Nailing down dark energy

steve smyth — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:13:28 GMT

before everyone gets overexcited...don't forget, time/space is man made...anthropogenic, if you will...it only exists in yer gourd...so, the whole premise is flawed...the universe explained/contracted to fit within our realizeable confines...don'tcha think?

Nailing down dark energy

Marv Clague, Vallejo CA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:51:44 GMT

It seems obvious. As expansion moves objects farther apart, the effect of gravity on each object, trying to keep it near its neighboring objects, becomes less. This allows expansion to accelerate.

Nailing down dark energy

Walter Tortorici, Morgan Hill, CA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:17:38 GMT

could it be possible that dark matter moves as fast or faster than the speed of light, thus would not be visible?

Nailing down dark energy

Walter L. Wagner — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:54:31 GMT

Albert Einstein introduced his "cosmological constant" because he was working with a model of the Universe that was 'steady-state' in nature. Under that scenario, all of the galaxies would be attracted towards each other by gravity, and the universe would be collapsing. That was known to be not the case, so he introduced his "cosmological constant" that served as a 'repelling force' against gravitational attraction, keeping everything in place. When he later learned that the Universe is actually expanding [from Hubble's red-shift measurements], with all of the galaxies moving away from each other, he realized that his "cosmological constant" was not required.

This latest information in no way 'vindicates' Einstein's original error. It does point out that the more we learn, the more we learn how little we still know. This raises the question of whether the "large extra dimension" scenarios proposed for the Large Hadron Collider products, including micro-black-holes, might be correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Safety_concerns_and_assurances

Regards,

Walter L. Wagner

Nailing down dark energy

Bloggerrich, Fort Lauderdale, FL — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:42:27 GMT

Not Again!

I always thought this "dark energy" thing was bull...and everytime there is an article to disprove it, another article comes out saying it exists. I still don't believe it exists, but I wish you guys would just pick one side and stop printing articles that continually contradict each other.

It's universal gravity already and we are hardly advanced enough to detect it properly. The numbers don't add up because we don't have the ability to collect all thoses "numbers" or travel where we need to be to detect it accurately. And if you don't think the rules are even a little different outside our solar system and our galaxy, then you are probably going to settle on the "dark energy" thing...kinda makes it easier, doesn't it?

Nailing down dark energy

Deborah, Seattle — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:05:36 GMT

The acceleration makes sense. At the beginning of this era, the gravitational pull of the mass as it was closer together would create a drag on the expansion. As objects move farther away from the center and other objects, the drag should decrease, resulting in an acceleration.
The only thing that slows the acceleration of explosions here on Earth is the planet's larger gravity slowing the expanding matter down. When that force of gravity decreases due to the expansion, it follows that the expansion would increase. What's out there to slow it down?

Nailing down dark energy

Chris Frank, Tampa, FL — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:10:48 GMT

In response to Deborah's point - "What's out there to slow it down?" - it's simple physics. It's not enough that there be nothing to slow something down to explain why something would be undergoing acceleration.

Nailing down dark energy

Desmond Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:30:22 GMT

Since we're looking at the position of 'matter' where it was those billions of years ago, are we not also seeing it as it was then and cannot 'know' just where it is now or its current speed or its present condition?

When the Big Bang occurred all the bits in it were propelled outwards in all directions. Following two lines of those bits, one going "north" and the other "south" I would expect the Alpha bit going north to exhibit extraordinary velocity but then to start slowing down since there would be nothing in front of it to help pull it forward, but the entire universe behind it to pull it back.

By the time the Omega bit started going north, it would have only half of the universe in front of it to pull forward and half to pull it back. The discrepancy in velocities would serve to 'tumble' the universal matter into the galactic bubbles, walls and haphazard arrangements we have observed.

Since we are now observing the earlier stages of faraway development, would we not also be seeing their greater speed of initial expansion, while the closer and later stages would seem to be moving more slowly?

Nailing down dark energy

Christopher Dahl — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:09:32 GMT

First, the rules are the same everywhere. Certainly, hydrogen and the rest of the elements act the same way everywhere. We can tell because spectral analysis shows the same lines everywhere, adjusting for Red shift. Second, gravity acts the same everywhere because the same kinds of stars are produced in distant galaxies as are produced in our own Milky Way. But galaxies seem to be grouped more closely and, individually, packed more densely than the amount of visible matter can account for. So, we call the unseeable difference Dark Matter.

Third, the expansion of the Universe is not an acceleration whereas gravity is. If there weren't some extra push, as in Dark Energy, we would not be seeing that extra Red shift that says distant galaxies are moving faster away from us than they should be.

Finally, Space-Time exists everywhere and solipsism is it's own reward.

Nailing down dark energy

Jim, San Antonio, TX — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:04:59 GMT

Maybe there IS no gravity...Consider dark energy PUSHING in all directions, instead of an "attraction of bodies",

Nailing down dark energy

walt, KC — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:28:49 GMT

Yes, it follows that the expansion would increase as the gravitational pull lessoned. But what would cause the acceleration? As the speed at which the matter was accelerating away from the big bang was slowed by the gravity of other objects around it, then how could it gain speed later as it moves farther and farther away form any object that may have a gravitational influence on it?

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:11:57 GMT

"EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT GRAVITY IS WRONG."
One might say that our THEORIES about gravity may be wrong, but "everything we know about gravity is wrong" is either a slip of tongue or exposes (supports?) a belief that all science, human experience, etc. is an hallucination. Indeed, there are those who believe such is our plight and one cannot PROVE them wrong (no more than one can PROVE an atheist wrong or a theist right), However, belief that truths (laws?) of our universe do exist, independent of human existence or the human mind (it is NOT all a giant hallcination) was one of Einstein's (and, certainly, all bona fide scientists) fundamenal beliefs. It is this fundamental belief, because it can't be PROVEN true, scientifically or otherwise, that makes all bona fide scientists have a religious bent whether they like to admit it or not.
There are many in the bona fide scientific community and other truth-seeking communities that have come to BELIEVE that our universe is such that its truth can be uncovered by bona fide observers (human beings included therein).
Finally, along these lines, it is important to remember the fact (truth?) that the successful physics theories do not show "everything about prior theories was wrong" because such successful theories have, under proper limitations, been shown to agree with, reduce to, the theories that they are replacing. General Relativity did NOT show that everything (predictions etc.) about Newtonian gravitation was wrong; but, indeed, showed that Newtonian gravitation was RIGHT (accurate enough) if the masses ("weights") involved were sufficiently small. TODAY we use the Newtonian equations (because they are much simpler and do NOT introduce significant error) for our high precision, space exploring missions in our solar system (have not gone outside yet) because they do not get near enough to massive enough bodies to require General Relativity's refining. As long as the factor GM/(Rc²) (found by General Relativity and impossible to get from Newton) is sufficiently small compared to 1, General Relativity Gravitation reduces to Newtonian gravitation. "G" is NEWTON'S universal constant of gravitation, "M" is the mass involved at distance "R", and "c" is the maximum speed of light. Isn't it NEAT that Einstein's Theory discovers Newton's "G"? It is such mingling and reduction agreement that is essential for acceptance of new theories
by the physics community because, said community, has so much evidence yielded by old theories. Any "new" theory that shows all the "old" theory predictions to be wrong has to be wrong itself because the existing scientific evidence is not going to go away. like an hallucination. It is the belief of the physics community that any alien scientist's theories on gravity will, under any necessary restrictions, verify or reduce to Newton's and Einstein's. The Cosmological Principle of Physics (a matter of belief or faith until shown otherwise), which in essence says that there is no galaxy that has an advantage over any other in uncovering the truths of our universe; or, our universe presents the same physical evidence, universal truths, to any galaxy, supports the idea (belief, truth?) that our universe is such that its truths can be discovered from any galaxy (humans there or not and a self-consistent requirement if life, or whatever, can arise in more than a preselected galaxy). Incidentally, current physics and logic show that such "preselection" is impossible for self-consistency in our physical universe.

Nailing down dark energy

BL, Cincinnati OH — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:01:58 GMT

It amazes me the people that comment on these stories that don't even have a basic understanding of physics.

You can not have acceleration without a force being applied. If there is no force, there is no acceleration. Gravity, in this case, is a negative force, slowing expansion. But since there is acceleration in expansion there must be some greater positive force being applied, which is the basis behind "dark energy".

If there were no positive force being applied, once objects were out of the range of gravity's effect, they would simply continue to move at a constant speed. They would not accelerate.

Nailing down dark energy

Kelly, Maryland — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:07:34 GMT

HubbleSite.org recently did a nice interactive on dark energy that gives folks a better understanding of some of the concepts involved:
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/

Nailing down dark energy

Wade, Philadelphia — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:46:47 GMT

The whole idea that gravity lessening as things spread out would cause them to accelerate doesn't make sense. The expansion of the universe is supposedly caused by the initial explosion of its creation, the big bang. Even as the force of gravity lessens as things spread out, it is still acting on objects and slowing them. It is not like there is a rocket strapped to the back of the galaxy that is giving it some sort of new or continued thrust away from the center of the universe. The initial blast of the big bang is all the force that caused the expansion. Any gravity no matter how miniscule would act againts it and slow it. The only explanation for the speeding up would have to be that there is some other force acting upon the universe other than the big bang, and gravity.

Nailing down dark energy

Guy S. Newell — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:47:31 GMT

Accually, I think the dark energy idea is a way to account for the possiblity that the rules might be a little different outside our solar system or beyond.

Yes, it is just a modeling convienience. I don't think that the theorists intended it be interperted as anything else.

What's exciting is that there may be a way to test some variations on string theory, like determining how many extra dimension there might be. Time being the fourth that we added our model to account for the fact that the physical world is not static.

Nailing down dark energy

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:12:11 GMT

Walter T, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not the same thing. I don't think they're even related.

There is a book called "Understanding Thermodynamics" by H. C. Van Ness. Find it and read the first chapter. Or you can get the first volume of Feynman's Lectures on Physics. We have a model of how we think things work. The model works for somethings and not for others. For the things that don't work out like we expect, we need to understand them.

We consider our method of measurement and the margin of error. If the effect isn't too much greater than the expected error, we don't need to account for it. If the 'effect' is too big, though, it's probably real and we need to find a way to account for it. We might do this in several ways, but one way is to say, "There's this extra energy we don't know about ... we could call it X, but we use X all the time, we'll call it 'DARK'" Then they go about determining other properties of this hypothetical energy to help us figure out what its source might be and how we might go about looking for it.

Science does this all the time. When the orbit of Uranus wasn't as predicted, scientists didn't throw out Newtonian mechanics. Instead they predicted that there must be another planet that was perturbing its orbit. They then figured out (computed) the hypothetical planet's orbit and new just where to look for it. The Dark Energy problem is a much harder, but it's the same kind of reasoning.

