Why?

You claimed RE scientists did not invent dark energy.  In fact, they did.

Doesn't the Law of Conservation of Energy state that "energy cannot be created or destroyed"? How then do you "invent" a type of energy?

They didn't create it. They have just given the 'apparent energy' a name.

Quote from: sokarul on April 02, 2007, 08:12:01 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 02, 2007, 07:48:46 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 02, 2007, 02:53:47 PM

To bad re'ers never made up dark energy. 

You mean they've proved it!?!

?  What part of a round earth requires dark energy?
Edit, how does theoretical ideas prove the earth is flat.  Like I said, they do experiments, you fe'ers just make up shit. 

You claimed RE scientists did not invent dark energy.  In fact, they did.

I looked up those terms after the argument.  There is a difference between made up and theorized.  They have experiments to test those theories, what do you have?

And like I said 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of people believe the earth is round.  So play the odds.

So what experiment led them to a source of energy that they can't observe?

Maybe this?

[edit] Evidence for dark energy
In 1998 observations of type Ia supernovae ("one-A") by the Supernova Cosmology Project at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the High-z Supernova Search Team suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[4][5] Since then, these observations have been corroborated by several independent sources. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and the large scale structure of the cosmos as well as improved measurements of supernovae have been consistent with the Lambda-CDM model.[6]

or the whol thing  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

So where in there does it say they have evidence for this energy?

In the whole article apparently.  There is references and further reading, feel free to read up. 

If they have observed this energy, then why is it labeled as "dark"?

In the whole article apparently.  There is references and further reading, feel free to read up. 

In the article under the header "Nature of dark energy."

"The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation."

 

that prob goes for the FET also

edit: heh only nobody even begins to agree with it

They didn't create it. They have just given the 'apparent energy' a name.

That's not what inventions are. It's like naming a star. You didn't invent the star nor did you come up with the idea of that star. You just named it.

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 09:03:51 AM

In the whole article apparently.  There is references and further reading, feel free to read up. 

In the article under the header "Nature of dark energy."

"The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation."

 

You really are stupid aren't you?  So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

So, for the record, sokarul you know science?
If so, give us some of your science, that we might all be filled!

So, for the record, sokarul you know science?
If so, give us some of your science, that we might all be filled!

Umm you need to be more spacific.  What would you like to know?

Well I guess you seem to be the forum authority on dark energy. Perhaps you can enlighten our little minds. Or should we just accept your link to wikipedia as gospel?

I already said I had to look up dark energy.  My science of choice is chemistry first, then physics.   

I already said I had to look up dark energy.  My science of choice is chemistry first, then physics.   

So what exactly is your evidence again?

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 12:09:12 PM

I already said I had to look up dark energy.  My science of choice is chemistry first, then physics.   

So what exactly is your evidence again?

The evidence from the experiments that they did while you were asleep? 

Well I guess you seem to be the forum authority on dark energy. Perhaps you can enlighten our little minds. Or should we just accept your link to wikipedia as gospel?

Obviously, Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy.

Quote from: narcberry on April 03, 2007, 11:56:01 AM

Well I guess you seem to be the forum authority on dark energy. Perhaps you can enlighten our little minds. Or should we just accept your link to wikipedia as gospel?

Obviously, Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy.

I love wikipedia. However, its no more valid than asking your neighbor what the best home loan is. You do understand that wikipedia is user-editeable. So no, wiki may not be in on the conspiracy, it's just not a valid source.

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 03, 2007, 08:24:29 AM

They didn't create it. They have just given the 'apparent energy' a name.

That's not what inventions are. It's like naming a star. You didn't invent the star nor did you come up with the idea of that star. You just named it.

They invented an energy to explain observations, which they named "Dark Energy".  Why is that hard to understand?

So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

I love it when people contradict themselves without realizing it.

Dark energy is theorized because of a discrepancy in the universe. There is a uniform ether throughout the universe, but the problem is that it should not be uniform. The universe has not been around that long. Thus dark energy. Not proven, but an idea.

What I dont get is why the universe would work in circles and spheres, ellipses etc, but not for Earth. Earth is flat....but most other shit is round. WTF.

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 11:18:54 AM

So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

I love it when people contradict themselves without realizing it.

Dude general relativity is still just a theory, what the atom looks like is still just a theory.  Technology makes it hard to become a fact.

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 03, 2007, 01:52:50 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 11:18:54 AM

So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

I love it when people contradict themselves without realizing it.

