Skip to comments.New data support Einstein on accelerating universe
Posted on 04/03/2012 1:00:38 AM PDT by U-238
Einstein is still the boss, say researchers with the BOSS project for measuring key properties of the universe.
BOSS, for Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, has measured the distance to faraway galaxies more precisely than ever before, mapping the universe as it existed roughly 6 billion years ago, when it was only 63 percent of its current size. The findings suggest that the mysterious dark energy causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate was foreseen by Einstein, the researchers reported April 1 at the American Physical Society meeting.
To keep the universe in a static state, Einstein added a term called the cosmological constant to the equations for his theory of general relativity; when the universe was later found to be expanding, he called the constant his biggest blunder. But in recent years, the cosmological constant, which describes a repulsive force occupying all of space, has been invoked to explain the discovery, first reported in 1998, that the universe is expanding faster and faster.
Evidence for accelerated expansion could be explained either by the negative pressure exerted by the cosmological constant (or some other form of dark energy) or by some flaw in general relativity. The BOSS results support the dark energy picture. We find no deviations from general relativity on these very large scales, said Nikhil Padmanabhan, a physicist at Yale University who presented the results and is a coauthor on a series of papers posted online at arxiv.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
There are far more black holes out there that have been discovered than previously believed and it’s only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not dark matter. It’s compressed, nearly invisible matter, shrouded by a multitude of event horizons.
I agree. I would also include mini black holes are very common in the universe. I would use these mini black holes as a doorway into another universe or as FTL travel. You can probably use gravitational waves to find these black holes(see the LIGO project).
Under his General Relativity theory, the universe should eventually collapse (under gravity). So he concocted the notion of an “accelerating” force to keep it static/stationary as scientists thought it was at the time. This was before Hubble and Co discovered that the universe was expanding, or in a state of “infinite deceleration” (prior to the comparatively recent discovery that the universe was/is actually accelerating in its expansion).
So, "universe" is defined as only a large cluster of stars? And the "size" of the universe is only everything between the two stars (that we can observe) most distant from each other? Huh.. When I think of "universe" I think of infinity. That is, not only the stars, but everything beyond the stars. I mean, who's to say there isn't another cluster of stars equal to or greater than all the stars we can observe from earth, a trillion-to-the-trillionth-power-to-the-trillionth-power-to-the-trillionth power light years away?
What would that be? A separate "universe"?
This has been the eternal battle between cosmologists. Whether the universe will collapse(the Big Crunch) or it will eventually continue expanding until the universe is filled with stellar copses and black holes. The other big battle is the age of the universe.
Scientists have known for a while about why the
universe is expanding.....it’s trying to get away
from Chuck Norris.
Again, this has been the battle between cosmologists since Edwin Hubble came out with his paper in 1929. What is the age of the universe? My perception that they come up with different ages almost every year.
But at the time Einstein introduced his famous "fudge factor" it was not yet known that the universe was even expanding, let alone accelerating. Turned out he was right but for the wrong reasons.
I agree with you.
Black Holes emit radiation. Why does Dark Matter not do it? If this is true, then the two cannot be the same.
“In the context of cosmology the cosmological constant is a homogeneous energy density that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Originally proposed early in the development of general relativity in order to allow a static universe solution it was subsequently abandoned when the universe was found to be expanding. Now the cosmological constant is invoked to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.”
This just seems to be beyond the comprehension of “science” and of scientists.
All this is rather new. Most of these theories have come up within the 100 years. I do believe if you answer one question, five more questions will pop up.
There are two forms of dark matter (Baryonic and non-Baryonic). One (Baryonic) is ordinary matter which simply isn't reflecting or emitting light. The other (non-Baryonic) is the allegedly strange stuff that makes up the vast majority of the universe. It doesn't interact with light at all, but it supposedly explains various observed motions of galaxies which don't seem to make sense without some sort of additional gravitational force.
Yeah like the global warming questions. Global warming is completely fake science. So why should we believe anything these scientists say and even in what they about the universe say you can tell they don’t understand any of it.
Yeah like the global warming questions. Global warming is completely fake science. So why should we believe anything these scientists say ? and even in what they about the universe ,you can tell they don’t understand any of it.
Use Scientific Method.
Einstein is mostly right.
Here's a good article on the subject of Hawking Radiation (Black Hole radiation).
Science like global warming fake science is mostly funded by governments . So they make all these “intriguing” sounding theories like string theory and other ridiculous theories to get a millions in government grants. That’s a good days work , write up a theory and get a million dollar grant. I don’t buy any of it.
That is a good article.
that's the real equation.
