Einstein Was Right Again: Dark Energy Confirmed

[AlphaToOmega]

You do realise that without it much of what we as a species have achieved wouldn't have been possible right?

 

I'll look at your posts regarding your thoughts.

[AlphaToOmega]

The tired light model has been shown to be incorrect and I agree with it being incorrect.

 

I'm not a supporter of the concepts of dark energy and dark matter required to explain observations.

Dark matter exists, obviously since anything that does not radiate sufficient energy will be unobservable from our position.

Its the quantity required to match observations I have issue with.

Like wise with dark energy.

[Paradox]

You do realise that without it much of what we as a species have achieved wouldn't have been possible right?

 

Can you explain?

Also I don't understand how this invalidates the idea that either a course of logic is right or is wrong.

[AlphaToOmega]

Space travel predictions to land a Rover on Mars, the Voyager, Pioneer spacecraft etc could not have completed their missions without taking relativity into account.

GPS works on relativity. I have one in my car and another for personal navigation when out in the bush.

These could not provide the accuracy without considering relativistic effects.

Two atomic clocks went out of sync by travelling at different speeds by the amount predicted.

GPS and the clock experiment confirm predictions by relativity that time and speed are related.

We have also verified that time changes wrt gravity.

Gravitational lensing. Predicted decades ago but only observed recently.

 

A theory is a theory always. It never becomes a proven. It never will.

It can only be falsified.

 

To be a valid theory it has to make predictions and have these predictions verified. Till then its a hypothesis.

 

The theory of relativity has been verified countless times in many ways by many different researchers.

 

Yes there are alternative theories that explain parts of what we observe but none that explain all that relativity does.

IOW, having multiple different theories that explain parts of observations which when combined make a whole is not as conclusive as one that explains the lot.

 

Many of these were developed based on the presumption that relativity is wrong and then set about to show that they can come up with a theory that also meets observations.

That is fine to start with but to complete it they must explain everything that relativity does and make predictions that different from relativity that are testable and show that their predictions are right and relativity does not predict the same.

 

So far to my knowledge no such thing has ever been shown.

[Paradox]

I am tempted to invite you to read my comments on the other two recent threads that are also about Eintstein on this forum. But on this occasion I shall reiterate the points I have already made there.

 

Space travel predictions to land a Rover on Mars, the Voyager, Pioneer spacecraft etc could not have completed their missions without taking relativity into account.

GPS works on relativity. I have one in my car and another for personal navigation when out in the bush.

These could not provide the accuracy without considering relativistic effects.

 

Nasa does not use relativity. It abandoned it, as was made clear by Ronald R. Hatch, former President of the Institute for Satellite Navigation. Hatch has his own Modified Lorentz Ether Theory (I don't go along with it, by the way, but it seems to work for him).*

 

The mathematics of Grossman, which are generally referred to as the mathematics of GR, may very well have been manipulated so that the results fell into place in subordination to the holy grail of the time, which was the accounting for the secular advance of the perihelion of Mercury, then thought to be 42 arc seconds per century (but this value has been revised several times since then). We know that Grossman's mathematics gives some pretty useful results even today presumably because of that very manipulation, but the formulations have very little to do with the actual theory of GR, which is characterised by the Principel of Equivalence -- an idea very easily shown to be false.

 

Two atomic clocks went out of sync by travelling at different speeds by the amount predicted.

 

Sounds like the Hafele-Keating experiment. The results of this experiment need to be given a great deal more scrutiny than they have by the mainstream. I have seen a Nasa engineer (who himself utterly rejects relativity) say some scathing things about the whole set up.

 

GPS and the clock experiment confirm predictions by relativity that time and speed are related.

We have also verified that time changes wrt gravity.

 

Any objectively recordable data on these matters serves to *disprove* relativity as it demonstrates that speed of passage of time time is not purely relative to reference frame.

 

Gravitational lensing. Predicted decades ago but only observed recently.

 

If indeed it is real (and I remain suspicious of the apparent lack of any great degree of 'lens' distortion in the objects in the hubble photos), it doesn't prove anything other than what has been considered since Newton: that the path of light is curvilinear. As I had said previously, Soldner arrived at the Newtonian value for deflection of solar light by the earth's gravitational field as far back as 1801.