Nailing down dark energy

Jordan, CT — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:32:13 GMT

I think that as far as the debate is concerned that we dont nearly have enough information to really formulate an accurate hypothesis, and I to am getting sick of the conflicting articles that pop up here every so often but we must remeber that its the quest for the truth that will continually drive our ideas and theorys and eventually over time the answer come out as time and society progresses. I for one dont imperticularly dont like the concept of dark matter and energy for reason's that im sure have been well debated but im still willing to keep and open mind because of progress we must often try to re-learn what we know to seek out greater truths because the proposition of everything that we have learned is wrong is one that tends to scare us because it leads to a sense of chaos but it also will lead to more important truths because it was only a couple hundred years ago that we belived that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around us.... The notion is funny now but when the theorys were incomplete and even when the facts were in people were skepticle and refused to believe that we revolved around the sun but as time progressed we became endowed with these views and based are society upon these truths but we must remember that although we have come a far way we are far from realizing all the information in the universe and it is very naive to belive that our rules although advanced and all based in the logic we know are flawless and not open to change.....

Nailing down dark energy

Keith, Lansing, Mi — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:33:34 GMT

Actually Deb your logic is faulty. Acceleration requires energy of some kind. While it's true that "drag" will decrease over time, nothing will accelerate without a driving force behind it. Your explosions on Earth example is also flawed, as the explosion expands its energy is dissapated over a larger and larger area, with or without gravity. While in a vacuum it would continue to expand, it would not accelerate, and if it contained enough mass it would be slowed by its own size.

Nailing down dark energy

Brian Hufe, Newark, DE — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:34:27 GMT

How quickly we forget. This whole dark matter/dark energy thing reminds me of the concept of ether before Einstein came along. Anyone who thinks of these phenomena represent something besides merely a place holder for something we don't understand should read into the history of scientific ideas. The old addage does hold true, history does repeat itself.

Nailing down dark energy

Bud Minzenmayer, Littleton, CO — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:45:43 GMT

The universe is a tangent wave. Gravity is compressing matter into more complex matter within the fusion factories of stars, as it does, space expands.

Nailing down dark energy

Mark, Ames, Iowa — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:52:51 GMT

What does not make sense to me, posted in a couple of comments, is why something would "re"-accelerate as gravitational pull diminished. When you take your foot of the brakes, you don't speed up again unless you add gas. Where's the cosmological "gas"?

Nailing down dark energy

Jay, North Carolina — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:09:29 GMT

I've wondered if the acceleration was an optical illusion. That as the universe stretches the objects within appear to be moving faster, but they are still moving at the same speeds? Perhaps this is what is meant by "but they say a finer-scale survey could tell whether it's an exotic characteristic of the space-time continuum – or whether it's just that everything we know about gravity is wrong." the first part of this quote that is . . . I mean I'm not a physicist, I'm a math Grad. so I've never really learned a lot about this, but it seems to me that as space increases it would be elegant if the universe was in some kind of an equilibrium and tried to maintain it's previous state of motion/time, but then maybe that contradicts the idea of entropy?

Nailing down dark energy

Matthew F. Clough — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:36:39 GMT

I cant wait for the LHC to kick off in April. :P

Nailing down dark energy

David T, Vienne VA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:54:08 GMT

There may be some misunderstandings here. If an object in a vaccum was moving in a direction free of gravity and outside influences, it would do so ad infinitum.

If gravity were introduced sufficient enough to produce 'drag' on the object to alter its course or slow it down, then that effect would reduce the speed of the object.

REMOVING the gravitational force would not cause the object to ACCELERATE back to its original speed. In other words, the absence of gravity does not cause acceleration. There must be some other outside influence.

Nailing down dark energy

Samuel D. G. Heath, Ph. D. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:02:15 GMT

The simplest explanation of explosive force resulting in accelerating expansion and lessening gravitational influence is to me the better choice without esoteric presumed phenomena such as black matter or “extra” dimensions. However, until we know exactly what life and death are, what animates and departs with death, there can be no “theory of everything.” For me, this is the primary weakness of attempts to understand a universal constant. We may accept such a constant, but not be able to understand it and perhaps it will remain an “unknowable” part of such a constant. I think Einstein believed this, but drew back from the potential “paranormal” implications.

Nailing down dark energy

James Bowe, New York City NY — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:22:58 GMT

@Deborah - The question isn't, 'What's out there to slow it down?', it's, 'What's out there to speed it up?'...

Nailing down dark energy

keith, seattle — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:29:17 GMT

Any kind of matter is just a form of energy. One of the laws of our universe is the law of opposites. If you have matter that you can see and feel then you should also have matter that you can't see and feel.
Einstein came up with a lot of fantasy laws. Hey, even a thought is faster than light. And everything is relative to the viewer and the creator, since they are one and the same.

Nailing down dark energy

Steven Albee-Scott, Logan, UT — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:29:49 GMT

In response to Bloggerrich,

Belief has nothing to do with observable data and testable hypotheses. Multiple interpretations are a sign of a healthy scientific endeavor. Scientists are not searching for truth; they are simply assigning the best approximation to their observations. When numbers are very large or very small approximation becomes problematic within a chaotic system.

Nailing down dark energy

Ben Winter — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:30:16 GMT

Truly, "some completely different theory of gravity is needed." Dark Energy is a dominant factor though not proven, its presence evident in the different 'light speed' stages; I expect Dark Energy will prove relative in gravity, magnetism, and electromotive force.
Ben Winter

Nailing down dark energy

Josh, Seattle — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:09:01 GMT

Someone should do a study on the advancing gap between scientific knowledge and the public's perception of scientific knowledge, because it's hilarious reading some of these comments.

Nailing down dark energy

John Doe PHX — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:09:34 GMT

Dark matter is evil

Nailing down dark energy

Jeff Phoenix, AZ — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:27:07 GMT

But what makes expansion accelerate? That's the problem. What force is accelerating expansion. I like the idea. Maybe this force or matter originates from the point of singularity and maybe it does move faster than light making it invisible. It's slightly stronger than gravity in the open universe and it's fight with gravity is only getting easier as gravitational bodies move further apart. There's something to dark matter, it may not actually be some thing or force but just a miscalculation. Nevertheless interesting.

Nailing down dark energy

Philip Morrill, Clayton, California — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:28:23 GMT

Three thoughts.
First, we need to keep in mind that all our scientific "theories" are just generally accepted models of the relationships between "things" we observe. Some of these models appear quite accurate and useful, but the model is not the thing itself and never will be.

Second, the expansion and development of useful theories has been spectacular over the last several hundred years. However, each time researchers have embraced a theory, a few decades later new information provides the need to re-look at our assumptions and the observed data to develop a new and more comprehensive theory.

Third, this search for a more accurate model of reality continues today while the physicists search for something to connect gravity to quantum mechanics and the astrophysicists search for something to explain the observed distribution and motion of galaxies.

I suppose that all I am trying to say is that there is a great deal that we now think we know, but we remain somewhat ignorant of how the universe actually works. "Dark energy" is just another name for a relationship of matter that we do not understand yet. It seems likely to me that many of our prized theories will need future modifications. Science is still an explortion of the universe and search for truth.

Nailing down dark energy

Simon Bernard, New Haven, CT — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:36:04 GMT

Objects that are moving will either slow down because of gravity or continue at the current speed. Just because gravities effect is lessened by distance will not allow an object to accelerate. Acceleration requires some kind of force to move the object beyond it current state. Comments?

Nailing down dark energy

Frank Migacz, Chicago, IL — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:37:42 GMT

Or, perhaps the speed of light is simply slowing? The result would be that objects appear to be moving apart from each other.

Nailing down dark energy

Darrell, Englewood, CO — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:40:19 GMT

I'm no genius and I hope I don't prove it with these comments, but it seems to me that these equations are based on the assumption that the ‘Big Bang theory’ is correct as opposed to the theory that the universe has always existed and always will exist. I’ve always had a problem with the BB theory as it seems to me it over simplifies the universe. The BB theory won popularity when someone declared that the white noise you pick up with any radio receiver is actually the echoes or remnants of the Big Bang. I’m fairly certain that those who believe that are not taking into account that the billions or trillions of stars, planets, and other celestial bodies that produce radio waves. Not to mention all of the other possible sources such as the ever more popular ‘multiverse’ theory.

I recently read a theory on gravity that states, in this overly simplified explanation, that gravity is a bleed over from some other energy based in another dimension…or something like that. The same could be said for this so called ‘Dark Energy.’ Maybe it does exist but that doesn’t mean the source of it resides in our dimension.

Ok, I’ve now exhausted my reservoir of brain cells this morning. I gladly welcome any comments.

Nailing down dark energy

Chris, Pleasant Grove, UT — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:47:23 GMT

Marv and Deborah, with all due respect I think you're making a common mistake when it comes to accleration. If we assume that the Big Bang happened, and matter was ejected at high velocity from a single point, that would explain why everything is moving apart. Nevertheless, the Big Bang is over, it's done -- after that intital explosion it wouldn't continue to "push" on anything. As a result gravity would start to slow down the rate of expansion caused by this explosion, causing everything to move apart at a slower and slower pace. Even if Big Bang gave enough momentum to all the galaxies in the universe to keep moving until they broke free from one another's gravity, they wouldn't suddenly speed up once they were free -- they would continue to move apart at the exact same speed they were moving at the time of release. In order for this expansion to acclerate, it requires that something either be pushing or pulling on these galaxies (or simply creating new space inbetween); as gravity diminshes, this other force would have more influence and things would speed up. This is what scientists refer to as "dark energy". There are a lot of possible explanations as to why this might be happening -- but it isn't happening just becasue gravity gets weaker the farther apart things are. Expansion wouldn't suddenly incresae unless there was another force at work.

Nailing down dark energy

Don, Iowa. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:53:27 GMT

The universe expands.

The farther away an object is, the faster it appears to move.

Does it not follow that as an object gets farther away, it appears to move faster?

Nailing down dark energy

Geoff, Lubbock, Tex. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:59:35 GMT

To Deborah in Seattle:

I think you're confused about the difference between velocity and acceleration. When an explosion happens in a vacuum, the initial force provides an acceleration that results in the velocity of the debris -- but the debris doesn't continue to accelerate, because there's no force acting on it. This is exactly the distinction with what is being observed on cosmological scales; not only is the universe expanding, it's expanding at an *accelerating* rate, which means (1) there's something we don't understand, and (2) from Newton's Second Law of Motion, it is some sort of force acting on the mass in the universe. And since it's a force acting over a distance, it does work, i.e., energy, hence the term "dark energy."

Same thing with respect to the effects of gravity becoming less noticable with distance: there still has to be a force accelerating mass in opposition to gravity.

Nailing down dark energy

Chris, Ottawa Lake, MI — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:00:12 GMT

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they use "red shift" to determine a body's distance from Earth as well? If the emitted light is affected by both the speed of the body, and the distance of the body, it cannot give an accurate measurement of either.

Not to mention the assumption that has to be made of the emitted wavelength to get any measurement at all.

And to the previous posts about the lessened effect of gravity due to the increased distance: The greater distance would decrease the gravitational effect, but this will not result in acceleration. It will only serve to lessen the decceleration due to the gravity. Without any gravity, the rate of expansion will at best remain constant. An resultant exteral force is required for any change in that rate.

