Dark Energy

[sigurdV]

Obvious? How obvious is a way to explain linearity in distance, as well as the lack of an rotation axis when there are three (an odd number of) spatial dimensions?

 

Do you deliberately misunderstand what I write?

 

By "obvious" i meant that centrifugal force comes natural to think of as a possible explanation of the dark energy. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that a refutation of the idea also is obvious, if not to me then at least to minds like those behind the mainstream alternatives above.

 

Can YOU prove, or otherwise make believable to the readers of this thread, that our universe with its three spatial dimensions cannot rotate in such a way that the centrifugal effect can be identified with the dark energy wich, according to observations, now is acting on it?

[coldcreation]

Do you deliberately misunderstand what I write?

 

By "obvious" i meant that centrifugal force comes natural to think of as a possible explanation of the dark energy. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that a refutation of the idea also is obvious, if not to me then at least to minds like those behind the mainstream alternatives above.

 

Can YOU prove, or otherwise make believable to the readers of this thread, that our universe with its three spatial dimensions cannot rotate in such a way that the centrifugal effect can be identified with the dark energy wich, according to observations, now is acting on it?

 

This thread is really not about dark energy at all.

 

Observations are inconsistent with a rotating universe. Rotation around every point of the four dimensional spacetime manifold would be required in a homogeneous and isotropic universe. A universe that rotates would have one center around which it rotates, breaking homogeneity and isotropy assumptions. In addition, our location on Earth would have to be the center: something consistent with observations but difficult to explain without anthropic arguments. There is no reason why we should be centrally located, i.e., humans do not occupy a privileged position in the universe.

 

The idea that the universe rotates around all points is chimerical as it is baseless, outside of philosophical speculation. If it were rotating with respect to all observers, then the universe would be essentially static: rotating relative to no one in particular. Such a concept is meaningless.

 

So the thought of attributing dark energy to centrifugal force is easily refuted on empirical grounds: Observations indicate that the universe has no center or rotational axis, i.e., observations are consistent with zero rotational velocity.

 

 

CC

[sigurdV]

Where did you hide the proofs of your statements?

 

Contrary to what you claim, this thread IS about Dark Energy, or rather its cause.

(Contributors should elucidate the three mainstream conjectures rated above my own. I refuse to do so.)

 

Your arguments for the impossibility of our universe to rotate in such a manner that the centrifugal effect can be identified with dark energy will not convince anyone. For instance:

 

You claim that a rotating universe will have one center around which it rotates but where is the proof?

And how do you prove that there isnt a second center or a third?

Do you understand the difference between claim and proof?

[coldcreation]

Where did you hide the proofs of your statements?

 

For a long time it had been suspected by scientists and philosophers that, like the earth, the solar system and galaxies, the universe itself might be rotating. Never has any observational evidence supported such a claim.

 

 

Contrary to what you claim, this thread IS about Dark Energy, or rather its cause. (Contributors should elucidate the three mainstream conjectures rated above my own. I refuse to do so.)

 

Your claim is conjecture.

 

The three principle alternatives listed above (and for convenience again here: negative pressure, cosmological constant, quintessence; quantum alternatives aside for the moment) are part of a scientific theory, backed by observational evidence.

 

 

Your arguments for the impossibility of our universe to rotate in such a manner that the centrifugal effect can be identified with dark energy will not convince anyone. For instance:

 

Your argument (or chimerical speculation) for a relation between dark energy and centrifugal force convinces not I, nor anyone else apparently.

 

 

You claim that a rotating universe will have one center around which it rotates but where is the proof?

 

According to Euler's rotation theorem, simultaneous rotation around more than one axis at the same time is impossible. If two rotations are forced at the same time, a new axis of rotation will appear.

 

 

And how do you prove that there isnt a second center or a third?

 

For your claim to be viable, all points in the universe would have to be a center of rotation; an obvious impossibility. Either that or we here on earth happen to be located centrally: a suggestion that would bolster biblical creationist arguments.