 

A theory is a theory always. It never becomes a proven. It never will.

It can only be falsified.

 

To be a valid theory it has to make predictions and have these predictions verified. Till then its a hypothesis.

 

I really don't go along with Popper, even though most scientists seem to love him. A theory, in natural science, consists of two components: one is a model -- working within bounds, as an ideal set of conditions -- and the other extends this into a speculative hypothesis (eg. Darwin said that his model accounts for the array of species we see around us). The first of these can be proen or disproven within its bounds on the grounds of the reasoning it exhibits. Einstein's reasoning was flawed from start to finish.

 

The theory of relativity has been verified countless times in many ways by many different researchers.

 

All fudging and -- given what Einstein *actually said*, manipulative use of 'verification', I'm afraid.

 

Don't forget the GR is entirely incompatible with QM. For that matter, with SR also, and if SR is wrong, GR collapses like a house of cards, as Einstein himself said.

 

The article I always refer everyone to on this subject is the classic 1967 piece by Guy Burniston Brown:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

 

* Ron Hatch for you:

 

"Einstein's two theories, SRT and GRT, have no explanation for the clock phenomenon. SRT and GRT theories sometimes exhibit clock effects of equal magnitude which cancel and sometimes exhibit clock effects of equal magnitude which are additive. This cannot be coincidence, yet there is nothing within the two disjoint relativity theories to suggest an underlying mechanism. Since clock effects are a function of velocity squared (kinetic energy) and gravitational potential energy, it would seem that the common factor is related to the energy of the particle. But SRT treats kinetic energy as relative and GRT treats gravitation as a geometric effect of an orbiting body as following a force-free trajectory completely independent of energy considerations. SRT/GRT has no valid explanation for this phenomenon. Thus, both Einstein theories are invalid!"

[Paradox]

 

I'm not a supporter of the concepts of dark energy and dark matter required to explain observations.

Dark matter exists, obviously since anything that does not radiate sufficient energy will be unobservable from our position.

Its the quantity required to match observations I have issue with.

Like wise with dark energy.

 

Is there any concrete reason for rejecting the idea of dark energy? Not, surely the same grounds as you have stated for dark matter!?

[AlphaToOmega]

Similar reasons to rejecting dark matter.

Yes there is energy out there. Light travelling around from one point to another is an example of that. It would create force to push mass from each other but its effect is negligible.

Unless its headed directly towards us it is also effectively undetectable as a result is dark energy.

So, no I don't accept that there is such a huge amount of energy there that it basically can accelerate all the mass of the Universe away's from each other except local groups where gravity is greater.

If there was we'd also have a way to detect its presence.

 

w.r.t. your previous post, it would take more time than I currently can spare to do a formal rebuttal and provide the evidence.

Its not that I'm saying I never will, its just for the next month or two my time is really limited due to other commitments.

 

I will say however that I disagree with you (which I'm sure you would have guessed) and will put up this link from NASA itself regarding GR.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

 

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity.

 

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-.

 

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

 

 

Gravity Probe B has been 47 years in the making. It was designed to do just one thing, check the predictions of GR.

 

It was NASA that started funding the experiment to prove GR. That says to me they certainly believe in the maths of GR and were willing to invest 47years and consume tremendous resources as well as overcome huge technical challenges to do it.

 

The amount of effort that was involve in making this experiment is more than the effort in any other experiment that I'm aware of.

 

And, it matches predictions.

 

Plus, the data is extremely recent and the results made public less than a month ago.

 

 

 

[Paradox]

 

I will say however that I disagree with you (which I'm sure you would have guessed) and will put up this link from NASA itself regarding GR.

 

http://science.nasa....011/04may_epic/

 

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity.

 

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-.

 

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

 

 

 

Gravity Probe B has been 47 years in the making. It was designed to do just one thing, check the predictions of GR.

 

It was NASA that started funding the experiment to prove GR. That says to me they certainly believe in the maths of GR and were willing to invest 47years and consume tremendous resources as well as overcome huge technical challenges to do it.

 

The amount of effort that was involve in making this experiment is more than the effort in any other experiment that I'm aware of.

 

And, it matches predictions.

 

Plus, the data is extremely recent and the results made public less than a month ago.