Are we justifying the idea that the expansion of the universe is accelerating by the fact that we are traveling faster than a body that is theoretically closer to the center, at a time that is theoretically closer to the beginning of the expansion?

If it's closer to the "center" of the universe as we see it now, might it have been traveling slower than the Earth was at that observed time either? In any uncontained explosion, there are discrepancies in the speed of individual pieces. We can't assume that the farthest flung piece was travelling at the same rate as the nearest at any time after the explosion.

Nailing down dark energy

Peter Quintin Pepperell MA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:12:41 GMT

A reduction in drag will not cause an increase in acceleration unless energy is added at the same time. If you are ridding your bicycle at a given rate and all factors causing friction and drag on you and your bike suddenly disappear you will not accelerate unless you are peddling or producing energy. If you are coasting you will go at the same speed forever or until you hit something. As far as I know the same rules as apply here apply everywhere. So if the universe is expanding at an increasing speed there must be energy being added to the system. Call it Dark Energy or whatever…It has to be.

Nailing down dark energy

Louis R. Archuleta — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:15:33 GMT

The expansion of the visible universe and the confusion over the cause shows the need for a re-examination of the interpretations of our existing physical basis for physics. The equations of physics require that our common experience of time is wrong, that block time is correct and that gravity will be united into the superstring theory. If the theories that describe time are re-interpreted to allow time to flow from the past to the future many new ideas will follow.
I have been looking at the nature of time and have come to the conclusion that Einstien made a crucial error in accepting Mach's proposals about time and the basis for inertia. I believe that we, and our visible universe are embedded in the present moment, "now", and that the past is a different dimension from "now" and the future. By modifying Wheeler's many worlds theory that every quantum event creates a new universe to one that puts those extra universes into the future with only "our" universe to be real, with the future alternate universes extinguishing themselves as events occur in the real universe. The energy tied up in the alternate worldlines then becomes the inertial energy we see in our universe, which passes thru our present time dimension and goes into the past dimension, adding energy to a closed dimension, thereby causing the past dimension to expand, since adding energy to a closed volume makes it expand. Gravity is the physical scaffold only and does not increase during accelerations like the present theories describe. Inertial energy comes from future worldlines being extinguished by events at time "now" with that energy creating the effects of acceleration ( increased mass and physical distortion).
This is only a very brief explanation of my thinking on the nature of time and the effects on our visible real universe.

Nailing down dark energy

sean Ring kansas city mo. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:45:30 GMT

If the farther apart something is from a gravity producing whatever is you would not assume that it would speed up but slow down as gravity pulls at it. speed is a constant as it is when it is slowing down not accelerating. Question! What would cause it to accelerate if the gravity were somehow turned off?

Nailing down dark energy

Brian, Norman OK — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:45:38 GMT

I was curious how a decrease in gravitational drag would result in an acceleration? F=ma of course, which would mean to have a positive acceleration would mean u need a positive, non zero, force pushing. That would mean there is some force constantly pushing galaxies? Or creating energy? Everything was given an inital push from something such as the Big Bang, but how is that "instantanious" force continuing? Being an explosion and all. I'm just having a hard time seeing this. Clarification would be appreciated =)

Nailing down dark energy

Sean Ring kansas city mo. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:49:53 GMT

why do we assume that anything would accelerate once gravity is lessened?. Is it under it own power? false assumptions maybe?

Nailing down dark energy

Brian Hufe, Newark, DE — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:05:44 GMT

I think the posts that talk about induced acceleration due to the decreased gravitational effect could be valid if you establish that gravity isn't the only force at work. For instance, if there were some constant force at play in addition to gravity, bodies which are close to eachother would feel an attractive force until you cross some threshold distance where the gravitational attraction becomes less powerful than the constant force. After that point, decreased gravity would essentially cause acceleration because the net repulsive force between two objects would become greater as a result of the attractive force of gravity decreasing. I don't claim to know what the force would be (maybe the expansion of space), or if it even exists, but its a hypothetical situation where decreased gravity would cause acceleration.

Nailing down dark energy

Scott — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:24:17 GMT

You kids really need to start with a basic physics class.

Nailing down dark energy

Ryan, Indianapolis, IN — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:53:39 GMT

A previous poster asked: "why something would "re"-accelerate as gravitational pull diminished. When you take your foot of the brakes, you don't speed up again unless you add gas. Where's the cosmological "gas"?

But consider a sailboat. If you pull up the anchor, the boat accelerates. We know of "solar wind", but what if there was a "big bang wind", so to speak, acting on these bodies, and as gravitational drag is reduced, acceleration occurs?

Nailing down dark energy

Norm McNenrey, Toronto, Ontario — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:55:51 GMT

What if the effects of gravity eventually just stopped completely at x number of light years instead of continuing to attenuate?

Nailing down dark energy

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:02:37 GMT

I dunno, could it be possible that the universe is still accelerating to some maximum velocity as a result of the initial big bang inflation?

Nailing down dark energy

Joe, Denver, CO — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:03:52 GMT

Brian in Newark has it right: history does indeed repeat itself.
The whole 'dark matter' argument sounds a lot like the 19th century debate about the 'ether' - the medium through which all EM energy supposedly propagated through the universe - until the Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1887 blew that theory away and set the stage for Einstein's special relativity some 18 years later.
We need a 21st-century version of Michaelson-Morley to set the stage for the next great physics discovery. I hope I'm around to see it - the results of those discoveries could be truly astounding.

Nailing down dark energy

James, Seattle Washington — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:04:06 GMT

I believe in this theory, but to act as devils advocate:

If you have three points: A, B, and C on a linear line going from A to C, where A is the beggining and does not move; C is the furthest point and B is in the middle. The linear line is made of a rubber band. All points start out coincidental and then we have "The big bang". So A is the starting point and C is moving out with B at about half the distance. Obviously their velocity is highest the moment after the "Big Bang". As they slow down though, from the relative point of view from B as it slows down, does C appear to "accelerate" away from B's view point though from A's stand point it is actually slowing down? If you set up this experiment there is a point in time where from B's view point that C appears to be "accelerating away" but that's relative from B's stand point. Relative to the overall view, everything is slowing down as it moves away from point A.

If so, A could be the center of the universe, B could be Earth and C could be the outter rim of the universe.

Nailing down dark energy

Mickey, Indianapolis, IN — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:27:10 GMT

Is is possible that galactic and "volumetrically cumulative" space gravitation force could be acting on the light particals causing them to slow down? I'm talking about the cumulative mass of all matter between the observer and the observed: existing bodies and unobservable debris/dust etc. Extremely distant objects moving away would exhibit a red-shift that is appropriate for its velocity but the cumulative gravitational force of all objects/matter nearer to the observer would provide the additional "slowing" of the light particals thereby creating an allusion of increasing red-shift: similar to a gravitational lens of one galaxy bending/changing the viewed shape/size/movement of distant galaxies. Is it possible for the cumulative mass between the observer and the observed light to be slowed more as it becomes more distant? The further away it gets, the more direct the angle of gravitation force of all matter acting on the light partical becomes thereby allowing more matter/mass to act on the visible light streaming our direction. I'm not a scientist so I don't really have an understanding of all that goes into this type of study but I appreciate the opportunity to post and have enjoyed reading your posts.

Nailing down dark energy

Bob in Kansas City, Mo — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:44:33 GMT

Since these observations are looking at objects far away in distance, aren't we also looking far back in time as well ? Perhaps the 'acceleration' measured for far away objects is simply due to the
difference in objects' velocity then versus now, and our perception is scewed by the time/distance factors ? If there were a place to observe both our current Universe and the older one we see at large distances from ourselves, would we understand the observed differences ?

Nailing down dark energy

Kevin, SF, CA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:59:19 GMT

My theory is that there either exists or does not exist some new factor in how the forces in the universe interact. And these may or may not be the reasons for the possible anomalies that the astronomers may or may not be seeing in the data.

My theory also predicts that the sky may or may not be blue, the world may or may not be round, and this post may or may not be stupid.

Nailing down dark energy

Ray — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:09:27 GMT

A thought:
Everything we know about gravity is wrong.
Time flows slower towards a greater mass. When you’re standing up time flows slower at your feet than it does at your head and that difference keeps you from floating away with the breeze. Gravity is an illusion. It could actually be a function of time. The moon could be held in its orbit by the difference in the flow of time comparable to the greater mass of the earth. The earth’s orbit, the solar system orbiting the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, all of the things we attribute to gravity could be caused by variations in the passage of time.
If that were the case then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could just be our point of view, our vantage point, as we observe the universe. What we see as the speed-up factor known as dark energy could be time going faster relative to ourselves. The expansion is not going faster, time is going faster relative to us. As we look out into the universe with instruments that measure the red and blue shifts of light waves that were generated long ago are we taking into account that time does not happen at the same rate everywhere.
I doubt that even light traveling from nearby stars to here is traveling at the same relative time as light from our sun traveling to earth. With that in mind the universe could be much different than what we think it is.

Nailing down dark energy

Kkamann, Cincinnati, OH — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:15:05 GMT

For you physics experts out there, what kind of force is elasticity? This whole thing got me thinking about a balloon. I realize the forces are completely different between a balloon (elasticity) and galaxies (gravity). But the analogy is interesting, at least in my mind.

Imagine that we have a plain ole' rubber balloon. We take a Sharpie marker and mark a dot on the balloon. If we created a non-destructive "explosion" inside the deflated balloon, the balloon would rapidly expand and our dot would move, commensurate with the rubber it's drawn on. Due to friction/elasticity/whatever, the rate of expansion would slow, and thus the "speed", or rate of acceleration, of our dot would also slow down. Let's say the balloon gets so big that it eventually pops. All of a sudden, our little dot quickly "re-accelerates" because the rubber tries to snap back to its original shape very quickly. The energy causing our dot to fling across the room is from the rubber snapping, not directly from the energy generated by the explosion itself.

Perhaps this dark energy is like some sort of "supercharged cosmic rubber" of the universe, "snapping" sometime after the the Big Bang and flinging everything across the cosmos. In essence, "re-accelerating" the galaxies.

Anyway, this is what my non-scientific brain thought of. I don't claim that it is scientifically valid. Just a thought.

Nailing down dark energy

Frank, Dallas, TX — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:19:00 GMT

Is there a connection between dark energy/matter and antimatter?

Nailing down dark energy

Justin — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:33:57 GMT

My main concern in all of this, is how the mitosis of the gigawatts expansion into the nebula, will affect my pocket protector and Magic cards.

Nailing down dark energy

wkrueger,New York, NY — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:51:35 GMT

A Note: gravitation isn't so much of a force as if it were an invisible rubber band, but curvature of space/time. Saying that, three decades of experiments have undertaken to measure gravitational waves, albeit unsuccessfully. This spring, the LHC has the potential to add to the known fact base. It's an $8 billion gambit.

