugs, you read all the papers, you watched all the videos, and youve gotten all kinds of shit memorized and ready to parrot, but orgone you know what you dont have? a smile on your face when discussing the beauty that is looking up and going WOOOOOOW
    Post edited by GhostScience at 2012-09-06 20:41:33

  • Past is a particle and the future is a wave...... I like that. Might steal that for a song lyric, what a cool thought. And no, I'm not high(tonite).
    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • http://news.yahoo.com/dark-energy-mysterious-force-causing-universe-expand-071000101.html

    theyre claiming that "Scientists confirm with 99.996 percent certainty the existence of a little-understood substance that is "one of the great scientific mysteries of our time"

    based on measuring background radiation from 2 galaxies moving away from eachother. i havent source checked it, but interesting.

  • Just found out that they actually launched a crazy new camera to try to find out more about dark energy, here is the BBC article about that and some websites that will be posting any updated science on dark energy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19634700

    http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/DECam/camera.shtml

    http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/
    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • Why do the planets spin the way they do?
    The only thing worth doing is that which I can do by will alone... everything else is just passing time. (*)
  • Venus spins backwards, right? Some think it may have collided with another planet.
    Post edited by andyrosebrook at 2012-09-18 14:28:35
    "Up above aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home of all these weird creatures that lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves, and live for their secrets. They're all uptight" -Radiohead
  • Why do the planets spin the way they do?



    i dont know if you mean, why do they spin, or why do they spin in the direction they do?

    no one knows why spin happens any more than we understand why an electron orbits a nucleus.

    the direction is only a perception. turn a model of the solar system "upside down" and then still tell me earth spins "counter clockwise". the cosmos gives no fucks.

    ive heard of maps made in the southern hemisphere that depict it as on "top", thereby inverting all the shapes of the countries.







  • So it isn't known whether or not it's something in the core of the planets that's causing them to spin the way they do?

    I'm not so interested in clockwise vs. counterclockwise, as much as the different degrees of spin each planet has & their orbits - though, in relation to each other clockwise & counterclockwise would come into play.

    Is the energy coming from the Sun pushing the planets away just as much as its mass/gravity is drawing them towards it? Is that how their orbits are maintained? Along w/ the larger planets gravity having an effect...

    Also, is there an explanation for why comets have such strange orbits compared to the planets, which, for the most part, pretty much all are on the same eliptical plane based off of how the Sun is spinning?

    The whole corkscrew thing our Solar System is doing as we travel around the galaxy got me thinking about all this again & I woke up from a dream recently w/ a wierd thought about dark energy & gravity that I haven't really formulated in my mind yet.

    I also recently watched a nova program on the Sun & the movie Sunshine again.
    Post edited by ledhead999 at 2012-09-18 16:29:50
    The only thing worth doing is that which I can do by will alone... everything else is just passing time. (*)
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    @ledhead999

    While some of your questions are hard to answer planets spin in different directions and at different speeds because they are the consequence of chaotic explosions of gasses and old stars, it's pretty random.

    Orbits are maintained by moving it a straight, parallel line to a gravitational object. The speed required to maintain an orbit is correspondent to the distance from and the mass of the object.

    image

    "Energy from the sun" is not pushing celestial objects.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-09-18 16:33:57
    image
  • Then why do comets have tails?
    The only thing worth doing is that which I can do by will alone... everything else is just passing time. (*)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!