 

 

Do you understand the difference between claim and proof?

 

Do you?

 

 

EDIT> Euler's theorem and its proof are contained in paragraphs 24–26 of the appendix (Additamentum. pp. 201–203) of L. Eulero (Leonhard Euler), Formulae generales pro translatione quacunque corporum rigidorum (General formulas for the translation of arbitrary rigid bodies), presented to the St. Petersburg Academy on October 9, 1775, and first published in Novi Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 20, 1776, pp. 189–207 (E478) and was reprinted in Theoria motus corporum rigidorum, ed. nova, 1790, pp. 449–460 (E478a) and later in his collected works Opera Omnia, Series 2, Volume 9, pp. 84–98.

 

 

EDIT 2>

 

In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

 

If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum. (Source)

 

CC

[sigurdV]

Eulers theorem... hm wasnt it the one proving that you cant comb a haired globe so all hairs fall in the same direction?

 

My claim is a conjecture? Aw! I dont know that its really that...Its more like a question:

Can the universe etc etc.I dont have a professional commitment to either one or the other answer:

 

1: Im interested in the matter since its possible that the dark energy eventually might destroy the conditions for life in the universe.

 

2: If it cannot be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy then we have a first indication that our universe is rotating, which also is a first indication that there might be someting for the universe to rotate IN!

 

3: What happens if I eventually get convinced by your proof, will that settle The Question?

No! The matter is not trivial and I will not be satisfied with proof x until theres a consensus among qualified scrutinizers that x is correct.

 

Your arguments have improved, you are hereby promoted to Opponent...Good Luck :)

[coldcreation]

Eulers theorem... hm wasnt it the one proving that you cant comb a haired globe so all hairs fall in the same direction?

 

See the link provided to you above.

 

 

My claim is a conjecture? Aw! I dont know that its really that...Its more like a question:

Can the universe etc etc.I dont have a professional commitment to either one or the other answer:

 

If you have a question (e.g., about dark energy, the evidence for a nonrotating universe, or the impossibility of a rotating universe), post it in Q&A. Hypographer's will be happy to answer it there.

 

 

1: Im interested in the matter since its possible that the dark energy eventually might destroy the conditions for life in the universe.

 

The Big Rip wouldn't happen for another 20 billion years or so. That aspect of dark energy is entirely speculative, and perhaps the least interesting thing about it.

 

 

2: If it cannot be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy then we have a first indication that our universe is rotating, which also is a first indication that there might be someting for the universe to rotate IN!

 

It can be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy and it has been shown that the universe is not rotating. The last part of your sentence makes no sense.

 

 

3: What happens if I eventually get convinced by your proof, will that settle The Question? No!

 

The matter is not trivial and I will not be satisfied with proof x until theres a consensus among qualified scrutinizers that x is correct.

 

There is already a consensus among qualified scrutinizers that "x" is correct: The preponderance of empirical evidence shows that the universe is not rotating around an axis (or several), and there is no empirical evidence supporting the belief (or ignis fatuus) that dark energy is related in any way to centrifugal force.

 

 

 

 

This thread has nothing to do with dark energy.

It belongs in the Strange Claims forum.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[maddog]

... so here is an explanation of where the Mysterious Dark Energy comes from:

 

Our universe rotates and is producing a centrifugal force known as the Dark Energy!

Now a conjecture exists and your job is to refute and replace it :rant:

This is an attempt at a "cut and paste" operation and poorly done at that.

 

First the term "centrifugal force" is misnamed, not really a force and points in the wrong direction.

The correct term "centripetal force" is from the inertia of an object moving in a circle. The object

resists the change in direction causing a force pushing outward. Whereas centrifugal force points inward.

 

Thus using logic, you are equating one thing "Dark Energy" to something that doesn't actually

exist making your statement a contradiction.