Nailing down dark energy

Win — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:54:37 GMT

Wouldn't the fact that the universe is accelerating be partially explained by what happens in a black hole. A black hole suck s up all of this mass and energy into a singularity. Well, Based on E=MC2, there has to be some "exhaust" for this singulairty. All of the mass and energy must go somewhere after it passes the event horizon. It seems to me that the energy that is causing the universe to accelerate can be accounted for by the all the energy that seems to disappear on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole.

In other words, while balck holes appear to be big gravitaional sinks, I think that what we haven't seen is the other "side" of a black hole that is perhaps a "big bang" or some repulsive force in and of itself. To me, that provides balance ot the equation. Now I am just a thinker with a basic knowledge of physics, but the fact of the matter is that we have no idea what happens to matter and energy and light after it crosses the event horizon. Does it all really get compress into one microscopic singularity, or is it converted into "dark energy" that somehow provides fuel for an expanding, accelerating universe.

Does this make any since? Am I missing something?

Nailing down dark energy

Chris P, TN — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:00:20 GMT

There is one thing about expansion & red shifts that has always confused me - I think a couple of other readers may have indirectly hit on it. Astronomers observe that farther away galaxies have greater red shift and conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. My initial reaction would be exactly the opposite! Light from the more distant galaxies started its journey longer ago than light from nearer galaxies. If the red shift of the more distant (older) galaxy is greater than the nearer (younger) galaxy, red shift, and therefore acceleration, appear to be decreasing with time!
I am no physicist, and I know physicists are pretty smart, but I do not see the flaw in my interpretation.

Nailing down dark energy

mark garcia — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:03:50 GMT

i can only imagine that at some level or distance, where not even telescopes can see, there is a force that is immeasurable or eternally beyond human comprehension. i understand that some astronomers and physicists agree that at some point or level in the universe physics as understood by man just breaks down. i say to all the scientists studying the problem, "Keep on truckin'!"

Nailing down dark energy

Brian, South Windsor, CT — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:14:54 GMT

First, in response to Louis, I suggest that time is not a variable, it is a Hamiltonian operator. Second, what if the distance between any two points in space can be described by an equation similar to the form of x2^t? In other words, space is continually inserted between all points in "free" space.

Nailing down dark energy

Linde Skipper — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:27:46 GMT

one of you said "What's out there to speed it all up?"....aren't we all forgetting something simple that we learned way back when?... that Nature abhors a vacuum?..... if space is expanding into 'nothing', then that nothing is an empty void into which all the galaxies are rushing headlong in order to take up a place in that vacuum that Nature abhors... and so would be increasing in speed toward that end, once the grasp of gravity had weakened sufficiently....works for me....

Nailing down dark energy

Ernie Genss, Las Vegas,NV — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:36:07 GMT

what do we really know about total mass/energy in our perceived universe? What if it is a lot more than we think posible, and much older than we can realize. If the 'begining' sent enough material toward our 13 billion year old 'event horizon' long enough ago, couldn't that explain acceleration forces?

Nailing down dark energy

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:02:29 GMT

You have to measure acceleration or movement against a non moving object to see if what you are measuring really is going faster or moving at all. The last I heard, there are no non moving objects in the universe to measure against, so all of the movements or increases could be relative to each other, and not really accelerating at all. There could be deceleration but not showing it because of the angle you are viewing it from and how fast one object is going away from the other.
In other words, we see an object out away from us. It seems to be standing still until we realize it is getting smaller. Is it getting smaller because we are stationary at the same distance and it is shrinking in size (like a melting snowball) or are we growing bigger? Is it moving away from us, or are we moving away from it or are we both moving away from each other? You don't know unless there is a third stationary object you can compare both objects against. Is the preception of the universe expanding faster only because the distances between object are expanding due to the angle between them increasing? Think of target shooting. Everyone shakes somewhat when they pull the trigger. If you are shooting at a 25 yard target, you may be very close or even dead center in the the bullseye. At 400 yards out, the bullet (don't think about the gravity or wind pull on it) may be 12 inches or more off the target to the right. Did the bullet all of a sudden move to the right on its own? Maybe the target moved away from the bullet to the left? There is a 12 inch descrepancy. The only reason we don't believe either of these scenarios is that we know we stapled the target to a non moveable object such as a post in the ground and that the bullet is going in a straight line. Where is our post when measuring all the moving objects in the universe? Can we measure "A" (something) that is a billion light years away and compare it to our earthly position today? I think we don't really know where "A" is anymore after a billion years have past or where we are today in relationship to "A" or even where earth is today in relationship to the rest of the universe. We are also on a arm of the swirling Milky Way Galaxy. When we next take a measurement, where will be be in relation to the object we looked at before? We could be on the other side of the carosel and not even be able to see the object anymore.

Nailing down dark energy

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:10:28 GMT

I like the comment by Louis R. Archuleta on 1-31-08 1:15 P.M. Sounds like something I would like to read more about.

Nailing down dark energy

Keith, Seattle — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:12:46 GMT

Mankinds beliefs affect everything, change man's belief and you change the universe, oh, and by the way, the "universal laws" change naturally with them. The real unknown is inside us. That's what we need to be exploring and reporting.

Nailing down dark energy

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:13:15 GMT

The real problem here lies in the measurements. Our current technology compared to technology just a few years down the road is similar to a comparison of a sundial and a cesium clock. Science has always been, and always will be, about the measurements. It great to speculate and theorize, but the proof is in the pudding. If we're meant to find the answers, we will.

Nailing down dark energy

CRAIG FOSDICK IONE CA. — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:06:31 GMT

IF OUR UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AT A INCREASED SPEED IT IS EXPANDING INTO SOMTHING. THAT SOMETHING COULD BE ONE OR MORE OTHER UNIVERSES WHICH COULD BE SUPPLYING THE ENERGY FOR THE INCREASED SPEED THAT WE ARE SEEING. THE QUESTION WOULD BE HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THAT????

Nailing down dark energy

CRAIG FOSDICK IONE CA. — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:15:07 GMT

OUR UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING INTO SOMETHING, THAT SOMETHING COULD BE OTHER UNIVERSES OR OTHER DIMENTIONS AND THAT COULD BE WHERE THE ENERGY IS COMING FROM. THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES ONE CALCULATE THAT??? MAYBE THE DARK ENERGY ISN'T IN OUR UNIVERSE AT ALL!!

Nailing down dark energy

Kevin, Manchester, Wa — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:36:04 GMT

"At the beginning of this era, the gravitational pull of the mass as it was closer together would create a drag on the expansion. As objects move farther away from the center and other objects, the drag should decrease, resulting in an acceleration."
Ok, this would be true, if and only if the object has a constant source of acceleration. What is the constant source that would allow the Galaxy to "speed up"? If the movement originated from the initial explosive action of the Big Bang, that was one source, and then the only other source out there would be gravity, unless there is another source pulling the galaxy towards it. So the laws of gravity should be affecting the galaxy by pulling objects towards each other once the acceleration force is stopped.

Ryan has an interesting point, but what would be the source of the wind? Could the originating point of the Big Bang still be generating energy?

Space doesn't offer a resistance or drag, otherwise our planet's orbit wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. The biggest issue we have is relational issues, in that our planet is so small in a cosmic sense and we have barely traveled beyond our own galaxy with a simple probe. Just as the speed of sound was a limit 60 years ago, the speed of light will be one until we discover how to move beyond the wrappings our intellect will allow us to define in open space.

Nailing down dark energy

Lake Worth, FL — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:37:33 GMT

I dont know jack and wont pretend to but there seem to be some pretty smart people on this site but they are not the ones who think lack of gravity causes acceleration.I have a question that might apply to this subjet.If energy can be created but not destoyed what happens at the ultimate point of breakdown when there is no farther for entropy to affect something?Could this be dark matter and dark energy?I'm sure this is to obvious but what do you expect from a G.E.D.?Any informed opinon based on facts would be welcome.

Nailing down dark energy

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:33:16 GMT

Bob in Kansas City, MO at 3:44 P.M. has an interesting observation also.
Is what we see in the past viable to let us know what is going on today or in the future? I've said before that by looking at a picture of our grandparents, or parents in my case, a person not knowing what the situation really was, could not say what the folks were like after looking at that picture. They are in different times. A snap shot only. The angle could be wrong, the lighting bad, the picture could have been impromtu, not allowing the participants to get dressed properly. Etc. The past may not tell us anything of value. We just tell ourselves what we want to believe or what we perceive fron that moment.
Also when one thinks of an explosion (Big Bang), there are different particles with different masses and shapes that may have better ballistic coefficients which may allow them to go farther, faster and straighter than others. (like a bullet or shot pellets). I don't know if there was a vaccum back in the time of the Big Bang (I wasn't there in this form), but lets say that what I am saying works in any condition; then the ballistic coefficency of the particles or masses would be different. When the forces of gravity pulls on the particles, slowing them down, some would slow down faster than others, due to their shape and mass and others would continue being hurled out at the same speed which would make those with a better ballistic coefficent look like they are accelerating past the particles of lesser coefficiency. Maybe this is all we are seeing in this tiny snap shot of time. For those bird hunters out there, a shotshell creates a pattern that is not only round from one view point (when it hits the flat paper turkey head target), it is also elongated from front to back the further it gets out from the barrel. The bird that you are aiming at actually flies into the pattern and gets hit by some of the pellets. If they hit the stragglers pellets in the back or along the sides that are slowing down and causing the increase pattern size, the bird may not be killed outright, as the energy behind these pellets is not as great as those in the front.
This could be like our universe in the author's story. We are viewing the pattern of particles and maybe we see those pellets that have a better coefficent fly faster than the stragglers.

Nailing down dark energy

wkrueger, New York, NY — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:48:55 GMT

Comment to above: Black holes do release energy (Hawking(s) Radiation) and eventually will emit enough energy to effectively cease to exist. In that manner, there is no information lost, contrary to early predictions.

Nailing down dark energy

Charles Powell — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:12:05 GMT

Is there another possible answer to the accelerated expansion of the visible universe? What if, at the time of the Big Bang, there was a huge amount of additional matter surrounding the singularity and it was not part of the Big Bang matter. It's possible that the Big Bang happened within an existing huge universe. The Big Bang would expanded matter into space but the relatitively motionless existing matter would not move until the Big Bang shock wave hit it. This shock wave would start expanding the existing matter but not a the same rate as the Big Bang shock wave. If that makes sense, then todays visible universe could be a mixture of the existing universe matter and the Big Bang matter. The dark matter could simply be the stuff that was out there before the Big Bang happened. Due to the gravity of the origional matter, which is intermixed and outside the Big Bang matter, wouldn't this create a gravitational pull on the matter in our visible universe thus accelerating and expanding the outer parts. In other words the origional matter could be pulling the Big Bang matter outward. How is that for a theory?

