Universal Acceleration instead of Gravity

They do not have to be more massive, though that is entirely possible.

Page 3:

Quote from: Ski on August 13, 2013, 05:02:11 PM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 12, 2013, 02:31:35 PM

The Cavendish Experiment works.  It works well enough to give the gravitational constant, which has proven accurate for most every object we've either been to or can calculate it's approximate attraction by effect on other objects.  So even if the experiment itself is faulty, it's accurate enough to provide numbers which are apparently rather accurate in and of themselves.

On the contrary, Newtonian mechanics have worked "well enough".  It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what value one gives to G -- the calculated value of celestial masses (which, let us be honest, are unknowable and only calculated backward by gravitational interaction) would then vary, but nothing would change in the interaction of celestial masses.

There is no difference between terrestrial and celestial gravitation excepting that of scope.

A bit more vague, if you please?

Really, though, elaborate.  I can interpret that phrase in any number of ways, and none of them that come to mind are good for your point.

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 06:10:46 AM

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

Ski,

First, the fact that discrepancies exist is not disputable unless you can prove it wrong.

Second and most importantly, you need to explain what you refer to as outside forces in detail in accordance to the observation. We need to understand better how you picture your model of this universe (or this Earth and objects around it if you prefer) so that we can scrutinize your view better. For example you just spit out celestial gravitation without describing how you think of celestial objects. Are stars and planets like in RE model or just light bulbs? Do you consider the Sun and the Moon as celestial objects too? As these objects presumably rotate above the Earth, how will this affect their influence on our weight? Are we supposed to weigh less during the day (due to the Sun's gravitation)? Can you prove this? And why does an object weigh less as it goes higher in altitude although it is supposed to be closer to those celestial objects?

Can you describe terrestrial gravity according to your view? Are you saying that the Earth can be flat and have gravity at the same time? Is this gravity also function of mass like in Newton model?

And what can this atmospheric pressure affect weigh? Atmospheric pressure doesn't only apply its force downward. It presses you in every direction at equal amount for a given altitude. Have you been scuba diving before? You feel more pressure in your body and suit as you go deeper but you don't feel like carrying the weight of the ocean above you on your shoulder. And why does an object also weigh less as it goes deeper in Earth (read the article about the travelling Gnome Experiment) although the air pressure is higher down there?



EDIT: As Pyro and Alex said, you really need to elaborate your arguments

Quote from: rottingroom on August 21, 2013, 04:53:26 AM

Just wanted to point something out.

So the speed of light according to science is 299,792,458 m/s.

This has been called out to be false by many flat earthers and I've heard it mentioned that it would have to be much slower in reality. Whatever.

Moving on. So the acceleration of UA is 9.8 m/s/s. Okay.

There are 31,556,900 seconds in a year.

So let's say the Earth is 4000 years old. That would mean that it has been accelerating for about 126,227,600,000 seconds at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. That would mean that the Earth is currently going 12,880,367,347 m/s. That's about 42 times faster than the speed of light and this is only considering the Earth being 4000 years old.

More adequately lets suggest the Earth 1,000,000 (1 million) years old. Still shy of my beliefs but a much more realistic number. That would be 31,556,900,000,000 seconds bringing the Earths speed to 309,257,620,000,000. That is 1,031,572 times faster than the speed of light.

Even more adequately lets suggest the Earth 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) years old. That would be 31,556,900,000,000,000 seconds bringing the Earths speed to 309,257,620,000,000,000. That is 1,031,572,381 times faster than the speed of light.


So, according to the FES:
A 4,000 year old Earth is 42 times faster than the speed of light.
A 1,000,000 Earth is over 1 million times faster than the speed of light.
A 1,000,000,000 Earth is over 1 billion times faster than the speed of light.

Seems legit.

You aren't using the right equations.

Just because you don't like the numbers it doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple.

You take the number of seconds in a year and multiply it by the number of years Earth has supposedly existed. This gives you the number of seconds that have gone by since Earth has been "accelerating".

You then multiply that number by 9.8 m/s/s which is the accepted acceleration of both UA and gravity. This gives you Earths current speed if it were constantly accelerating since Earth began. The number would be beyond even the astronomically impressive speed of light.