 

 

 

See other thread.

 

I have never disputed that the tensor maths associated with GR gets results that very closely match experimental results, even when those results aren't fudged (as extremely often, they are).

[bornagainathiest]

All I can say, BAA, is that it is for you to decide whether or not relativity is correct. Personally I think it is very simple to show why it is not, and I have demonstrated how. It's a matter of trusting one's intuitions. You might want to put your doubts to people who have been associated with the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Many of them have a very good vantage points from which to view all these these issues in a balanced way.

 

Thank you Paradox.

 

Your use of the word intuition prompts me to ask one more question, please.

 

Could you please explain what your 'intuitive' time is?

 

Posted 14 May 2011 - 01:10 PM (#64)

Ouroboros, on 14 May 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Paradox, on 14 May 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

Ouroboros, on 14 May 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Out of pure curiosity, what is your view on big bang

 

Didn't happen

 

So what happened then? Static universe?

 

Something like a steady-state universe, I think. But I don't have this physical conception of time. Time is more like an intuition. It's constructed from within one's self. So I wouldn't want to look back to teh 'beginning of time'.

 

Note that the big bang theory is dependent on the validity of GR.

 

Ouroboros, on 14 May 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

So what happens to time and space in a black hole then? Time continues at the same rate as the observers? No event horizon etc?

 

Again, my conception of time isn't a physical one. I find it silly to suggest that at a singularity, time will not pass relative to the rest of the universe. How does it receive any matter from the outside cosmos, if that's the case?

As for the event horizon, it's possible. Depends on whether or not light propagation is constrained by gravity. I don't think we have got a definitive answer to that question yet.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[AlphaToOmega]

Note that the big bang theory is dependent on the validity of GR.

 

Not quite.

The big bang theory is dependent on the assumption that there is no unknown as yet undiscovered phenomena that can cause light to lose energy.

The one that is accepted is that a shift of light to a lower energy (longer wavelength) is primarily the result of Doppler shift.

 

In order to satisfy that and reconcile it with other phenomena that cannot be explained is to introduce:

Dark matter and dark energy.

 

GR doesn't discount the concept of light losing energy in some way. The calculations will still work out. Nor does it require that the Universe be expanding or contracting or is static. If fact they were only recently thinking that the Universe was slowing down and would either collapse or stay static. Neither of which would be disallowed by GR.

 

IMHO which is the simpler of these two?:

1) Light loses energy through Doppler shift which forces dark matter that we cannot see to be the most abundant matter in the Universe and Dark Energy which no one can explain that has so much energy that it can push galaxies apart as well as numerous other issues such as the discovery of spiral galaxies before they could form etc.

2) There is another as yet undetermined way in which light can lose energy.

 

I use Occam's razor and figure (2) is the simpler explanation. If I have to choose an unknown then I choose one unknown rather than two and I choose one that is simpler than both.

Oh, I am aware that GR also has issues with explaining some of these as well.

 

 

 

[Paradox]

Note that the big bang theory is dependent on the validity of GR.

 

Not quite.

The big bang theory is dependent on the assumption that there is no unknown as yet undiscovered phenomena that can cause light to lose energy.

The one that is accepted is that a shift of light to a lower energy (longer wavelength) is primarily the result of Doppler shift.

 

In order to satisfy that and reconcile it with other phenomena that cannot be explained is to introduce:

Dark matter and dark energy.

 

GR doesn't discount the concept of light losing energy in some way. The calculations will still work out. Nor does it require that the Universe be expanding or contracting or is static. If fact they were only recently thinking that the Universe was slowing down and would either collapse or stay static. Neither of which would be disallowed by GR.

 

IMHO which is the simpler of these two?:

1) Light loses energy through Doppler shift which forces dark matter that we cannot see to be the most abundant matter in the Universe and Dark Energy which no one can explain that has so much energy that it can push galaxies apart as well as numerous other issues such as the discovery of spiral galaxies before they could form etc.

2) There is another as yet undetermined way in which light can lose energy.

 

I use Occam's razor and figure (2) is the simpler explanation. If I have to choose an unknown then I choose one unknown rather than two and I choose one that is simpler than both.

Oh, I am aware that GR also has issues with explaining some of these as well.