Nailing down dark energy

Saxist, Sacramento, Ca. — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:22:09 GMT

The Universe is more than all we can see. I believe we have to stop thinking in terms of propulsion as the only source of acceleration; in a perfect vacuum propulsion is not necessary. Impulsion is possible in the perfect vacuum of "nothing". As with Osmosis allowing something of greater density to pass through a permeable membrane in order to reach equalibrium with the lesser density on the other side of the membrane. Since there is no membrane in space: as matter comes into contact with the infinitly huge vacuum of nothingness, it will automatically accelerate in order to reach equalibrium. Of course it will never succeed because the useeable universe is infinite, thus matter will continue to accerate until it surpasses the speed of light and we'll be unable to see it. Therefore I claim that the 14 billion or so age of the Universe could be wrong in that it only defines all that we can see. Also, if time is infinite then I ask where are we on the time line? There is no near the end nor near the beginning, infinity is not just never ending but the beginning is so infinilty long ago that we will never be able to find it. Even if you consider that everything was nothing at one time, the "Big Bang" introduced something into the nothing and has been expanding and accelerating ever since. Of course some would say this is too simple an explanation, but sometimes the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Nailing down dark energy

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:54:14 GMT

Well Nancy, we really don't know where we stand.

Nailing down dark energy

Dr. Wallis — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:18:39 GMT

What a task:
I read an article last week that the universe may run out of time (stop). I also read a suggestion that time flows differently in different directions. Stellar motions require 100's of years so red shift use is limited (for motions). Also light may have traveled slower in the past.
A note: the cosmological constant was derived at by a "simplification" of 16 differential equations.
Old news: Newtons first law can nowhere in the universe be verified. (Einstein was troubled by this.)

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:14:11 GMT

A MISCONCEPTION BY MANY?
The astronomical observations that indicated an acceleration in our universe did NOT show that the most distant galaxies were moving faster than they "should" be but SLOWER. The "slower" moving galaxies are further away from us. The quotation marks need explanation. "Should": according to currently accepted theories. "Slower": slower than what one would find by extrapolating the linear Hubble (velocity vs. distance) graph. For the closer galaxies a plot of speed against distance produces a straight-line graph (leading to the Hubble constant, slope of graph). Recent astronomical observations show that the linear (straight-line) extrapolation of the Hubble closer-in data (all Hubble was able to see in his time) is not valid because the recent data (going to far greater distant galaxies) shows that the line begins to bend downward (away from straight) at these greater distances. This "downward" bend shows that at greater distances the velocity is LOWER than what one would find if one extended (extraploated) the straight-line Hubble graph (assumed the Hubble "constant" held constant, did not decrease a go back in time).
NOW, because we see these ever more distant galaxies ever farther back in time (nearer to the beginning of our universe), the latest data with the "slowing" show that the galaxies were separating ever more SLOWL:Y in the ever more distant past.
Because the method of determining the distance to very distant galaxies from super-nova data might have been the cause of this latest result (downward bending of the Hubble graph) is very complicated, many were able to avoid, at first, accepting the latest data as bending the Hubble graph downward UNTIL data from observations that did NOT require the super-nova complications came in. This different source of data convinced most experts in the field that the associated "acceleration" is a reality of our universe and now needs explaining theories. Some still hope that unexpected errors, when or if uncovered, will allow restoration of the Hubble graph to a straight line, hence no acceleration, but most do not give this much credence (it seems that the medicine would be worse than the disease?).
Finally, many seem to make the expansion of our universe like the expansion from an explosion (the name "BIG BANG" is a great misleader here). The expansion of our universe takes place in four dimensions (space-time) and CANNOT be properly depicted by a three-dimensional "bomb" explosion. The best we can do to visualize things is to limit the spacial dimensions to TWO, like on the surface of a sphere. Imagine a bunch of dots on the surface of a balloon and how they will move away from each other (expand, explode?) as the balloon is inflated and how each dot can imagine itself to be at the center of the expansion. A similar picture CANNOT be seen with a "bomb" explosion where each particle of the explosion CANNOT see itself as at the center of the explosion. Further, each explosion particle can locate the center of the explosion while each dot on the balloon says that NO such unique center exists. The expanding ballon picture is far more like what we find in our universe and does not lead to the problems of the incorrect "bomb" picture. The "bomb" picture makes a velocity filter (the higher the velocties the further from the origin of the blast). The expanding balloon has no origin for the "blast" ("blast" in quotes because it gives wrong picture). There is no spacial origin, rather each observer (galaxy) may consider itself as at the center and a "center" everywhere means no unique center at all. We, three-dimensional-biased creatures are unable to imagine a four-dimensional expansion and we have to trust General Relativity and the associated mathematics to "see" for us. (Mathematics can handle any finite number of dimensions.) The balloon analogy has its limitations too, but relativity and the mathematics do not. If you can't handle the mathematics involved, you have to be very careful to avoid running into ideas that are often loony and you are, usually, well advised to consult an expert especially if you want to cast legitamte doubts.

Nailing down dark energy

Rick — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:49:33 GMT

To all those people who have stated that the acceleration of expansion can be explained by the distance between galaxies increasing:

You are wrong, period. The expansion would not accellerate unless there was a force causing the velocity of the galaxies to increase in the direction away from each other. If you took a puck and slid it across a wooden floor (large friction therefore large decelleration force) onto a frictionless surface (0 friction and no decelleration/acceleration force) the puck would NOT pick up speed once it got onto the frictionless surface but would simply keep going in the same direction and velocity at which it was traveling when it entered the frictionless zone. Simple grade school physics people, Newton's Laws and all that.

Nailing down dark energy

RS — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:53:09 GMT

What if all point particles existed at nodes and only at nodes on the fabric of space? If a large number of particles congregated then the space fabric would bunch up. If it was the tendency of the space fabric to expand due to either the force of the big bang or other force (the repulsive force or dark energy) then we would see what we see right now.

Nailing down dark energy

Marco — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:40:11 GMT

Has anyone considered that it might still be expanding (after the big bang) but that like an elastic it (the universe/dark matter) might eventually hit a point where it can stretch no further and begin to slow down and eventually contract (in billions of years)...all the way back to the point where we have a second big bang..and here we go again.

Nailing down dark energy

Scott Salbo, Queens, NY — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:44:56 GMT

Well, gravity may be a negative force slowing things down, as one post notes. And another post posits the idea that gravity is slowing down expansion, but as expansion increases, gravitational force weakens allowing the expansion to achieve its true rate.
But gravity can have a positive affect on speed, if one assumes that the universe is being pulled towards something with greater gravity than the gravity between the known galaxies. The big bang might, after all, have not been unique. Perhaps there were 2, or 20, big bangs and some created universes more mass than our own, and it is their gravitational affect that is causing the expansion to speed up?

Of course, I'm not a scientist.

Nailing down dark energy

evano, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:06:44 GMT

Delmar: You're driving at 55mph in the middle lane of a highway and you look in your rear-view mirror to see two cars behind you, one much further back than the other, both gaining on you, but maintaining their speeds which are both narrowing the distance from you but at different rates. All of a sudden, the car further back starts gaining on you much more quickly than before, shrinking the distance between you and him and between him and the other car at a much quicker rate. You know this means that he has changed his rate of acceleration.

The two cars come up next to you and for a moment you are riding three abreast, then suddenly the car on your right slams on the gas pedal and zooms off towards the horizon. The car on your left steps on his gas pedal at the same time and accelerates past you, but taking a much greater time to disappear.

None of you were stationary, yet you have no problem determining who was traveling faster and who was accelerating faster. Nothing in the universe is stationary, so all motion is relative to the observer. That's what Einstein was on about.

Nailing down dark energy

Howie — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:03:15 GMT

How many different ways do you have to say "there is no acceleration without energy. "? I got it already!!How about this theory - Dark Matter is GOD.

Nailing down dark energy

Brian Hufe, Newark DE — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:51:05 GMT

Question: I know its established that expansion is accelerating, but what is the rate of change of that expansion? Has enough time elapsed since we first started measuring expansion to know? Because I've heard from a couple different places that the universe will expand until we can't see anything besides our local environment. But if the second or third derivative of expansion is negative, then this result is not the end, and the cyclic universe theories could still be true.

Nailing down dark energy

Wirmish, Québec, Canada — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:30:23 GMT

Our universe expand in the void.

Our universe expand because this "Perfect Void", witch is the "outside" of our universe, completely lacks "volumetric pressure".

Try to put an helium balloon outside the space shuttle...

Nailing down dark energy

Wil Leverhulme, USA — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:07:27 GMT

Gravity is the only force out of the 4 that functions across all 11 dimensions. While relatively neglible here, it's effect is much more significant in the higher dimensions. Not only is gravity functioning across all dimensions, it is the only force that even exists in all 11 dimensions.

Nailing down dark energy

Goran A. — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:07:50 GMT

Would it stand to reason to postulate that forces beyond our observable universe are causing the cosmic expansion and acceleration and not Dark Energy or some other agent native to our known universe?

Additionally, assuming the answer to the above question is a yes…can we then theorize that the known universe is expanding through a yet to be discovered medium with variable density? And would it stand to reason to think that the variability within this medium is the agent behind cosmic acceleration or variations to this acceleration?

Nailing down dark energy

Dan, Longwood, FL — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:44:43 GMT

Hmmph... What if it turns out that from any one observer's viewpoint, given that the majority of the universe is outside of that observer's "light cone" (i.e. could be interpreted as moving away from that observer at FTL) then perhaps the "mass-in-motion" of that unviewable portion of the universe (infinity minus "viewable") acquires some "virtual" inertia -- which in an observer-independent frame might HAVE to appear as a repulsive force, acting to increase the known forces driving metric expansion?

Nailing down dark energy

Bloggerrich, Fort Lauderdale, FL — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:32:46 GMT

For arguments sake...So if I fire a bullet from a gun and it travels through space for a million years, some alien might think that there must be a pull on it from dark matter because it sped up a little from a previous detection, while all along it got nudged by a micro comet that bumped into it a year earlier. Basically, I believe we just have the inability to count all the matter in the universe properly.

My point is that all these red shift and laws of physics pushers are clueless to the fact that it may not be what it seems...they're acting as if they have been 1,000 light years away and got accurate measurement. Also, red shift detection can be tainted by the "gazillion" tons of matter in between us and another body. So I wouldn't bet the house on red shift being as accurate as most think it is, especially if we are talking thousands of light years.

Nailing down dark energy

Hex, Reno, NV — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:35:41 GMT

I don't get it.

A galaxy (or whatever) that is 10 billion light years away is accelerating faster than one that is 5 billion light years away. The astronomers tell us that when looking at these we are looking into the past. In other words, we are seeing the motion of these objects as it occurred 10 billion years ago in the one case and 5 billion years ago in the other. This is comparing apples and oranges because they talk about it as if we were observing the acceleration "now." On the other hand, it makes sense that if gravity is acting to slow things down...reducing the acceleration...something we are seeing 8 billion years after the Big Bang (5G light years away) should be accelerating slower than something we are seeing only 3 billion years after the BB (10G light years away).

Similarly, they say that everything is moving away from us but that the Milky Way will merge with Andromeda in 10 billion years or so. Further, they say that the farther away things are the faster they are accelerating away from us...Andromeda is moving toward us (or we we toward it)...is its acceleration relative to us slowing down as it gets closer? That's not the gravitational Physics I learned.