If you think that is the wrong equation then go back to school.

Rottingroom- The speed of light is an upper limit of speed in the universe.  Nothing can travel faster, at least that has ever been observed, including subatomic particles.  This one of the basic tenets of Einsteinian relativity, that as an object approaches the speed  of light, its mass increases creating an increase in the energy requirement to make the next incremental velocity increase.  The energy requirement increases so that the acceleration curve asymptotes with the speed of light.

Rottingroom- The speed of light is an upper limit of speed in the universe.  Nothing can travel faster, at least that has ever been observed, including subatomic particles.  This one of the basic tenets of Einsteinian relativity, that as an object approaches the speed  of light, its mass increases creating an increase in the energy requirement to make the next incremental velocity increase.  The energy requirement increases so that the acceleration curve asymptotes with the speed of light.

That's a nice tidbit. I'm aware that the speed of light is relative. My math itself had nothing to do with the speed of light. I only used the speed of light in order to have something to compare the results (speed of Earth in UA) to. It was meant to illustrate how absurd the idea of a constantly accelerating Earth is.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 22, 2013, 06:47:53 AM

Rottingroom- The speed of light is an upper limit of speed in the universe.  Nothing can travel faster, at least that has ever been observed, including subatomic particles.  This one of the basic tenets of Einsteinian relativity, that as an object approaches the speed  of light, its mass increases creating an increase in the energy requirement to make the next incremental velocity increase.  The energy requirement increases so that the acceleration curve asymptotes with the speed of light.

That's a nice tidbit. I'm aware that the speed of light is relative. My math itself had nothing to do with the speed of light. I only used the speed of light in order to have something to compare the results (speed of Earth in UA) to. It was meant to illustrate how absurd the idea of a constantly accelerating Earth is.

Maybe you would want to google Hyperbolic Motion where you will see that the speed will approach that of light (but will never actually reach it) over time. My concern about this aspect is not what speed the Earth can reach. I don't care whether it may reach 0.9x speed of light, 0.99x or 0.9999...99x and so on.

The issue is more on the energy it takes to bring us to that speed. The closer an object travels to the speed of light, the heavier it becomes and the more energy it requires. We need an infinite amount of energy to bring this Earth plus what's on it to that speed. And where does this infinite energy come from?

Quote from: Rama Set on August 22, 2013, 06:47:53 AM

Rottingroom- The speed of light is an upper limit of speed in the universe.  Nothing can travel faster, at least that has ever been observed, including subatomic particles.  This one of the basic tenets of Einsteinian relativity, that as an object approaches the speed  of light, its mass increases creating an increase in the energy requirement to make the next incremental velocity increase.  The energy requirement increases so that the acceleration curve asymptotes with the speed of light.

That's a nice tidbit. I'm aware that the speed of light is relative. My math itself had nothing to do with the speed of light. I only used the speed of light in order to have something to compare the results (speed of Earth in UA) to. It was meant to illustrate how absurd the idea of a constantly accelerating Earth is.

Fair enough.  If I had known that I likely would not have posted.  My wonder is how the Earth would handle traveling at such a high speed. My understanding is that at that speed, it is difficult to form bonds between atoms.  Anyone who has any semi-layman information on that, I would appreciate a link.

Slightly off-topic, but you can calculate how fast the Earth is moving using relativity. Total energy can be given in this equation:

Kinetic energy can be attained by subtracting the energy of the object at rest:

Momentum is related to kinetic energy by the following equation:

A change in momentum is equal to F*t.

Let's do this with a 1-kg block that sits stationary on Earth from it's beginning to the present time. The force acting on it is a constant 9.8 Newtons for t seconds since Creation.

So, putting Kinetic Energy and momentum together, we get

Solving for velocity we get

You can use any t you wish. For this example, I'll use the 6,000 years of a Young Earth.

6000 yrs = 1.892*10¹¹ seconds. Plugging that in for t and 299792458 for c gives us 299792458 m/s. Rounding means we're within .5 m/s of the speed of light after only 6000 years of travel.

The universe outside the Earth must be infinite, then, because if it were any kind of finite we'd have crossed its length easily by the time I've finished writing this.

