Slashdot Mirror
Dark Energy Confirmed
bill_mcgonigle writes "By correlating the results of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, astronomers have confirmed the existence of dark energy.
While gravity attracts, dark energy repels, so by comparing the positions of millions of galaxies and their red-shifts with the temperature map of the early universe, evidence was found for dark energy on the scale of 100 million light years.
"Dark energy, whatever it is, is something that is not attracted by gravity" said David Spergel, a Princeton University cosmologist and a member of the WMAP science team.
"We are finding that most of the stuff in our universe is abnormal in that it is gravitationally repulsive rather than gravitationally attractive," said Albert Stebbins of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, a switch that happened about 6.3 billion years ago, before which the expansion was decelerating."
I think the "ultimate question", which is probably unanswerable, is "why does anything bother to exist?" It could be a one-time Big Bang, an infinite number of universes generated from "quantum foam", an endless cycle of bangs and busts, or a cosmic turtle. But, I don't know if the answer of "why is it here" can be answered from within the Universe. Maybe the best answer is "why not?".
Your suggestion amounts to either "there is no such thing as pull forces, objects can only push" or "the only forces that exist are those transferred by physical contact, ie things bumping into one another".
Lets assume (incorrectly) that your suggestion is true. What are some of the consequenses of this assumption? First, let the source be distributed at the center of the solar system. Then, according to your suggestion, the earth should move away from the sun (since the earth needs a center seeking force to continue orbiting the sun, which cannot exist if your suggestion is true). The source must then be outside of orbit of the earth (and obviously all the planets).
Where could it go outside of the solar system? It would have to be distrubuted in a circle around the solar system so that it could push in on the earth at all points of orbit. This brings up many difficulties. If the source is distributed symmetrically around the solar system, why does it push more on one side of the earth than the other? Your argument I would guess is that one side of the earth is farther from the source of the particles than the other (since the other is facing the opposite side of the source). However, according to newton's laws, the particles would lose no momentum on their way to earth unless a force is acting on them, thus the force on both sides of the earth are exactly balanced. Another problem is what happens to the particles that are coming in from both sides when they meet? We would expect some net buildup of particles (in this case, it would be at the sun). This in turn would mean the sun is becoming more massive all the time when in fact it is actually losing mass.
Now that know planets exist around other stars in our galaxy, we have to find a way for these planets to stay in orbit. Cleary we need a source of particles around each of these stars as well. In fact, since there is no reason to think any one star is more special than any other, we need a source around every star in the galaxy. Furthermore, since all the stars in our galaxy orbit our galaxy, we need a source in a circle outside of our galaxy. But wait, how do all these sources affect earth's orbit. Surely we cannot expect all the forces from the particles to magically balance out at earth. It is safe to assume, the force on the earth would no longer be in the correct direction to orbit the sun.
I have mentioned nothing about galxies orbiting in clusters (which they do). However, it is clear that you would have to make some pretty heavy modifications to your theory and add a ton of exceptions. Your theory would be about as far as you can get from an Okham's razor explanation.
There are numerous other problems to your theory (so many in fact that I don't have time to cover even a small percentage). However, I will highlight the most important aspect. Your theory makes numerous predictions that directly contradict experimental and observational results.
Please leave the theorizing to physicists and astronomers. You are not the next Einstein. Einstein may have been "just" a patent clerk, but he was a patent clerk fresh off degrees in physics and mathematics. If you continue to say things like this, you will quickly and justifiably labeled as a crackpot.
This sounds a lot more like a re-statement of the reason that people started theorizing that "dark energy" might exist. Confirmation? pfft.
Mr. Hawk "We dont know why this is happening."
Mr. Beard "Hmm,, maybe it's 'Dark Energy', that acts in reverse."
Mr. Hawk "Hey look, the same thing is happening over here.. I wonder why.."
Mr. Beard "This conclusively proves my earlier hypothesis!!"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All