I'm not sure who needs to be explaining all of this better -- the astronomers or the media -- but somebody isn't making sense.

Nailing down dark energy

Charlie Hodges, Memphis, TN — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:38:47 GMT

Let's presume that the Big Bang did happen, and that this caused the initial movement of matter away from a central point. This movement attained a certain sustained velocity, lessened somewhat by the gravitational attraction of one body of matter to another. In time, some of this matter coalesced into big enough clumps to become stars. Stars emit huge quantities of energy, radiation, and gasses. Why couldn't these emissions be sufficient to repel one body from another more than gravity would attract them, thus accelerating the expansion of distances between stars and, in a larger context, the universe itself?

Nailing down dark energy

Mark M., Charleston, WV — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:52:10 GMT

With Ed Witten's M-Theory, all versions of superstring theories are united. This led to the "Multiverse" proposal (www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotic ). Within it, universes (like ours) are constantly being created and destroyed through the collision of infinitely-long 5-D parallel branes. In fact, this so-called Ekyprotic model -- based on brane and string theories -- gives the same results as the Big Bang and Inflationary models but with an entirely different physics.

Time has no meaning in the "Multiverse". Unlike our universe and others that will be created within, it will last forever. Many physicists find this appealing as they do not have to grapple with the question of "What happened before the Big Bang?"

According to a version of string theory (see PBS/NOVA's "The Elegant Universe" => www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#NOVA ), gravitons exist as closed-loops -- unlike the string forces for the EM, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear -- which allows them to escape from the ZPE field. This accounts for their seemingly small strength (10^39 weaker than the other 3 forces) but also allows for a tantalizing mechanism to communicate with these other 6-or-7 dimensions.

Perhaps dark matter-energy is related more to the "Multiverse" than the universes (like ours) which it contains. Of course, there are other competing theories of everything such as Loop-Quantum Gravity (www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#LQG ), Matti Pitkanen's TopologicalGeometricDynamics (www.stealthskater.com/Pitkanen.htm ), and Tesla-based "scalar" electrodynamics (www.stealthskater.com/Bearden.htm ). I'm sure the proponents of these offer their views on what "dark matter-energy" is according to their models.

Nailing down dark energy

RR — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:40:57 GMT

Norm... then the universe would be ever-expanding (and perhaps never 'fall back'), and it might eventually 'peter-out' like this message thread.

Nailing down dark energy

SS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:43:45 GMT

"time and space constraints... prevent all comments from appearing" ...perhaps like dark matter and dark energy

Nailing down dark energy

X, the unknown — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:49:42 GMT

Not remembering anything from physics class... suppose there's a big boom... do the particles from said boom start out at maximum velocities and immediately thereafter expandingly slow down... or... do the particles initially break free slowly 'accelerating' to reach a maximum velocity from whence they slow down? And if the latter, could we, in the incomprehensible universal scale we live in, be in that 'acceleration' phase toward reaching maximum velocity yet to begin failing?

Nailing down dark energy

Tom Roberts, Russell, Kentucky — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:20:48 GMT

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an exploding mass accelerates and then decelerates on something akin to a bell curve. I mean, an object starts at a state of rest and then rapidly increases its velocity initially. Thus you have acceleration. At some point this acceleration "peaks" and then slows down. Right? Why then is it not possible that on a cosmological scale, we are still on the near side of the bell curve? It may seem like the force of the big bang "is over," but is it? I suppose there are measurements that scientists can quote, but wouldn't it be fair to say then that at best we have contrdictory measurements of the universe? (Besides, I don't understand how science can calculate these things accurately--it seems to me that to say you can know the mass of the universe is about the same as saying you can know god). At some point, isn't our science breaking down into philosophy with these arguments?

Nailing down dark energy

Juri Varda, Tallinn, Estonia — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:16:00 GMT

The "Red Shift" is explained by acceleration of space expansion. For me is better explanation, that the life-time of the photons is not endless. They loose their energy by time and their wavelength become bigger therefore the longer distance they travel.

Nailing down dark energy

Ray Valera, NYC, NY, USA — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:42:09 GMT

What is being measured is the RATE of acceleration. Not simply the speed away from Earth. These farther, "older", Galaxies have the greatest rate of acceleration since we see them as they were nearer the time of the Big Bang's initial push.
As we scan closer, the sets of galaxies we see get successively closer to our own time, and so closer to the current observable rate of acceleration, as found within our own galactic neighborhood. The "glitch" that was found in the new measurements means that our current rate of acceleration is much greater than that which should be expected. Things just started going faster again without the benefit of an explosive Big bang to push them off!
It is as stunning as if you threw a stone 4 feet in the air and it started "falling up" just as it began to slow down for its trajectory curve back down. This JUST does not happen in our experience.

Nailing down dark energy

Ian, Seattle — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:08:40 GMT

Where does all the matter and energy, which gets gravitationally pulled into a black hole go?

Do black holes get "larger" or more dense as it consumes? And doesn't that create more gravitational mass? Accelerating it's neighbor bodies into the singularity.

What do you suppose that "intake" would look like "inside the black hole. An expansion maybe? And not so instantaneous, or violent as a big bang.

Is Gravity, a "membrane"?

Jus a few pontifications.

Nailing down dark energy

Frank McNulty — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:25:25 GMT

What is causing the universe expansion to accelerate?

By definition, the universe is accelerating into a vacum.
As expansion continues, gravity weakens.

The outer edge of the universe is expanding into a vacum while the gravitational pull behind it is decreasing.

The vacum is pulling the universe expansion faster as gravitional drag is decreasing.

Nailing down dark energy

Ian, Seattle — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:10:29 GMT

On further reflection,

Maybe the reason no one has yet been able to truly define gravity to a specific source of force, (Not forgetting Newtonian definitions, but rather acknowledging them as being derived from the measurable effects.)

Perhaps gravity is rather another dimension (or the effect of another), similar to time. Not a specific force.

Where the measurable effect of it does seem to manifest itself as a perceived force, and can be represented as a knowable mathematic value. (Newton)

P.S. Isn’t time required at the second dimension ahead of the fourth? In order to make a ray of a-b bare any substance at all? Then doesn’t it follow that the 3rd is even moreover dependant on time, as Cartesians are totally self referential, arbitrary, and contrived? 3-space is amorphous, is it not? Maybe ‘time’ is the second dimension, and our world of ‘voluminous masses’ is the fourth. Perhaps a moot point.

Nailing down dark energy

Charlie, Fort Worth, TX — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:42:06 GMT

Let's say all the accelerating expansion theory's are correct. What difference does it make? We can't do a thing with it except pontificate. It's nothing but an ego trip and justification for the scientists to get more funding. Get a real job and produce something for mankind. The universe and it's existance is a total mystery.

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:29:10 GMT

WRONG WRONG (Ray and others)

The most distant galaxies are NOT accelerating faster than those nearer us. You are right in saying that we see them at a much eartler time (closer to big bang time), but at this earlier time we do not know if any acceleration existed. The acceleration observed is for times long after the big bang.
See my earlier comment here that tried to keep people from making this COMMON error of Ray.

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:43:47 GMT

X, the unknown, Hex, Ray, and others need to read my comment
in this topic (above, around 80th) to AVOID or REMOVE their error here. Their speculations are based on their incorrect interpretation (understanding)
of the astrophysical data. There are many that might be able to get it straight if they read my comment.

Nailing down dark energy

Bill, Coon Rapids, MN — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:20:18 GMT

Fascinating stuff! You didn't really expect God to put all the answers right out in front did you? It is called 'faith' after all. I challenge all of you to read a book called 'The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery'. This book will blow your mind. It is not a religious book but rather a book using solid science that reveals how Earth is a premier sight for observation. Happenstance? I think not. Happy reading!

Nailing down dark energy

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:42:31 GMT

"The Privileged Planet" is another attempt by ID advocates to take their argument directly to the public. How many times have I been "challenged" by religionists to read this book or that one only to discover that the person who recommended the source has wasted very valuable time that I might have spent doing nearly anything else.

Gonzalez and Richards (authors of The Privileged Planet) should try taking their argument up with scientists.

Nailing down dark energy

Matthias Krause, Kirchzarten , Germany — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:34:45 GMT

Sorry my English is not so well. I am a German.
In the past, the time befor N. Kopernikus, one calculate the earth as the middle of the gravitativ System. That was a mistake and one need the epizykloide to explain the way of the planet Mars at the heaven.
The same mistake is in the present happend. The visible center of a galaxy is not the gravitativ center. You dont need dark matter, if you calculate with the right center. Look to my website, there are tools to calculate the rotationscurve of a galaxy.

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:15:28 GMT

M. Krause,
I have not looked at your website because I suspect it is in German and my German dictionary seems to be lost.
How far from the visible center of a galaxy is your gravitational center? If it is still inside the visible galaxy, the astronomical evidence shows that that has to be WRONG. If it is outside the visible galaxy, then the mass required to be the gravitational center comes from what? Your invisible "dark matter"? Seems the "dark matter" problem has not been avoided.

Nailing down dark energy

Matthias Krause, Kirchzarten, Germany — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:42:46 GMT

. It is not necessary to found your German dictionary. The graphic figures in the papers (web site under point: “Die dunkle Materie ein Rechenfehler”) explain where the gravitational center for every mass is. If you really want to know, please look there. All masses in the galactic disk rotate visible in a liberation curve like SOHO or WMAP
There is also a simulation how masses rotate.
Much luck!

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:35:42 GMT

M. Krause,
Die dunkle Materie ein Rechenfehler link brings up a lot of German, some very nice photos, but no diagrams. How far from central BLACK HOLE of major galaxy is your gravitational center? Is it outside the galaxy or inside? If outside, your theory has to have errors (contradictions of General Relativity). If inside the galaxy and not very near the central BLACK HOLE, contradictions of General Relativity seem to be present. If inside and very near central BLACK HOLE, then DARK MATTER still needed. General Relativity puts the gravitational center and the center of mass at effectively the same point. If your theory does not do this, then it must account for (or confirm) all the known experimental results supporting General Relativity and provide major new ideas in order to be accepted by the physics (astrophysics) community.

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:51:45 GMT

M. Krause,
Gravitational lensing by distant galaxies of more distant galaxies not only requires dark matter in lensing galaxy but also the gravitational center to be at or near the center of the visible galaxy doing the lensing.

Nailing down dark energy

Matthias Krause, Kirchzarten, Germany — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:30:26 GMT

Carlton Lane,
I have put a link in my website with a translation in English of the Many-Body problem. There you can found the gravitational centre for every mass in the galaxy and a sample calculation.

http://www.kosmoskrau.de/Inhalte/Aufsaetze/Das%20Mehrk%f6rperproblem%20in%20der%20Galaxienberechnungpdf00.pdf

If you want to calculate mass rotation in galaxy by yourself, here is the tool.

http://www.kosmoskrau.de/Inhalte/Aufsaetze/Das%20Fl%e4chenberechnungswerkzeug.xls

If you want to know how the tool is build, so look here

http://www.kosmoskrau.de/Inhalte/Aufsaetze/Die%20Information%20zur%20Fl%e4chenberechnung.pdf

Nearby the pioneer anomaly, the flyby anomaly have as reason the same miscalculation like the dark matter or the Gravitational lensing
Notice: The big problems in the physics have a very simple solution. You need no “MOND” calculation. One need only the right rotation point. The “Kepler” rules are only for point masses.