First, the fact that discrepancies exist is not disputable unless you can prove it wrong.

Ah, the old, prove the negative routine. It's been days since I've seen you...

As these objects presumably rotate above the Earth, how will this affect their influence on our weight? Are we supposed to weigh less during the day (due to the Sun's gravitation)? Can you prove this? And why does an object weigh less as it goes higher in altitude although it is supposed to be closer to those celestial objects?

Daily tidal variations are fact. They've been documented since the 30's. I'm sure you can use google if you need a source for this well-known fact. An object weighs less precisely because it is closer to those celestial objects... Are you familiar with the inverse-square law? 

Can you describe terrestrial gravity according to your view? Are you saying that the Earth can be flat and have gravity at the same time? Is this gravity also function of mass like in Newton model?

I do not believe in terrestrial "gravity." The Earth must exhibit some negligible gravitation if anything like general relativity is true as it contributes to the SEM tensor. Mass is not the only contributor to gravitation.

And what can this atmospheric pressure affect weigh?

Just because you don't like the numbers it doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple.

No, its incorrectness makes it wrong. :/

...  ...This gives you Earths current speed if it were constantly accelerating since Earth began. The number would be beyond even the astronomically impressive speed of light.

That's not the proper way to add velocities. It is an approximation that only works at low relativistic velocities.

If you think that is the wrong equation then go back to school.

It appears I know more about the subject than you. :/

The universe outside the Earth must be infinite, then, because if it were any kind of finite we'd have crossed its length easily by the time I've finished writing this.

Your universe is only 6000 light years across? How quaint. I assume for the sake of globularism that this is your personal view and not that of the Orthodoxy.

Since we've already discussed why the Earth hasn't reached c, and the validity of gravitation as it is measured, can we all get back on topic?  That is to say, the original topic in the original post?

I do not believe in terrestrial "gravity." The Earth must exhibit some negligible gravitation if anything like general relativity is true as it contributes to the SEM tensor. Mass is not the only contributor to gravitation.

I'll call this on topic, because it could relate to why celestial objects experience significant gravitation but terrestrial objects don't. 

Mass is effectively energy, and the reverse is also true.  Remember E=mc²?  Any energy which is retained by an atom is exhibited as mass.  So any contributors to the SEM tensor also contribute to gravitation, by way of their exhibition as mass.  My understanding of it, at least.

That said, is there a reason you can cite that Earth, by way of it's very near c velocity being one of the most massive objects in the universe, doesn't exhibit significant mass while celestial objects do?

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 22, 2013, 04:41:44 PM

The universe outside the Earth must be infinite, then, because if it were any kind of finite we'd have crossed its length easily by the time I've finished writing this.

Your universe is only 6000 light years across? How quaint. I assume for the sake of globularism that this is your personal view and not that of the Orthodoxy.

<sup>That really only works for outside the moving frame. Time slows down for objects moving close to the speed of light (proven by the observation of muons). This means that a ship moving close to the speed of light could cross the galaxy (100,000 ly) whilst measuring only a few minutes on an internal clock. We measure time from our moving reference frame, and we've been moving within .5 m/s of c since about 1768 years after Creation.

Even moving at that constant velocity (ignoring that we've been accelerating since then), every second here on Earth, 289 minutes pass in an un-accelerated reference frame. Which means every second here on Earth the Earth travels at least 4.8 light-hours. We travel at least 1 ly every half-hour.

So I guess I was a bit eager in my earlier interpretation, but with 4232 years minimum of traveling at these speeds, we've passed 73.22 million light-years. Not infinite, but really large.

And that's the lower minimum, mind, if the Earth stopped accelerating 4232 years ago. If you're going to use relativity in your model, the best you could do is understand it.

Second edit: further calculations show we've reached at least 299792457.999999 m/s, meaning every second here is 142 days on undialated time, in which we move at least 0.38796396264701 light years (or about 2.5 seconds per light-year)</sup>

Edit: made off-topic content small tiny--Just had to clear up something about relativity.

I'm eager to hear FEers answer the above Pyrolizard's question.

