So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

Well...

Now that we all have solved THAT problem... on to the next question!

So....

Which really DID come first?

The chicken?

Or the egg?

Lol....definitely the egg.

A chicken-like creature probably laid the egg which produced the first true chicken.

Physicists change their mind because their knowledge evolves.

Frankly, if one would venture outside the earth-moon system, one must might find exceptions to the laws of physics which apply on Earth. Based on "local conditions."

Many notions pertaining to the planets have been debunked, and many have been expanded, because the probes sent to the planets actually EXPLORED THE PLANETS.

I would like to talk to somebody who has read Biocentrism (Lanza) and all I got was a tremendously negative response to the "Bio" from a physicist. So I'm still looking for somebody who enjoyed Biocentrism.

I know! A new thread.

I believe there is an objective reality. Lanza is proposing that the perception of physics phenomona is based, at times, on our subjective impressions, rather than on objective reality.

I think you've nailed it.
I don't believe, and never believed, in objective reality.

Ref: Frazier on TV - "What color is the sky in your world?"

How can you know what I mean by "the colour blue"?

I think if you spent a minute in my brain you'd recognize nothing.

But we're okay because of consensus reality.

Well...reality cant be totally unhinged, and totally subjective. Try walking off a cliff. Your reality will get pretty objective pretty fast.

Or getting shot in the back of the head by a sniper 3 miles away?
You got me there.
But I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I always believe in the best and Einstein is the best so that's why E=MC2 is accurate. Since Einstein didn't predict dark energy, as far as I'm concerned the theory of dark matter in the universe is a load of hogwash. There are plenty of other theories to explain the mass of the universe. Why do we have to add a complication such as the existence of dark energy to explain anomalies such as the mass of the universe. We should be seeking simple solutions to explain things.

Don't think Stephen Hawkins, that other great scientist, is that convinced by the existence of dark energy either. The other great myth of scientific thought in the last half of the 20th century is the Big Bang theory. Another stupid explanation of the formation of the universe that makes no sense whatsoever, yet wins the guy who thought it up a Nobel prize.

Whether dark energy is actually energy or some other force that we have yet to understand, I don't know, but I would not discount it on the basis that Einstein didn't predict it. That would be like discounting the wave particle duality of light because Isaac Newton didn't predict it. The collective understanding of the universe just hadn't matured to the point where it could be predicted yet. The knowledge necessary for that prediction came in the generation after his death.

There are many instances of mathematical entities and concepts that had no known application at the time they were discovered and could not be appreciated for what they were or fully understood until an application was found. There still are mathematical entities and concepts which have no known real world analogy or application, but make perfect mathematical sense, and may very well be applicable to something in the future.
They are hints that there are still discoveries to be made in the universe, and that our understanding of it is woefully incomplete. Many physicists seem to believe that our universe exists in a form very different from how we actually perceive it, for example, a hologram universe, and this could very well be the case. Personally though I think we will probably never understand the universe as it actually is due to our physical cognitive limitations.

I had a dream that on the other side of a black hole it's all white as opposed to the 'black' void that occupies our universe, theoretically because throughout existence all light that couldn't escape the event horizon would be in a constant state of flux on the other side, maybe our subconscious knows more than our conscious mind or maybe my mind has been jumbling up memories together to give that image in my mind. The same way wind blows into the house because there is low pressure outside and the high pressure inside is trying to equalise and balance itself out.

I'm no physicist but I know enough about general relativity to know that that's wrong. If you fell past an event horizon you wouldn't be able to tell at first. You would still be able to see out of the black hole and towards the center of the black hole would still be black. The real mystery about what happens at the center of a black hole is the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, with the small sizes and extreme gravity present at the exact center of a black hole both relativity and quantum mechanics will apply and given our current models that causes things like probabilities above 100% and below 0% as well as other things that make no sense at all.

The second part of the paragraph is backwards. Wind blows from high pressure TO low pressure. Not the opposite way you stated it.

But the first part of what you said describing your dream is similar to theories floated back in the Eighties. Theories that quasars are really "white holes".

The notion was that matter and energy gets sucked into black holes, and then the same matter and energy gets spewed out at another point in both time, and in space, by White holes. The same hole connects two dimensions of the universe.

Quasars are sources of intense light emission. So it was suggested that quasars were the flip side of black holes (black holes elsewhere in both time and in space) puking forth all of the matter and energy ingested by those black holes.

A space traveler could in theory double as a time traveler by taking his craft into a black hole and coming out of a white hole/quasar. Though (as my astronomy professor told me) a person going into a black hole "would loose his identity very fast" (ie be squashed by the dense matter etc).

But I haven't heard much about this "white hole" theory in a long time. So I am guessing that it fell out of favor in the scientific community for some reason.

Mike - thank you for explaining black holes in a manner I can understand - perhaps 'understand' is too strong a word but 'better than ever before.' I've been reading http://mikeman7918.deviantart.com/ (I don't know how I got there) and you are brilliant and the universe is brighter for your efforts. Thank you.

I appreciate what you are saying but I find it frustrating that instead of building on existing theories we go off on tangents which doesn't explain anything about our knowledge of the universe. Einstein builds on Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics provides physical explanations for things that Relatively can't account for. We should be trying to gel the two theories together. Instead we come up with absurdist theories to explain the missing mass of the universe by creating dark energy. Also I don't understand why the Big Bang theory wasn't knocked on the head as soon as it was known by mathematicians that matter is spontaneously created in a vacuum. Why then must all the matter of the universe be present at the start of time at the Big Bang. Even the concept of time at the Big Bang is irrelevant to the way we express it because earthly time is age expressed by revolutions of the earth around the sun and all other time is a function of the mass and speed of objects. Why should humans on earth think that time flows the same way on earth as it does for all the other trillion of objects out there in the universe? Yet the Big Bang theory puts an age of the universe at some 13-14 billion years and no one questions it.

One huge piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the fact that we can see the past by looking further away due to the finite speed of light and what we see is a bright flash creating a cloud of dust which forms into galaxies and eventually becomes the universe we we know it today. That is not the biggest piece of evidence though, the most compelling evidence is that the theory has made many successful predictions such as predicting the existence of cosmic background radiation before it was discovered. That is why it is still accepted.

By the way, what you say about measuring time based on the motion of Earth is wrong, at least now it is. People have been attempting to redefine measurement units based on universal constants for ages now and time is currently defined based on a property of cesium. Granted, the exact number of these cesium electron oscillations in a second was determined by Earth's movement but that's beside the point.