Dude general relativity is still just a theory, what the atom looks like is still just a theory.  Technology makes it hard to become a fact.

Many aspects of relativity and the atomic constructs have been observed and are no longer just theory.

Dark energy is theorized because of a discrepancy in the universe. There is a uniform ether throughout the universe, but the problem is that it should not be uniform. The universe has not been around that long. Thus dark energy. Not proven, but an idea.

What I dont get is why the universe would work in circles and spheres, ellipses etc, but not for Earth. Earth is flat....but most other shit is round. WTF.

According to Erasmus, the earth is special.  I mean, we have life and everything, unlike those other planets...  And since no other planet has been proved to have life (and it will be especially hard to prove it to a FE'er), we will remain special.  As long as we're special, we can be flat.

Quote from: sokarul on April 04, 2007, 12:31:01 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 03, 2007, 01:52:50 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 11:18:54 AM

So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

I love it when people contradict themselves without realizing it.

Dude general relativity is still just a theory, what the atom looks like is still just a theory.  Technology makes it hard to become a fact.

Many aspects of relativity and the atomic constructs have been observed and are no longer just theory.

no they are still theorys that are accepted as fact because people would otherwise still think the world is flat

Quote from: narcberry on April 04, 2007, 01:15:33 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 04, 2007, 12:31:01 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 03, 2007, 01:52:50 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 11:18:54 AM

So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

I love it when people contradict themselves without realizing it.

Dude general relativity is still just a theory, what the atom looks like is still just a theory.  Technology makes it hard to become a fact.

Many aspects of relativity and the atomic constructs have been observed and are no longer just theory.

no they are still theorys that are accepted as fact because people would otherwise still think the world is flat

Heard of an electron microscope? How about particle accelerators? Both have been used to observe, in part, what was once just a theory.

Quote from: HellboundGreaser on April 02, 2007, 01:31:49 PM

I know I cant think of any proof or evidence of planet earth being flat. I'm waiting for your evidence that planet earth is flat and big government coverups.

Step 1. Look outside your window

Step 2. Read the FAQ

Step 3. Read the book "Earth Not a Globe" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Step 4. Read the book "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter

Step 5. Read the back-issues of Flat Earth News Quarterly

Step 6. Read the book "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott

Step 7. Read The book "The terrestrial plane" by Frederick H. Cook

Step 8. Read the book "Universal gravitation a universal fake" by Charles S. DeFord

Step 9. Read the book "Does the earth rotate?" by William Edgell

Step 10. Read the book "Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated" by Henry J. Goudey

Step 11. Read the book "The book of light" by Gilbert Johnson

Step 12. Read the book "Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth." by Charles W. Morse

Step 13. Read the book "A challenge from the earth-flattening society" by Richard A. Proctor

Step 14. Read the book "The Earth: A Plane" by John E. Quinlan

Step 15. Read the book "He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat" by Robert J Schadewald

Step 16. Read the book "The view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth" by John P. Sisk

Step 17. Read the book "Is the earth a whirling globe?" by Carl Albert Smith

Step 18. Read the book "Answers to the common 'proofs' that the earth is a globe" by Chester M. Shippey

Step 19. Read the book "In defense of the square peg." by Irving Wallace

Step 20. Read the book "The shape of the earth; some proofs for the spherical shape of the earth given in astronomical and geographical text-books examined, and shown to be unsound" by Arthur V. White

Step 21. Read the book "The Flat Earth and her moulder" by Ossipoff H. Woofson

Step 22. Come to the conclusion of a Flat Earth

Dude you forgot Step 0: Smoke 12 speedballs, snort 18 lines of meth, drop 3 syringes of heroin. Now you're ready to be a FE'er!

Quote from: DakaSha on April 04, 2007, 10:12:54 PM

Quote from: narcberry on April 04, 2007, 01:15:33 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 04, 2007, 12:31:01 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 03, 2007, 01:52:50 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 11:18:54 AM

So once again, dark energy and dark mass are only theories.   Go back to you desk job and stop acting like you know science. 

I love it when people contradict themselves without realizing it.

Dude general relativity is still just a theory, what the atom looks like is still just a theory.  Technology makes it hard to become a fact.

Many aspects of relativity and the atomic constructs have been observed and are no longer just theory.

no they are still theorys that are accepted as fact because people would otherwise still think the world is flat

Heard of an electron microscope? How about particle accelerators? Both have been used to observe, in part, what was once just a theory.

lol go tell that to the "Nuclear bombs don't exist thread".