 

As for the presumption in your statement that the universe is rotating is pure conjecture on your part. Because any proper

motion of an object moving in our field of view would not be discernible by any technology current in use today. This would

be even it were rotating. In my mind this does not prevent rotation per se, just that you can not detect it. Everyone, please

forgive me as I have not been keeping up with the latest astronomical data in the last 10 years. I have seen the problem

of rotations about two axis simultaneously just becomes another axis of rotation when using dihedral groups as the basis.

Cold Creation is correct {I was not aware that Euler had worked it out first}

 

{Note: also that Euler would have worked out that any of his mathematics would have assume standard Cartesian Coordinate systems --

so there is no Topological twisting of space to allow an alternative}

 

I guess I will side with Cold Creation here and suggest this thread move to the Strange Claims category,

whenever an Administrator gets around to it. <_<

 

maddog

[sigurdV]

1 If you have a question (e.g., about dark energy, the evidence for a nonrotating universe, or the impossibility of a rotating universe), post it in Q&A. Hypographer's will be happy to answer it there.

 

2 The Big Rip wouldn't happen for another 20 billion years or so. That aspect of dark energy is entirely speculative, and perhaps the least interesting thing about it.

 

3 It can be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy and it has been shown that the universe is not rotating. The last part of your sentence makes no sense.

 

4 There is already a consensus among qualified scrutinizers that "x" is correct: The preponderance of empirical evidence shows that the universe is not rotating around an axis (or several), and there is no empirical evidence supporting the belief (or ) that dark energy is related in any way to centrifugal force.

 

 

5 This thread has nothing to do with dark energy.

It belongs in the Strange Claims forum.

 

 

CC

 

1 The topic is "Dark Energy", the topic explanation is "What is it?" and you cant make up your mind whether its a question or not??

 

2 Ill bet theres a huge market for your opinions elsewhere, why not try selling them there instead?

 

3 And dont worry so much... If things doesnt seem to make sense then put your head between your knees and breathe slowly...

 

4 You seem to have some animosity directed towards rotating universes, does that include other rotating things as well? How do you react to the idea of rotating time? Or rotating truth?

 

5 And in the end you return to the idea that sigurdV is making strange claims ... Well I have no doubt Them All Mighty Administrators soon will come to put naughty sigurdV in his proper place. :)

[sigurdV]

Hi there maddog,Im sorry but there was an awful lot of delusionary activity today... I didnt notice you until closing time. I hope its not an uncivilized matter that cant wait until opening time tomorrow?

[sigurdV]

Im already late for my next gig ,but if youre satisfied with a quick analysis

then the following will have to do:

 

1 This is an attempt at a "cut and paste" operation and poorly done at that.

 

2 First the term "centrifugal force" is misnamed, not really a force and points in the wrong direction.

The correct term "centripetal force" is from the inertia of an object moving in a circle. The object

resists the change in direction causing a force pushing outward. Whereas centrifugal force points inward.

 

3 Thus using logic, you are equating one thing "Dark Energy" to something that doesn't actually

exist making your statement a contradiction.

 

4 As for the presumption in your statement that the universe is rotating is pure conjecture on your part. Because any proper

motion of an object moving in our field of view would not be discernible by any technology current in use today. This would

be even it were rotating. In my mind this does not prevent rotation per se, just that you can not detect it. Everyone, please

forgive me as I have not been keeping up with the latest astronomical data in the last 10 years. I have seen the problem

of rotations about two axis simultaneously just becomes another axis of rotation when using dihedral groups as the basis.

