Emperor Has No Clothes
Someone has been a long way from the computer, so this story from Space.com almost escaped our attention:
Glimpse of Distant Universe Could Unravel Dark Energy [Secrets]
"A new radio telescope technique has allowed astronomers to glimpse distant reaches of the universe and could help answer some fundamental cosmic riddles, such as whether mysterious things like dark energy really exist.
"Dark energy is believed to constitute nearly three-fourths of the mass and energy of the universe. It is also thought to be responsible for the speeding up of the universe's expansion. Yet scientists still aren't sure dark energy even exists."
Doubts continue to grow, even in the press, about a repulsive "dark energy." Why is there not a single particle or track in a bubble chamber to prove its existence? If it composes 3/4 of the Universe, where is it? Why is it not in our solar system affecting planetary orbits? DE is promoted mostly by physicists, while few astronomers really believe it. The idea has led scientists further from the truth, that the speed of light is slowing.
Despite growing doubts, DE supporters still treat it as settled science. Just last week a respected scientist was seen lecturing about DE in South America. What will happen to his credibility when the truth comes out? Invisible "dark energy" may someday be described as physicists' mass delusion, or the Emperor's New Clothes.
Glimpse of Distant Universe Could Unravel Dark Energy [Secrets]
"A new radio telescope technique has allowed astronomers to glimpse distant reaches of the universe and could help answer some fundamental cosmic riddles, such as whether mysterious things like dark energy really exist.
"Dark energy is believed to constitute nearly three-fourths of the mass and energy of the universe. It is also thought to be responsible for the speeding up of the universe's expansion. Yet scientists still aren't sure dark energy even exists."
Doubts continue to grow, even in the press, about a repulsive "dark energy." Why is there not a single particle or track in a bubble chamber to prove its existence? If it composes 3/4 of the Universe, where is it? Why is it not in our solar system affecting planetary orbits? DE is promoted mostly by physicists, while few astronomers really believe it. The idea has led scientists further from the truth, that the speed of light is slowing.
Despite growing doubts, DE supporters still treat it as settled science. Just last week a respected scientist was seen lecturing about DE in South America. What will happen to his credibility when the truth comes out? Invisible "dark energy" may someday be described as physicists' mass delusion, or the Emperor's New Clothes.
Labels: dark energy, speed of light
posted by L. Riofrio at 8:12 AM
3 Comments:
Can I post some stupid questions here? I have read the energy discussion on Gibbs/TGD/Lubos/Carrolls sites and is a bit confused.
1. If Big Bang is true with an inflanatory stage, then why was the acceleration slowing down and why has it grown again? No constant can explain a GROWING acceleration? Then the constant would have to be logaritmic and expanding?
2. If you calculate this energy question with a light speed slowing down, what would be the result?
3. With a susy, that could be part of the DE/DM and antimatter (dito) that leads to annihilation = energy production there must be an additional source to DE? Why would we need so many 'mirrors'? Isn't quark-antiquark sufficient? What happens to susy with a slowing speed of light?
4. Photons are massless, but neutrons are said to have a speed greater than light, although they have mass. Why would photons be the ultimate tool to measure max. speed? the only reason I can see is the interaction, excitations.
1. There is neither inflation or acceleration, just a slowing speed of light.
2. As previous posts have calculated, total energy of any object, from the smallest to the largest, E + U = 0. Total energy of the Universe is just zero, the ultimate free lunch. Old physics can't solve the energy problem.
Thanks, no time for any other questions.
I realize I should have figured that out myself. Sry.
But, you should really take your time and write your theory down, because it is interesting. Otherwise it is no theory. And you must take your time to answer, and that is not only to me. It looks very bad and arrogantly. Like you do this only to make yourself important (a bit provoking said).
There are some really selfevident things that talks in favour of what you say, but other talks against.
You ought to participate in the debate mentioned above. You talks in favour of a conserved energy as P. Gibbs, but with a completely different math. Or can't your theory stand that?
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/11/energy-is-conserved-the-history/ etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home