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 10:43:53 PM

First, the fact that discrepancies exist is not disputable unless you can prove it wrong.

Ah, the old, prove the negative routine. It's been days since I've seen you...

I don't see how "prove these discrepancies are caused by something other than gravity" is supposed to be proving a negative...

That said, is there a reason you can cite that Earth, by way of it's very near c velocity being one of the most massive objects in the universe, doesn't exhibit significant mass while celestial objects do?

Why would it be one of the most massive objects in the universe?

That really only works for outside the moving frame.

There is no absolute frame.

So I guess I was a bit eager in my earlier interpretation, but with 4232 years minimum of traveling at these speeds, we've passed 73.22 million light-years. Not infinite, but really large.

Even pretending an absolute space or absolute frame, 73.22 million light-years is a grain of sand in Orthodoxy's universe. It's scarcely "really large" when talking about astronomical distances.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 12:03:12 PM

That said, is there a reason you can cite that Earth, by way of it's very near c velocity being one of the most massive objects in the universe, doesn't exhibit significant mass while celestial objects do?

Why would it be one of the most massive objects in the universe?

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 23, 2013, 12:46:19 PM

That really only works for outside the moving frame.

There is no absolute frame.

Quote

So I guess I was a bit eager in my earlier interpretation, but with 4232 years minimum of traveling at these speeds, we've passed 73.22 million light-years. Not infinite, but really large.

Even pretending an absolute space or absolute frame, 73.22 million light-years is a grain of sand in Orthodoxy's universe. It's scarcely "really large" when talking about astronomical distances.

He was not talking about an absolute frame, but one that was not moving at near light speed instead.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 12:03:12 PM

That said, is there a reason you can cite that Earth, by way of it's very near c velocity being one of the most massive objects in the universe, doesn't exhibit significant mass while celestial objects do?

Why would it be one of the most massive objects in the universe?

Really, thank you for ignoring the entire first part of my response to your post.  To reiterate, E=mc².  Kinetic energy is, just that, energy.  As Earth accelerates at around 9.8m/s² according to UA, and going just by human history has been around for tens of thousands of years if not the billions that astronomical observations would suggest, the kinetic energy in the system should by all means be immense.  This is part of the reason that Earth hasn't reached light speed, because it IS massive and because any acceleration contributes to it's mass, making it take more energy to accelerate.

It's also dependent on how massive the Earth is at rest, which considering the Earth is several miles deep at a minimum and composed primarily of water, rock, and metal, it's rest mass can be presumed to be pretty high.  I can't give exact accurate numbers, because we've never hit the 'bottom' of the Earth and we don't know how dense it gets or how deep it goes if it were flat, but suffice to say the energy required to move something so massive to start with at a constant rate of acceleration for a minimum of tens of thousands of years is ridiculously high, and would contribute huge amounts of energy/mass to the system.


As an aside, the small text is very much appreciated, Alex.

Really, thank you for ignoring the entire first part of my response to your post.  To reiterate, E=mc².  Kinetic energy is, just that, energy. ... This is part of the reason that Earth hasn't reached light speed, because it IS massive and because any acceleration contributes to it's mass, making it take more energy to accelerate.

It attributes to relativistic mass. And the rest of the visible universe is likewise accelerating -- so again, what would the earth's velocity have to do with it's ratio to other observed celestial masses? I'll give you a hint: (the relative velocities are near zero)

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 06:21:17 PM

Really, thank you for ignoring the entire first part of my response to your post.  To reiterate, E=mc².  Kinetic energy is, just that, energy. ... This is part of the reason that Earth hasn't reached light speed, because it IS massive and because any acceleration contributes to it's mass, making it take more energy to accelerate.

It attributes to relativistic mass. And the rest of the visible universe is likewise accelerating -- so again, what would the earth's velocity have to do with it's ratio to other observed celestial masses? I'll give you a hint: (the relative velocities are near zero)

So your original point was mute, thank you for admitting that.  We're now back to, why do celestial objects exhibit a force, gravitation, which Earth apparently does not in any significant way when they're made of the same fundamental materials?