M. Krause

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:19:32 GMT

Matthias Krause,
Danke for replies. Haven't had time for your gravitational center link to come up or to read it; however, I will trust your calculation formulas and you can save me much time, if you will answer my questions, at least qualitatively. Again, is your theory finding that the gravitational center for, say, our galaxy or Andromeda inside or outside the visible galaxy region? If outside, experimental evidence shows that your theory is wrong. If inside and NOT nearly coincident with black hole at center of the galaxy, the data shows your theory does not make correct predictions. If nearly coincident with black hole at the center of the galaxy, then your theory must provide things, experimentally verifiable, that currently accepted theories do not in order to be considered by the scientific community as a better theory than current ones. In addition, your theory must confirm well tested evidence of the existing theory and show how current theory is a special case of your more general theory (show under what conditions your theory reduces to currently accepted theory). For example, Einstein's General Relativity gravitation showed that it gave the SAME results as Newtonian gravitation (hence, confirmed the great volume of data in agreement with Newton) as long as GM/(Rc²) is suficiently small compared to 1 (like in 1, 2, 3). There is still the possibility that "dark matter" is like the "ether" until more or new experimental evidence comes in (most astrophysicists feel they already have enough data to make such a possibility extremely sall but not zero).
You don't need to reply to this stuff. I just hope it may help you to find possible errors in your theory or encourage you to find a way to show how your theory includes accepted theory as a special case. However, if your theory (equations etc.) shows the gravitational center a considerable distance (several light years or more) from the black hole at the observable galactic center, then you should seriously consider revisions that move it into an accepable region. You should also consider if, after revision, it predicts more and better than currently used theories if you hope to gain acceptance in the physics community.
Finally, does your theory eliminate the need for dark energy as well as dark matter?
If not, then it will find additional resistance.
Hoping that I have been of some help to you and I will try, later, to see if your link will come up so I can at least run a check for qualitative errors. If you don't hear from me, you will know that I did not find any or am too old to understand it. Got my PhD in theoretical physics over50 years ago and could not get it at my current age. :-)

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:40:19 GMT

M. Krause,
Got link up, but all in German and print too small to read. This link did have diagrams but explanations too small to read. Sorry. I'll get out my German dictionary try another computer sometime, but don't expect any reply soon. Cosmic log may have dropped this article by then. Hope not, your stuff looks interesting and I can see that you have given consideravble effort to it.

Nailing down dark energy

Matthias Krause, Kirchzarten, Germany — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:03:42 GMT

Sorry,
the English translation you can open with the following link
http://kosmoskrau.de/Inhalte/Aufsaetze/
Das%20Mehrk%f6rperprob%20in%20der%20
Galaxienber%20%dcbers000.pdf

Nailing down dark energy

Matthias Krause, Kirchzarten, Germany — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:33:20 GMT

Carlton Lane,
your questions, here the answers:
The gravitational centre of every spherical or plain mass is inside and never outside.

Your question: Finally, does your theory eliminate the need for dark energy as well as dark matter?
My Answer: Yes, it does.

Let us make a sample fly and I explain what happened.
We start our journey in a large distance from a spherical mass (like a sun or a galaxy or a star heap)
The distance is so big, that we see only a point. All rules of Kepler, Newton and Einstein are right.
We approach draw near the mass and see it is not a point but a sphere. First outer masses (like Oort cloud or hydrogen gas or single stars or planets) we passed. All rules are right. But we calculate first little differences the gravitation we measure is a little bit bigger. We measure the pioneer anomaly. The reason. The real gravitational centre move a little bit to us, because the outer masses, witch are nearer as the centre, have a bigger gravitativ force. Not the mass center is important, but the force centre. (The heavy-point sentence) If we remarked this, we calculate without a mistake.

We approach draw near the mass and see it as a big ball. All rules are right. But we calculate a difference the gravitation is bigger. We measure the swing by anomaly. The reason. The gravitational centre moves more to us, because the outer masses of the ball witch are nearer as the centre have a bigger gravitativ force. Not the mass center is important, but the force centre. (The heavy-point sentence) If we remarked this, we calculate without a mistake.

We approach draw near the mass and reach the border of the surface. All rules are right. But we calculate a big difference. The gravitation is now much bigger. We measure the dark matter . The reason. The gravitational centre moves more to us, because the outer masses of the ball witch are nearer as the centre have a bigger gravitativ force. Not the mass center is important, but the force centre. (The heavy-point sentence) If we remarked this, we calculate without a mistake The gravitative centre is now in 80% distance and not in 100% distance like the mass centre. If we would rotate around we would rotate like WMAP satellite in a liberation curve.

We approach draw near the centre of the mass. All rules are right. But we calculate a difference that gets smaller and smaller. We measure a smaller dark matter . The reason. The gravitational centre moves now to the centre of masses and cross it at least by ca. 20%. because the outer masses behind us cancel a few masses gravitativ force in front of us. Not the mass center is important, but the force centre. (The heavy-point sentence) If we remarked this, we calculate without a mistake. If we would rotate around we would rotate in a liberation curve. And if we calculate the mass in the centre, we calculate only a fictive mass and not the real mass.

At least we reach the centre and feel no gravitation. Now we changed the place of the masses. We put them all homogeny on the surface of the perfectly sphere.( like a black hole or like the universe) In this case we also feel no gravitation in the centre of the sphere. Inside the whole empty sphere there is no gravitation. All rules of Kepler, Newton and Einstein are right.

But if the sphere is not perfectly like the KERR- metric in black holes or like a rotations ellipsoid, we suddenly feel a gravitation from the surface of the not perfect sphere. The force get bigger and bigger if we approach draw near the surface of the mass sphere. If we reach the surface we rotate around the centre.
The reason: In a plain the gravitativ forces are different from a sphere. And if a empty sphere with surface masses has only a little part of a plain then is inside of the sphere a gravitativ force to the surface!!
Our universe is like a big black hole or like a sphere where the inner masses has nearly no speed to the border, but the galaxies approach draw near to the border get quicker and quicker to the border and that is the reason while they get any more mass, it is the relative mass increase. In the area of the “surface” they are so heavy (perhaps by 1000 times and more) that they rotate around the centre with a speed like the light.

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:14:25 GMT

Matthias Krause,
Thank you for your answers. I am pleased to see that your theory keeps gravitational centers INSIDE, because if they were not inside there would be no hope for your ideas. I have not considered, in detail, an ellipsoidal case, only a perfect sphere (which you have correct), but it is difficult for my physical sense to feel that the center of gravitation could be moved so far away from the intersection of the horizontal and vertical axes (center of ellipse) as to be near the surface of the ellipse unless one of the axes is very small compared to the other.
As mentioned in an earlier comment, I'll try to get to a computer sometime to look at your diagrams and mathematics (hope other computer will make German legible enough so that I can follow it). Your English link did not come up on this WEB TV connection that I use.
Again, thank you for your help and kindness. Because of several reasons I mentioned in an earlier comment, I feel that I should recommend to you that you seek a YOUNGER ("difficult to teach old dog new tricks) correspondent for more speedy help in your work.
Dark energy does not have comparable astronomical evidence to that for dark matter; hence, I do not want to get into it before more evidence is in. However, can your theory explain gravitational lensing in the absence of dark matter? (No need to answer for me, but see for yourself what's up here.)
Finally, there is a problem
with a "center" about which said rotation is taking place. If your theory leads to a specific, single center for the observable universe rather than each galaxy being able to consider itself as the center (Cosmological Principle) then I can say with strong confidence it is wrong. Your theory must arrive at the Cosmological Principle or at least an approximation to it to be realistically considerd. Maybe you mean the "center" of the galaxy not a "center" of the observable universe. There is no astronomical evidence for tangential speeds near that of light at outer reaches of a galaxy. There is no astronomical evidence for high speed rotation of distant galaxies about some observable universe "center". Astronomical observations show large radial speeds but no large rotational (tangential) speeds.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment. If so, I am sorry and you may see ample reason to find a younger listener as I have suggested already.

Nailing down dark energy

Jason Omaha Nebraska — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:58:30 GMT

Would it be possible to use the same premise as they're using to detect dark energy and dark matter in order to point to a relative center of the universe? If the universe is expanding at a growing rate, then would it not have some vague starting point? If so, then it may be possible to point to the relative center of the universe by observing the trajectory of galaxies moving outward from their origins...kind of like debris flying away from an explosion. With that said, using the patterns in the changes in trajectories of galaxies one may be able to detect the density or at least the location of any possible dark matter similar to how a bullet changes course sharply if you shoot it into a pool of water. Also you may be able to find a relative origin of the energy pushing everything outward forcing the universe to expand...there may be some answers there. just a thought. :)

Nailing down dark energy

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:23:42 GMT

Jason of Omaha,
It seems most people think the "Big Bang" is like the explosion of a bomb with particles rushing outward in a velocity filtering way (faster moving particles getting further away from the "center" than slower ones. This is a WRONG picture and leads to many errors (especially the error of a center). Most people try to avoid such an error by dropping to fewer dimensions (from 4 to 3, 2 space and 1 time) by considering the two dimensional separating of pennies glued to the surface of an expanding balloon to see that it is the SPACE (between the pennies) that expands while the GLUED pennies stay glued and each penny sees all the others moving away from itself which it sees as the center. Space expansion is NOT limited to the maximum speed of light as separation speeds of explosive particles is. Your "relative center" is our galaxy (glued penny) and any other galaxy (glued penny) sees itself as at the center. Space-time is four dimensional and that's why it is difficult for us, three dimensionally biased beings, to picture what is involved (how all can consider themselves to be at the "center") and the balloon picture is invoked to help. In the balloon picture, if you think that the center of the balloon is the center you are talking about, you are being misled by a failing of the balloon analogy (the tendancy to make a 3- dimensional picture, moving off surface of balloon, where only 2 dimensions, surface of balloon, can be allowed if want to avoid analogy errors.
Try this for help in trying to see the problem and what is involved. With any FINITE (has a right end and a left end) line (ruler) there is a center and one gets closer to one end or the other if one moves away from the center. With an INFINITE (no left or right end) line there is NO "center"; no matter how far a finite distance you move along an infinite line you will still be just as far from either " infinite end" as before you moved. Our finite "common sense" says this can't be true, but it is WRONG, just as our 3-dimensional "common sense" says there has to be a center.
I've got to be brief now, but hope it will be enough to help you see the problem. Our numberline ......-5,-4,-3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,..... (where the .... indicates "GOES ON FOREVER; IS INFINITE; NO ONE CAN EVER GIVE THE 'LAST' NUMBER") does NOT have 0 a the "center" because no matter how far you go finitely to, say, the right there will still be the same infinitude yet to come and no greater infinitude to the left. INFINITY PLUS INFINITY IS STILL INFINITY (NOT 2 TIMES INFINITY) AND INFINITY PLUS ANY FINITE NUMBER IS STILL INFINITY. All this makes our finite bias (common sense) cry out "ridiculous", but our finite bias is WRONG for infinite things, just as a person who never saw a black person would ridicule anyone who said they had seen one. We must BROADEN our experience to infinite things before we can see the errors of ourfinite "common sense". Einstein said sonmething like the following: "common sense" is the bias laid down in our early years. It's our 3-dimensional bias that insists on a "center" even though a 4-dimensional case is involved, just like our finite bias says that our infinite number line has 0 as the center even though infinity is involved and,in truth, 0 IS NOT the "center" of our infinite number line. Infinite common sense agrees and says that THERE IS NO "center"

Nailing down dark energy

Will, Reno, NV — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:06:25 GMT

Dark matter can only be the waste product of time. As time passes the dark matter takes up more space around the galaxys. And since time is affected by gravity the volume of waste matter would be closer to objects of mass and fill space at a disproportionate rate causing the separation. Its all relative.