Scientists have even said that CO2 is a pollutant . and that global warming is destroying the planet and they backed this up with decades of government funded research. One problem with all this research and theories : IT'S ALL FAKE AND HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FAKE.
These morons make no sense. Some theories even say that there are trillions of alternate universes etc. And that scientist is set for life, all of them are working in universities and have to do this “research” to retain their jobs and get government grants. How many theories are out there that have not been pron?
Don't confuse bogus "science" like man-made global warming with legit science. That is not to say there aren't a lot of far-fetched theories out there in the field of cosmology.
That is not to say there aren’t a lot of far-fetched theories out there in the field of cosmology.
There are a lot of theories. wonder why? I don’t buy any of it.
If these phonies were really "green" they would promote CO2 emissions, as there are few better friends to plant life than CO2. They can't exist without it and thrive in its abundance.
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
We would still be living in the Stone Age if it weren't for modern science. Without the "theory" of Quantum Mechanics, for example, we wouldn't have transistors.
10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics:
10. The Transistor
In the fall of 1945, the U.S. Army completed its work on ENIAC, the world’s first vacuum-tube computer. All told, ENIAC weighed more than 30 tons (27 metric tons), had the footprint of a small house and cost nearly half a million dollars to create [source: Weik]. Fortunately, by the time ENIAC was built, Bell Laboratories was already well on its way to developing a replacement for power-hungry, space-consuming vacuum tubes: the transistor. Transistors act as both an amplifier and a switch for electronic signals, functions essential to virtually all modern electronic equipment, and without quantum mechanics, they likely wouldn’t exist.
That’s because transistors rely on the unique properties of semiconductors — materials that can act as either a conductor or an insulator — to operate. Thanks to groundbreaking discoveries in quantum mechanics, Stanford researcher Eugene Wigner and his student, Frederick Seitz, were the first to manipulate the properties of semiconductors in the 1930s. Armed with their research, scientists from Bell Laboratories developed the first rudimentary transistors over the next decade, and by 1954, the United States military had constructed TRIDAC, the first transistor-based computer. Unlike the monstrous, unreliable vacuum-tube computers that preceded it, TRIDAC occupied only 3 cubic feet (0.08 cubic meters) and needed only 100 watts of power to operate [source: PBS]. Today, companies like Intel and AMD fabricate cutting-edge microprocessors containing billions of microprocessors, and we have quantum mechanics to thank.
Sounds man made. Better not tell Algore.
>>Sounds man made. Better not tell Algore.
Algore, creator of the ‘theory’ of GoreBull Warming.
the thought that there is a star all the way out there and then nothingness beyond that is beyond my comprehension.......
The further you look out into the universe the further back in time you are seeing. Stars didn’t always exist.
More accurately, Fr. Georges Lemaitre, S.J. was correct.
Dark matter does not emit electromagnetic energy, light is one form of electromagnetic energy. Dark matter is so called because it does not interact with the electromagnetic force, one of the four known fundamental forces. The other three are gravity and the two forces involved in the atomic nucleus, the weak force and the strong force.
Dark matter interacts with electromagnetic energy, photons, via gravity. There are two ways that we can observe dark matter, either through gravitational lensing or observing its effects on clusters of galaxies. The orbits of galaxies within these clusters cannot be explained by the observed and inferred luminious matter, stars and gas clouds. Something else is hold them together graviationally. That something is called dark matter for lack of a better name.
Yeah, Especially the theories whereby we light our cities and split the atom to win WWII.
I prefer the big crunch to an ever expanding universe and the eventual heat death of same that it implies.
You are correct
The more we probe deeper and expand our knowledge of the universe this question will be answered.
Tell me what you or your scientists say about where the universe ends and what is beyond it or what was before the universe or how can an atom be mostly space and what is time etc. etc. . These morons have not answered any of the basic questions but put theories out there to get grant , the vast majority of these theories about how the universe began or even what it is , what is space, time etc. are unproven. You believe anything these morons say. Hawking is the worst one .This liberal cretin believes in liberal and socialist causes so obviously it is a total idiot but people say it is smart. So smart Hawking thinks socialism works . LOL .this moron has made millions but only an idiot would think socialism works , and also Hawking says that there is no God etc. I don't believe a word steven hawking says but you all do . amazing. the media says they are experts so we have to blindly accept what they say and the sheep believe . lol.
it is all fantasy science but the sheep here believe it all even though they nor their scientists understand what they are saying and they ridicule me for questioning the government scientists.
You had seemed to be saying that you didn’t believe in science at all. Sorry if I misunderstood, or if you state it clearly enough.
And the Manhattan project was predominantly run by the government with very tight security of academics. Just saying....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.