I'd also like to thank you for helping me make another point.  Literally everything BUT the things on the surface of the Earth are affected by UA, by your own admission.  That is to say, you admit that everything in the universe is affected by UA, and yet things on the surface of the Earth need be pushed by the Earth itself rather than UA.  Care to explain why that is, now? 

We do need to address where this seemingly infinite energy source is coming from and why we're apparently exempt from it, after all.

So your original point was mute, thank you for admitting that.

And which point would that be, exactly?

... they're made of the same fundamental materials?

Do we know this? How?

I'd also like to thank you for helping me make another point.  Literally everything BUT the things on the surface of the Earth are affected by UA...  Care to explain why that is, now? 

Things on the surface of the earth are not in contact with the UA. Why would they be affected?

We do need to address where this seemingly infinite energy source is coming from

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

This is a thread about UA. Why are you derailing it?

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 10:49:29 PM

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

This is a thread about UA. Why are you derailing it?

You are missing the point, Rama Set.  Re'ers are demanding absolute proof for FET, and at the same time they can not offer absolute proof for RET.  Do you see the double standard?

Quote from: Rama Set on August 24, 2013, 04:15:15 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 10:49:29 PM

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

This is a thread about UA. Why are you derailing it?

You are missing the point, Rama Set.  Re'ers are demanding absolute proof for FET, and at the same time they can not offer absolute proof for RET.  Do you see the double standard?

How much "absolute proof" do you want? There's heaps available, and quite a lot you can gather yourself, if you're not too lazy, or willfully ignorant to it.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2013, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 24, 2013, 04:15:15 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 10:49:29 PM

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

This is a thread about UA. Why are you derailing it?

You are missing the point, Rama Set.  Re'ers are demanding absolute proof for FET, and at the same time they can not offer absolute proof for RET.  Do you see the double standard?

How much "absolute proof" do you want? There's heaps available, and quite a lot you can gather yourself, if you're not too lazy, or willfully ignorant to it.

I was referring to the fact that we do not have an answer for everything.  RE'ers do not have all the answers either.  I will not hound you about gravitrons because they have not been proven, but RE'ers are quick to jump on UA for proof.

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 24, 2013, 05:19:18 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2013, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 24, 2013, 04:15:15 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 10:49:29 PM

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

This is a thread about UA. Why are you derailing it?

You are missing the point, Rama Set.  Re'ers are demanding absolute proof for FET, and at the same time they can not offer absolute proof for RET.  Do you see the double standard?

How much "absolute proof" do you want? There's heaps available, and quite a lot you can gather yourself, if you're not too lazy, or willfully ignorant to it.

I was referring to the fact that we do not have an answer for everything.  RE'ers do not have all the answers either.  I will not hound you about gravitrons because they have not been proven, but RE'ers are quick to jump on UA for proof.

I don't care that FE'rs don't have all the answers, I want to address the special pleading evident in several arguments.  You don't get to say, UA affects literally everything but things on the surface of the Earth, and celestial objects produce an attractive force between massive bodies that the Earth does not, without good reasons for both.  You don't have to explain the mechanics behind it, you do have to explain what the difference between things on Earth and the rest of the universe is, as well as the difference between Earth and the rest of the universe.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 08:43:29 PM

So your original point was mute, thank you for admitting that.

And which point would that be, exactly?

I do not believe in terrestrial "gravity." The Earth must exhibit some negligible gravitation if anything like general relativity is true as it contributes to the SEM tensor. Mass is not the only contributor to gravitation.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 08:43:29 PM

... they're made of the same fundamental materials?

Do we know this? How?

Pretty sure we've been through this already, but let's go down it again.  You have reason to believe the sun, undergoing nuclear fusion, isn't made of atoms, quarks combined into hadrons, clustered into nuclei and surrounded by leptons?  That the main emission of light from the sun matches the emission of light from the elements supposedly in it, yet they aren't actually in there?  You have reason to believe that Mars, covered in a substance nigh on identical to rust, isn't covered in just that? 

In short, you have a reason, without starting from the Earth's shape, to believe that the rest of the universe is fundamentally different from Earth?  What is it?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 08:43:29 PM

I'd also like to thank you for helping me make another point.  Literally everything BUT the things on the surface of the Earth are affected by UA...  Care to explain why that is, now? 