 

The whole thing is cobblers. Leaving aside the farcical set of conceptions that upon which the notion of inflation depends, let's just examine what happens to light. Supposedly, at the instant of creation (oh, sorry, due to time dilation we can actually assume it wasn't an instant but was I-don't-know-how-many millennia long) there was a burst of eclectromagnetic radiation -- just about all the energy in the universe was emitted, what with particles yet to be (fully) formed. Where does the light go? Well, the cosmologists say that it just hung around, trapped in the bubble of expanding space-time, presumably filling every part like air fills a balloon.

 

So the electromagetism that we have around us is basically light that is as old as the universe. The light just didn't have anywhere else to go. Now that simple observation throws a monkey wrench into the cosmologists' analysis of cosmic background radiation (CBR -- strangely, it used to be CM(icrowave)BR but the 'M' has unaccountably been dropped). It undermines the notion that older light that is more distant. You can forget anything to do with c as being the speed of light; there is only one criterion that governs the transit of light, anywhere in the universe: the expansion of space-time (you see, BB theory *is* dependent on GR!).

 

Now all this leads up to one very major failing. When cosmologists speak of the universe, as described above, they speak of the *known* universe. So to suggest that the light had nowhere else to go (which is rather necessary, becuase if it did, our universe would be instantly leached of light) is nothing other than circular reasoning. It is only *because* the known universe is restricted to the sphere the extent of which is governed by the constant c, that we have come to formulate ideas about an expanding space-time whose limits *are* that sphere. Ultimately we have no grounds for supposing that space-time ever *was* this expanding bubble -- and every reason to suppose that there was something outside this little parcel of cosmos.

 

But in any case, a couple of years ago there was a BBC documentary (a Horizon programme [Horizon usually toes the line to nauseating extents, mind]) all about how cosmologists have for years been storing up major doubts about BBT and on this programme they basically came out and said it was bunk. RIP, BBT.

[Paradox]

 

Your use of the word intuition prompts me to ask one more question, please.

 

Could you please explain what your 'intuitive' time is?

 

 

I basically -- though not entirely -- go with Kant. For him, there are two pure conditions in the mind that take the form of intuitions: our inborn ability to construct space (our 'outer sense') and our inborn ability to experience time (our 'inner sense').

 

I say I am not *entirely* in agreement with Kant because I think of time as something we construct, mentally, *from* our even more fundamental construction of space.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Your use of the word intuition prompts me to ask one more question, please.

 

Could you please explain what your 'intuitive' time is?

 

 

I basically -- though not entirely -- go with Kant. For him, there are two pure conditions in the mind that take the form of intuitions: our inborn ability to construct space (our 'outer sense') and our inborn ability to experience time (our 'inner sense').

 

I say I am not *entirely* in agreement with Kant because I think of time as something we construct, mentally, *from* our even more fundamental construction of space.

 

So, to do justice to your reply I've got to go and study the works of Immanuel Kant?

 

Thanks, thank you so much for the clarity of your 'explanation'.

 

Seeing as I've already informed you of the following...

 

* I never made it college

* I'm not an astrophysicist - as you mistakenly thought

* I can only understand cosmology and astrophysics at the 'popular' level

* I'm self-taught when it comes to matters astronomical

* I don't possess the mental means to check thru the equations and complexities of GR, SR or it's rivals

 

...I naively supposed that you might 'explain' what you meant about intuitive time, pitching it at my level, for my benefit.

 

How wrong I was!

 

Look Paradox, if it's too much trouble to come down from you Oxonian ivory tower and dirty your hands with us mere mortals, just say so and I won't bother you again with my oh-so-ignorant questions!

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

 

Your use of the word intuition prompts me to ask one more question, please.

 

Could you please explain what your 'intuitive' time is?

 

 

I basically -- though not entirely -- go with Kant. For him, there are two pure conditions in the mind that take the form of intuitions: our inborn ability to construct space (our 'outer sense') and our inborn ability to experience time (our 'inner sense').

 

I say I am not *entirely* in agreement with Kant because I think of time as something we construct, mentally, *from* our even more fundamental construction of space.

 

So, to do justice to your reply I've got to go and study the works of Immanuel Kant?

 

Thanks, thank you so much for the clarity of your 'explanation'.

