Dark Energy & the UA

So I was doing a bit of research into some Dark Energy theories, and I found some very interesting things.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A1: So the dark energy model here has some serious discrepancies. Yes, dark energy is theorized to be the accelerating force that is expanding the universe. The problem, however, is that dark energy accelerates space, not matter. What ever matter is caught "sitting still" within that space "moves" with it. Hence, this would not produce a gravitation like effect at all, as the matter itself is not moving, per say. Please see "Cosmological Constant" and "Alcubierre Drive."

A2: I simply have questions about the Universal Accelerator. Is it a machine of intelligent design? It is not stated to be of dark energy, or my previous statement would apply. But I am just wondering about the nature of the UA. It's been said that "no one knows what it is" by a few, but does anyone have guesses?

In order to account for observable red shift, astronomers had to come up with this odd special pleading case of dark energy expanding space and not matter so that they could keep their RE universe in light of the evidence. It's like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and being completely satisfied with the results.

Well the actually "dark energy" model they came up with was to fit a description that already existed. For some reason, other galaxies are moving farther and farther away, faster and faster. We do not feel these accelerations, and in order for that to happen, space itself must be accelerating.

Once again Pongo demonstrates that he doesn't know what special pleading is.

Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

EM is not Dark energy. I suppose this would hold true, if dark energy were completely surround the galaxy in high densities, it would hold the space together.

EM is not Dark energy. I suppose this would hold true, if dark energy were completely surround the galaxy in high densities, it would hold the space together.

Where did I state that EM forces are equivalent to dark energy?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 01:07:29 PM

EM is not Dark energy. I suppose this would hold true, if dark energy were completely surround the galaxy in high densities, it would hold the space together.

Where did I state that EM forces are equivalent to dark energy?

Perhaps I misread your statement, but that's what it seemed to say.

But the point of this thread was not to discuss how galaxies are held together. I wanted to make a note on current dark energy theories that do not fit with that piece in the FAQ, and raise the rather repetitive question about the UA. Although, I'm not asking for absolute proof or anything like that, I'm just wondering what some thoughts on it are.

We all know that that galaxies are all small pinpoints of light in the celestial dome 6000 miles above us, all speculation should be done with that fact kept in mind.

Kendrick, may I ask how you  "know" this? It seems as if you are implying that you have measured the distances yourself or something.

We all know that that galaxies are all small pinpoints of light in the celestial dome 6000 miles above us, all speculation should be done with that fact kept in mind.

However, I'm not talking about galaxies. I understand your standpoint on FE, Kendrick. You're a true Zetetic. I was just wondering about people's ideas on the UA. What is the UA? How does it work? Any thoughts?

To really get this started, when someone says Universal Accelerator, it makes me think of some very futuristic propulsion system, perhaps driven by some sort of antimatter/fusion/other reaction. It would have to be of an incredibly massive size and have an almost limitless fuel supply. Anyone have any other ideas?

Hopes and dreams, because this is what it seems FET is run on!

Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

Ummm...  No.  That's dark matter.  Dark energy is used to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 14, 2012, 12:51:48 PM

Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

Ummm...  No.  That's dark matter.  Dark energy is used to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Thank you Markjo, I was pondering on this matter and did some research. Then I saw your statement. That helps quite a bit. This delves into a physics theories I am only somewhat familiar with though. I simply stated the little that I knew about it.

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:22:53 AM

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

My view is that it's pointless to debate any aspect of scientific theories which are disproved.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 05:25:51 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:22:53 AM

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

My view is that it's pointless to debate any aspect of scientific theories which are disproved.

At least someone gave me their viewpoint.

OK, let's discuss whether the giant dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky has a black shell or a green one.

OK, let's discuss whether the giant dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky has a black shell or a green one.

It's clearly green. Translucent as well.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:40:19 AM

OK, let's discuss whether the giant dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky has a black shell or a green one.

It's clearly green. Translucent as well.

Yes, that explains why we can't see it, which proves it must be there! Just like the Antimoon!

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 05:25:51 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:22:53 AM

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

My view is that it's pointless to debate any aspect of scientific theories which are disproved.

Good. I expect to see no more useless posts like this one from you then.

"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.

"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

I think you're confusing dark energy and dark matter.  Dark energy is a hypothesis to explain why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.

Not at all. The combined percentage of this imaginary "stuff" is now believed to be 97%.

Dark matter plus dark energy might be 97%.  Once again, this is a hypothesis.  The experimental evidence may never pan out.  A competing hypothesis could fare better in the end.

Science doesn't claim to know everything, Ski, or else what would be the point of continuing research?

Funny how when RE science doesn't know everything, it is because we haven't figured it out yet.  But when FE science doesn't know everything, it is a nail in the coffin.

Dark matter plus dark energy might be 97%.  Once again, this is a hypothesis.  The experimental evidence may never pan out.  A competing hypothesis could fare better in the end.

Science doesn't claim to know everything, Ski, or else what would be the point of continuing research?

The hypothesis only exists because of experimental evidence that flies in the face of Scientific Orthodoxy! How disingenuous your statement is!

The hypothesis only exists because of experimental evidence that flies in the face of Scientific Orthodoxy! How disingenuous your statement is!

Yes, and models are changed over time due to these new observations.  If there were never any issues with Newton we wouldn't have moved on to Einstein's ideas.  This is hardly a secret, and it's how science progresses.

Successive models.  Newton was still close enough to reality to use in tons of situations though.  New models don't change the fact that old ones still work in certain situations.

So your 97% fairie-stuff mythology is likely to last indefinitely even if proven wrong. Sounds right.

So your 97% fairie-stuff mythology is likely to last indefinitely even if proven wrong. Sounds right.

Only if it matches with future observations.  With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

I can see you're only interested in being dismissive, though, so there's little point in trying to explain how science works to you.

On a related note, i would love to hear a detailed explanation of what a zetetic does that isn't written by Lord Wilmore.  No offense to Wilmore, but his Discourse is very abstract.  I'd like to hear from a zetetic how these ideas transfer over to real world practice.