Things on the surface of the earth are not in contact with the UA. Why would they be affected?

Why aren't they in contact with UA?  Evidently the rest of the universe is, even if it has matter 'under' it to shield it.  The planets are still roughly spherical, instead of smooshed down domes or even flat, so we can reasonably say that UA doesn't affect only the bottom portion of a surface.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 08:43:29 PM

We do need to address where this seemingly infinite energy source is coming from

How could I know? Do we need to address where the near infinite orthodox dark energy is coming from? You first.

I'm afraid I asked you first, so go ahead.  We could do that all day, but it comes down to the fact that my side has hundreds if not thousands of people attempting to find it as we speak, while your side simply says, 'We don't know and neither do you, so we're even and we don't have to try and figure it out.' 

I don't know is a perfectly valid response, but you also at the same time can't claim the thing you don't know about and aren't investigating as fact.  Dark energy and dark matter aren't regarded as fact in science, they're hypotheses.  The graviton isn't regarded as fact in science, it's a hypothesis.  You getting my point?  A hypothetical cause is needed, and one that can be tested as proven or disproven at some point, as it will be regarded as unproven until it is.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 23, 2013, 08:43:29 PM

... they're made of the same fundamental materials?

Do we know this? How?

Ski, please use the search function before asking questions that have been answered. Or at least read the thread to which you're replying, as this question has been preemptively answered within this very thread.

Just for clarification on something, we know the sun at least is made of the same atoms as here on Earth because of spectrum. Whenever an element here on Earth is excited, it emits light at very specific frequencies, unique to that particular element. For instance, hydrogen produces these wavelengths:

^{FIG 1 - Spectral series of hydrogen on a logarithmic scale}

Only a few of these wavelengths is in the visible light, and if you've done a bit of research on the subject the following is probably what you're used to seeing as to hydrogen's spectrum.

^{FIG 2 - Hydrogen emissions spectrum, visible light}

Here on Earth, hydrogen and only hydrogen will have those exact frequencies. So when we look up at the sun and see that it emits very specific frequencies of light, and it's very strong in the exact same frequencies as we observe in hydrogen, we can safely assume that the sun has a lot of hydrogen that's emitting the light.

Pretty sure we've been through this already, but let's go down it again...   That the main emission of light from the sun matches the emission of light from the elements supposedly in it, yet they aren't actually in there? 

Are you confusing the emission spectra with absorption spectra?

Why aren't they in contact with UA?

Because they are in contact with the earth...   

I'm afraid I asked you first, so go ahead.  We could do that all day, but it comes down to the fact that my side has hundreds if not thousands of people attempting to find it as we speak, while your side simply says, 'We don't know and neither do you, so we're even and we don't have to try and figure it out.' 

I don't know. I said that. Moreover, what I said specifically was "How could I know?"  If you have a way to determine that answer, please inform me. I don't give a tinker's damn if the orthodoxy ever figures out dark energy; in fact, I do not think they can. I only brought it up to show the absurd hypocrisy of your parallel.

A hypothetical cause is needed, and one that can be tested as proven or disproven at some point, as it will be regarded as unproven until it is.

Again, I have no idea what it could be or how it could be tested.  What is the disprovable theory of dark energy so far? There isn't one. I freely admit UA is a placeholder. I've done it a score of times or more. We know nothing other than that it happens.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 14, 2013, 09:00:06 AM

Just for clarification on something, we know the sun at least is made of the same atoms as here on Earth because of spectrum. Whenever an element here on Earth is excited, it emits light at very specific frequencies, unique to that particular element. For instance, hydrogen produces these wavelengths:

^{FIG 2 - Hydrogen emissions spectrum, visible light}

Here on Earth, hydrogen and only hydrogen will have those exact frequencies. So when we look up at the sun and see that it emits very specific frequencies of light, and it's very strong in the exact same frequencies as we observe in hydrogen, we can safely assume that the sun has a lot of hydrogen that's emitting the light.

Here, you, too, have let your wiki-education get ahead of you; the emission spectrum of the sun looks nothing like that. Perhaps you could study abit more and then arrogantly educate me?