Nailing down dark energy

Andreea — Sun, 04 May 2008 17:27:31 GMT

Is there really a asteroid heading for earth ?
I heard that scientest couldn't destroy it.
Is that true ?

Nailing down dark energy

Dov Henis, Hod-HaSharon, Israel — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:19:10 GMT

Dark Matter And Energy, And Accelerating Expansion

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=210&#entry338747

A. Wikipedia

"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe."

"Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe."

B. Re-repeat old posting

"Singularity and D-final (max expansion/ cosmic energy dilution) are the two cosmic stable states. Their in-between is a metastable state, which is an everyday commonsense observation. Likewise is the observation that the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic universal process
E=Total[m(1 + D)]
where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

Per Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense, best scientific approach, the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship."

C. Tieing Dark Matter, Energy, And Accelerating Expansion

At genesis, at age 10^-35 seconds, the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold.

Therefore in E=Total[m(1 + D)] m decreases as D increases since genesis.
What is the implication of the ever decreasing m?

m does not "disappear"; mass is a form of energy, energy being the base element of the cosmos, and the extent of energy and mass of the cosmos are constant.

The right-hand side of the above equation is a measure of the "dilution of universal mass" as the universe expands and its created additional space becomes permeated with yet unknown cosmic energy products. Its implication is that on the route from singularity to a future final D, on the route from maximum cosmic density to maximum cosmic expansion-dilution, there are evolved transient or stable phase forms of mass and energy with which we are not yet familiar.

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

Nailing down dark energy

Matthias Krause, Kirchzarten Germany — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:07:33 GMT

Carlton Lane,

Sorry, a long time I don’t answer your mail. The reason: I was very ill, but now I am well again and so I send a link to you.

http://www.kosmoskrau.de/Inhalte/Aufsaetze/Epizyklen%20und%20DM%20teil1.pdf

Two month ago I explain something about the gravitational Point. Everybody can maintain everything. Now you have the possibility to proof the contentions. I put an extensive calculation in my website(link above). So you can see step by step on satellite WMAP and SOHO as a sample in our planetary system, that you can calculate a dark matter by yourself. The wrong relation point (in the mass centre) makes a lot of dark matter.

No new tricks, but only the normal formulas. The text is in German, but the calculations in the appendage are international, so you can understand it.
To nail down dark energy, one have to understand the miscalculation of dark matter.

Nailing down dark energy

Susan Gurma Toronto — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:46:23 GMT

Accually, I think the dark energy idea is a way to account for the possiblity that the rules might be a little different outside our solar system or beyond.Gravity is compressing matter into more complex matter within the fusion factories of stars, as it does, space expands.

Nailing down dark energy

ZIDEK666 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:00:16 GMT

Present conjectures of dark matter and dark energy are flawed in that they rely on the present interpretation and understanding of intergalactic redshift. Photonic decay, if it exists, along with GR may in the end dispel this notion and show that dark matter is merely intergalactic hydrogen and that universal expansion or acceleration does not exist to the extent theorized.

Nailing down dark energy

Kirk, Traverse City, MI — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:32:03 GMT

Could dark energy be explained through Einstien's theory of relativity? Could this force that is now pushing galaxies apart be explained by the inverse curvature of space/time? Gravity is simply the effect of the curvature of space/time caused by large clumps of matter. Could the curvature of space/time actually work in reverse in the areas between large mater bodies (galaxies or galaxy clusters), causing galaxy clusters to actually repel each other?

When the universe was young, matter & energy was dispersed much more uniformly than it is today. But when matter began clumping together into the huge galaxies and clusters that we see today with their massive black holes creating huge gravitational sinks, couldn't this cause gravity waves to iminate, causing the spaces between to form an inverse curvature wave in space/time, pushing the galaxies away from each other.

Doesn't this sound reasonable? I can't be the first one to think about this.

Nailing down dark energy

Rod Morrill, Tampa, Florida — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:21:14 GMT

There is 'revealed' information from an ET race of Human Beings, known as Plejarens (from the area of the Pleiades). The information reveals that the Material Universe is far larger and far older than currently assumed. From both 'sides' of the Material Universe are vast regions of space filled with Creation Energy. The Creation Energy is 'polarized' - positive Energy at one 'side' and negative Energy at the opposite 'side.' From our perspective, this is Super-Fine Energy.

Both forms of Creation Energy flow through the Material Universe, which is the background 'Field' of Space-Time. Where the two forms of Energy meet, new matter - photonics forms at high frequencies, and sub-atomic matter is created. slightly more 'normal' matter than anti-matter, which is annihilated. The Energy released in the 100% reaction is in a neutral form. The resultant remaining matter accretes into Hydrogen, Helium &c, forming new stars, galaxies, planets &c. THIS IS the cause of the continuous expansion of the Material Universe. Of course, this is on large time scales.
References: www.theyfly.com/ and www.futureofmankind.co.uk/

Nailing down dark energy

kEN mULLER DANVILLE, PA. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:45:11 GMT

wHEN LOOKING TO OR FROM AN IMAGE EATHER INCRESES OR
DECRESES IN TIME OR SPACE WITH A BIGGER OR SMALLER
APPERIENCE TO THE NAKED EYE THUS RELATING AN OPPOSIT
RELATION IN THE BRAIN SUCH AS IF YOUR RIGHT EYE IS STRONGER THAN YOUR LEFT EYE? OPTICAL DIFFERANCE TOTAL
OBSERVATION DIFFERANCE.DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE= A QUESTION UNANSWERED=space AND TIME...........

Nailing down dark energy

Adam, Manchester, England — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:15:29 GMT

I am no physicist. I have some questions

What is the universe expanding into? What was here before / between universes? What effect did the big bang and the presence of the universe have on it?

If "nothing" was here before, what is the effect of expansion / explosion into "nothing" All of our physics is based on experiments and observation within "space time" not "nothing". Perhaps it is not in the realm of perception to consider this "nothing" and its effect on our universe?

Within "nothing", and infinity, all eventualities are played out (monkeys and typewriters), are we within one of these eventualities and therefore just trying to fathom the nature of infinity?

Nailing down dark energy

David Hutton — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:15:03 GMT

The message here is that the expansion of the universe (i.e. the velocity, or distance per second, at which the universe is expanding) is increasing (i.e. accelerating, distance per second per second). I see the explanation as follows:

We know that as a body increases in velocity approaching the speed of light relative to us, time slows down for it relative to us. We also know that far away objects are traveling faster relative to us than closer objects. This is seen in the increased red shift of the light we receive from far away objects. And we know that far away objects approach the speed of light relative to us and, in fact, the universe may be expanding at greater than the speed of light in its far reaches, but we will not be able to see these objects because their light cannot travel fast enough to reach us.

So, for these far away objects that are approaching the speed of light, their time relative to us is much slower. Since time is the denominator in the equation for velocity (distance per second), as the denominator gets smaller, the velocity increases. For the acceleration rate of this object (distance per second per second), the increase is exponential as the denominator gets smaller. But since we view this from the perspective of our own time frame, the reverse is actually our perception. Therefore, our perception of the far away objects is that the increasing expansion rate of the space they occupy appears to be slower than the increasing expansion rate of the space occupied by closer objects.

The far away objects are also older because it has taken so long for their light to reach us. Therefore when we say that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, what we see is the relative velocities of the far away objects increasing more slowly than the relative velocities of the nearer objects (from the supernova readings), which is what Einstein's theory predicts.

So why are we so surprised by these findings? And does this mean that the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate, or is this just our perception which is distorted by the principles of relativity and the reality is actually much different? For example, what if we were posed halfway between earth and a far away object? It would appear that the space that both earth and the far away object occupy was expanding at the same rate and that the rate of increase of this expansion was the same for both. And yet that is not what we perceive from our vantage point on earth.

With this line of thinking, the reality is that our perception of ever increasing rate of expansion is wrong. In fact, this would tell us that we can’t measure the rate of expansion of space because it varies depending on where you take the measurement.

Nailing down dark energy

Greg Burgess, Franklin, TN — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:04:54 GMT

I really appreciate these articles about cosmology because it reveals the inherent beauty of the scientific process. Like evolution new theories emerge from old ones through adaptation of new data or observation. Yes, there are mistakes along the way and less worthy hypotheses die out via the peer review processor or incorporation of new data that refutes the premise of the original hypothesis. However through time I'm confident scientist will solve the jigsaw puzzle of the observable universe and evolve theories of dark energy that reflect observation.

Nailing down dark energy

David Hinderer, Seattle, Wash. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:48:26 GMT

Could the dark energy regions be where all the anti-gavity has moved? Gavity and anti-gavity may have been comingled in the beganning, but by their nature always had to repell each other in the void of space. I would imagine the separation would appear much like what we currently see.

Nailing down dark energy

Gary Gano, Inyokern, California — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:45:54 GMT

Do you scientists know if the universe is being pushed
away omnidirectionally? Or maybe just from one body from another?
If it is omnidirectional, then should there be a focal point of this force? And if there is a focal point, where is it located?

Nailing down dark energy

Dov Henis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:46:58 GMT

The 21st Century Dark-Realm Rush By Science
is a shuddering shameful futile waste

The 21st century Dark-Realm Rush of science in search of Dark Energy-Matter is a shuddering and shameful waste of menpower and of many other resources on a commonsensical futile chase of a grand 100 year old virtual hallucination.

Again and again : dark energy-matter scientists keep chasing their selfmade gibbering tail.

And again and again : On The Origin Of Origins
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/160/122.page#2753

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=525&#entry420991

Enough is enough!

Exercise critical thinking beyond Einstein-Hubble and beyond Darwin.

Dark Matter-Energy And Higgs Particle ???

Ponder energy-mass superposition and the Fractal Oneness of the universe.

Ponder the implication of the commonsensical universe scheme on the origin and nature of life.

Suggesting,

Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU

Nailing down dark energy

Andrzej Dworaczek — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:19:08 GMT

No dark energy, but dark ages of cosmology. Please review this website: www.drugaplaneta.com