Dark Energy may be load of old cobblers shock report

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:45 am

New Scientist issue 2646...

Just mentioning this because it might interest some of you. Dark energy is apparently the explanation for why the universe seems to be expanding much faster than predicted by various theories, however a vocal minority of cosmologists (Thomas Buchert of Lyon University, Yurij Baryshev of St. Petersburg State University and others) have come up with an alternative which does away with the need for the dark energy explanation altogether.
Because it's all rather neat, it seemed like it might be worth describing here.
Gravity (resulting from mass) slows time - this has been proven with atomic clocks flown around the globe in the upper atmosphere. Therefore it sort of follows that very large objects (such as galaxies) slow time down quite a lot. Anyway, the persons named above (or others) have weighed the galaxies (sort of), done the maths, and concluded that large areas of cosmic void* (ie - areas where there is little significant mass to cause time to slow) may be 18.6 billion years old relative to the slow-time mass-heavy parts of the cosmos which should be only 13.7 billion years old (or 14.7 billion according to David Wiltshire of Canterbury University, NZ), so if true it means our universe is subject to a time distortion (roughly) 4 billion years across, and the expansion is happening as predicted, only our view of it is distorted because we're actually looking at different times. So much for dark energy!

*: Seems like the problem with this idea is an argument over what constitutes void.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Seems a valid explanation.

rich · Post by **rich** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:18 pm

Hmmm - wasn't it still the universe before the big bang? Just much more emptier?

I just don't think they fully understand infinity.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:33 pm

rich wrote:Hmmm - wasn't it still the universe before the big bang? Just much more emptier?
I just don't think they fully understand infinity.

Erm..............

rich · Post by **rich** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:37 pm

Hmm - ok - maybe it was just much more fuller. But still - wasn't it still there in one form or another for all infinity or would you say it just started at the moment of the big bang?
I think it was there before that - and I want to know what was goin' on then.

Captain · Post by **Captain** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:47 pm

Unless you were actually there, this is all conjecture, of course, I realise the need to debate it but it.s like the adverts on tv, if you use calgon it MAY reduce the limescale in your dishwasher, but it does'nt take into account about where you live, here in Berkshire, no amount of calgol will help as oppsed to Devon where none is needed, end result? everyone has a different opinion but not definitive enough to say "I TOLD YOU SO," nonetheless it's good to hear others views.
Regards,

Rich K

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:53 pm

And in the big scope of things, spots on the glasses are probably more important than the Big Bang anyway.

I do not understand what the hell they are talking about. I know that I could attend a university and spend scads of money to get a degree in astrophysics so that I could understand....but I just don't care that much.

I'll leave it to those who like that kind of stuff.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:24 pm

Welcome to the forum Captain.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:27 pm

It's good to hear another theory - but I'm wondering how anyone could put an age on the void - void means nothing, doesn't it. So how old is nothing ....? Doesn't add up.

Yes, welcome Captain!

We're not as crazy as we sound!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:32 pm

Oh yes we are!

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:20 pm

Digit is right.

Most of us are batshit crazy.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:28 pm

And happy with it!

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:27 pm

Naturally.

rich · Post by **rich** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:06 pm

Crazy or not - it still bugs me.

In one sense I kind of agree with Ish when she wrote:

but I'm wondering how anyone could put an age on the void - void means nothing, doesn't it. So how old is nothing ....? Doesn't add up.

But at the same time, if you are going to set an age for the void, then that means it was started at "x" time - in this case they say 18.6 billion years ago. Now what do they classify the void before the void then? Ageless? Non-existent? And if non-existent - then why classify the void as part of the equation? Or are they merely trying to set a point to "make" the facts fit the theories? How much difference would it make if that void lasted 55 trillion years instead? Wouldn't that throw their calculations off?
Seems like they are setting an arbitrary timing to "make it fit".

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:13 pm

I only said that because I know that there is a void that shamans talk about - I've read about it too, but I haven't experienced it. However, it is a void - and a void is a void - it's nothing, and thus you can't date it or apply any kind of measurement to it. It just is.