Re: Gravity

On Feb 12, 10:58 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:20:27 -0800 (PST), brad

<lbjohnson1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:41 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Like dark energy?

Why don't you explain what DE is? As long as you're using it in an
argument we
might as well know your definition.

Dark energy is a NAME given to explain an observation.

Whether dark matter exist or not is irrelevant.  What is significant
and important is the observation of acceleration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
"acceleration is the CHANGE in velocity over time"

The logic for dark energy goes like this.

EVERYTHING originated from the Big Bang.
To get acceleration velocity CHANGED
HOW, we do not know, BUT it has to be energy we cannot detect AND has
been present since the Big Bang

YET, you want to argue that things have remained UNCHANGED since the
big bang AND can be explained by what we SEE.

You put words in my mouth and then expand your argument based on
something I
didn't say?

One of those two arguments is wrong

Readjust your initial assumption . Then begin your point!

Can question the observation which caused the dark matter explanation,
but those arguing unchanged/explained by what we see, have NO
OBSERVATIONS of any significance longer than a couple centuries, YET,
they are completely confident in extrapolating these observations over
a 4.5 billion year period of time.



First though, you might want to go to a Physics Group and try it out ,
before you pontificate here.

Please define "pontificate" and how it applies to what I wrote about
dark energy.

I will reserve my judgment of you being an idiot until then, since it
seems you just might be stupid.

Don't hold yourself back! It just builds up inside you. I'll still
dislike you
either way.

What is DE? You have no idea! And no Physicist would attempt a
definition
either. So, don't invoke something you don't understand! It just
muddies
your argument. That is the reason science is such a *chore* for you.
Stay
focused, and you'll understand more.

Brad

Brad

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Sizing up the Universe
    ... *observations* that higher red shift means higher distance. ... 'dark energy' has not disproven that higher red shift implies higher ... >>Big Bang then applying General Relativity. ... There is lots of evidence for Dark Matter from *other* sources. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: Sizing up the Universe
    ... *observations* that higher red shift means higher distance. ... 'dark energy' has not disproven that higher red shift implies higher ... >>Big Bang then applying General Relativity. ... There is lots of evidence for Dark Matter from *other* sources. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravity
    ... Dark energy is a NAME given to explain an observation. ... "acceleration is the CHANGE in velocity over time" ... EVERYTHING originated from the Big Bang. ... I did not invoke anything. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Gravity
    ... Dark energy is a NAME given to explain an observation. ... "acceleration is the CHANGE in velocity over time" ... EVERYTHING originated from the Big Bang. ... Please define "pontificate" and how it applies to what I wrote about ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Everything has just always been, and will continue to be, dissipating.
    ... of distant explosions of massive stars, ... Supernovae are well known and well documented. ... Acceleration was added, that's what. ... And yes, this is also where the dark energy comes from, probably. ...
    (sci.physics)