 

Seeing as I've already informed you of the following...

 

* I never made it college

* I'm not an astrophysicist - as you mistakenly thought

* I can only understand cosmology and astrophysics at the 'popular' level

* I'm self-taught when it comes to matters astronomical

* I don't possess the mental means to check thru the equations and complexities of GR, SR or it's rivals

 

...I naively supposed that you might 'explain' what you meant about intuitive time, pitching it at my level, for my benefit.

 

How wrong I was!

 

Look Paradox, if it's too much trouble to come down from you Oxonian ivory tower and dirty your hands with us mere mortals, just say so and I won't bother you again with my oh-so-ignorant questions!

 

BAA.

 

 

One of your mood swings at work, methinks.

Listen. I would like to say more about the intuition of time, but intuition is something that, by its very nature, one cannot deconstruct. Isn't it enough just to think of time as an inner sense -- a subjective conditioning underlying experience?

 

If you want me to go through all the arguments surrounding it, that will be very very tough going -- and not, I think, suited to this thread.

[bornagainathiest]

One of your mood swings at work, methinks.

 

(Slow, ironic handclap.) Cute.

 

Listen. I would like to say more about the intuition of time, but intuition is something that, by its very nature, one cannot deconstruct.

 

That's handy. You're disposed to hold to something that's (conveniently enough) too complex for the Average Joe like me to comprehend. So how do I know you're not making it up? Or if it's even self-consistent?

See what I mean about dwelling in an ivory tower?

Isn't it enough just to think of time as an inner sense -- a subjective conditioning underlying experience?

 

No. No, it isn't.

Forgive my dunderheaded slowness here, but you seem to be advocating the idea that time has no independent existence of it's own. (Sotto voce. I'm probably wrong here too. Waits for the swift rebuttal.)

 

If you want me to go through all the arguments surrounding it, that will be very very tough going -- and not, I think, suited to this thread.

 

No sir, don't do that. I couldn't follow you anyway, if recent experience is any guide.

No, instead why you present some real-world evidence for intuitive time, stuff that I can grasp?

Or maybe you think there is no 'real world' and that reality is simply a construct of the mind?

 

 

BAA

[Paradox]

Forgive my dunderheaded slowness here, but you seem to be advocating the idea that time has no independent existence of it's own.

 

Yes. It's just a way of making sense of our state of being; a soul with myriad forms of conditioning imposed upon it, and playing upon it.

 

No, instead why you present some real-world evidence for intuitive time, stuff that I can grasp?

 

When you sleep, you have no notion of time; and this can apply in altered states of consciousness also. It indicates that time is only experienced as part of the conscious process of making sense of the world.

 

Or maybe you think there is no 'real world' and that reality is simply a construct of the mind?

 

No I am not an idealist, but I do take a great deal from Berkeley and Hegel (both idealists).

[bornagainathiest]

And your proposed method of testing this is... ?

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

And your proposed method of testing this is... ?

 

 

I don't need one because I am not a Popperian.

[bornagainathiest]

And your proposed method of testing this is... ?

 

 

I don't need one because I am not a Popperian.

 

I see.

 

(Or rather, I don't... and neither can anyone else?)

 

And you accused me of defending an Einsteinian castle in the clouds?

 

R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

 

Goodbye Paradox and sweet dreams.

 

BAA.

[AlphaToOmega]

but intuition is something that, by its very nature, one cannot de-construct

That puts it in the faith basket then.

Just sayin.

[Paradox]

but intuition is something that, by its very nature, one cannot de-construct

That puts it in the faith basket then.

Just sayin.

 

No, it put it in the 'I think therefore I am' basket. If you can relate to it by virtue of your own experience of life, as an essential undressed-up construct, it is perfectly sound -- albeit it not necessarily founded on logic -- to believe (in) it.

[AlphaToOmega]

No, it put it in the 'I think therefore I am' basket. If you can relate to it by virtue of your own experience of life, as an essential undressed-up construct, it is perfectly sound -- albeit it not necessarily founded on logic -- to believe (in) it.

I think of Vampires and werewolves and therefore they are...

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

They spice it up to sell it. That's why my astronomy news and physics news comes from astronomers and physicists themselves. I got too annoyed with the attention grabbing headlines.