It is currently Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:25 am

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:14 pm 

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 4920
Location: Lancashire
A Swiss scientist is questioning this. A model has been created by honorary professor, Andre Maeder in the astronomy department at Geneva University. Professor Maeder claims that the expanding universe can be explained without recourse to dark energy and dark matter.
Theory says that the visible universe makes up only 5% of the total mass of the universe and that dark matter makes up 25%, while the remaining 70% is dark energy.
Despite repeated experiments, dark matter has never been detected, only its gravitational effects are known.
The Professor claims that his theory can be explained through the idea of "space invariance". He states," The way we represent the universe and its history are explained by Einstein's equations of general relativity, Newton's universal gravitation and quantum mechanics.
"In this model, there is a starting hypothesis that hasn't been taken into account. By that I mean the scale invariance of empty space; in other words, the empty space and its properties do not change following a dilatation or contraction." When Professor Maeder tried out his new model, it predicted the accelerated expansion of the universe without recourse to particles or dark energy.
"In short," he said, "it appears that dark energy may not actually exist, since the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is contained in the equations of the physics." The new research is published in "The Astrophysical Journal".


Last edited by brian livesey on Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

 Profile Send private message  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:14 pm 

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:58 pm
Posts: 3350
Location: Wellingborough
"Dark Energy" - the astronomer's phlogiston? :)

52.3N 0.6W
Wellingborough UK.

254mm LX90 on Superwedge, WO ZS66SD, Helios 102mm f5 on EQ1, Hunter 11x80, Pentax 10x50
ASI120MC Toucam Pros 740k/840k/900nc mono, Pentax K110D
Ro-Ro roof shed

 Profile Send private message  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:36 pm 

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:59 pm
Posts: 205
Location: Cambs
Dark Energy I am unsure of, I can think of one option to give the increased red shift of early/distant objects. Which is what they use as evidence for DE.

Usually "nature" is simple but dark energy is sort of against that principle.

Dark matter, there the gravitational evidence of it, or of something. But one thing I always question is that they say without dark matter our universe would not have formed the web it has. So dark matter gravitated to form the web then matter gravitated to that. Why couldn't the normal matter have done the web formation.

Always think to myself that it was Fritz Zwicky that first used the term and he was a character. His "decleration" was based on stars rotating too fast - OK fair enough. But the time before that when a body was orbiting "wrong" was Mercury around the sun and the solution to that was a new theory of gravity = General Relativity.

Half the problem I have with DM is the properties it "must" have. More then one seem to be contradictory to other properties it must also have. Simple one it that it seems to both clump and not clump.

One visiting Professor at a 3 day talk did keep using the term "Gravity creates gravity". Always did wonder if he was arguing, or suggesting, that a body of a million stars displayed a gravity that was apparently greater then a million. I do have the feeling that estimating the number of stars and so the mass is too simple.

I cannot entirely trust models there was one (different area) that someone had developed for a property of martian rock. So they developed the theory, made a model to suit, then artifically made a "piece" of the "martian" rock and argued that as they had this "martian rock" it proved the theory via the model. I did burst out laughing at that somewhat cyclic arguement. Too many models are produced to correspond to a theory therefore they in a way must match the theory, it does not however mean they are therefore correct.

 Profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group