Cold Creation is correct {I was not aware that Euler had worked it out first}

 

5{Note: also that Euler would have worked out that any of his mathematics would have assume standard Cartesian Coordinate systems --

so there is no Topological twisting of space to allow an alternative}

 

I guess I will side with Cold Creation here and suggest this thread move to the Strange Claims category,

whenever an Administrator gets around to it. <_<

 

maddog

1 What is this "this" you are referring to?

 

2 You are making sense... Read the infected sentence again and again.

Consider the editing inspired by your comment already done:

 

3 Can you still see no question there?

 

4 I realize you havent seen a lot of things , but them wolves are howling , lets make a list tomorrow.

 

5 While establishing connections you should also consider the relation of Cartesius to Parmenides.

 

6 At last! Professional Ethics prevents me from siding up with anyone.

Not even if administrators will put the tread in silly questions:

 

Chorus:Ill just stay there at the uniper, while the moon is bright...

Content with polishing my badge. Dusting my...eh... diploma...

Cleaning Formbys windows :) Cya Tomorrow then.

[JMJones0424]

If I may, I'd like to recap what I've learned from this thread in my words. Perhaps I am sympathetic to sigurd's question, as it arises naturally from a lack of understanding of what dark energy is. I do not agree that this thread belongs in silly claims, though it may better fit in the Q&A forum if it is banished from the Astronomy and Cosmology forum. Of course, if that same standard were applied to even just the threads on the first page of this forum, there are at least three threads that clearly belong in silly claims, and the majority of the rest should be moved into Q&A as well.

 

My paraphrasing of the question raised in this thread is:

What observational evidence do we have that rules out centrifugal force from a rotating universe as an explanation of accelerating expansion of the universe?

After my own aimless fumblings, two answers were posted that answers this question, at least to my satisfaction.

 

NOTE: It is my understanding that centrifugal force is indeed the correct name for the force that sigurd is asking about, since he is asking about a rotating frame. HyperPhysics explains it better than I could, and offers us this easy to understand illustration.

NOTE2: It is not at all clear to me that universal rotation necessarily means that the universe must be rotating "in" something else.

 

Rotation of the universe does not adequately explain the accelerating expansion of the universe because:

1.) There is no observed axis of rotation. We observe accelerated expansion in every direction, not on a plane, and Euler's theorem shows that there cannot be numerous axes of rotation.

2.) We would need to either be at the center of rotation (which places us at a privileged location in the universe and is unacceptable for philosophical reasons) or we would need to be able to translate rotation so that every observer can see himself as the center of rotation (which can only be done with an even number of spatial dimensions).

3.) Conservation of angular momentum shows that if the universe were both rotating and expanding, the angular velocity would be slowing down, therefore the centrifugal force causing expansion would be decreasing. We observe increasing acceleration, so centrifugal force from a rotating universe still requires additional "dark energy" to explain observations, even if we ignore points 1 & 2.

 

Have I correctly summed up the answers given to the question as I have worded it?

[sigurdV]

Dr Fraud I am flabbergasted,(if u know what I mean...) Patient #28 makes NO nonsence! :blahblahblah:

 

Oouuuw! The text comes from jones...Well nurse that explains it then.

 

To put it short: I havent got the faintest clue as to how to properly express my true feelings in the matter, will "Thank you Dr Jones" do? :)

 

The plot again thickens...

R U sure "centrifugal" is the operational term to use, shouldnt it be "centripetal"?

(And hear we c a proof that the attention span or memory of sigurdV is nothing to be envious of)

 

I feel the administrateors our outside playing golf or some such instrument,(Off source ther r some xeptions)

 

I think some simulation of the Ouija effect zhould be made in here...say... them clever administrators making a # into which u can enter, introduce JUST ONE (means roughly the same as 1) letter,then finding one(... 2...?)self unable to contribute any new letters until all other participators done their letter :)

 

I fear the null hyposition here is that it is impossible...But remember: thiz quiz text stems from sigurdV

[mpc755]

'Was the universe born spinning?'

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

 

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

 

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

 

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

 

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

 

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

 

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where the increase in pressure caused by the aether continually being emitted into the Universal jet causes the aether to condense into matter.

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in.

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

 

The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

 

http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

 

Dark flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet. Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

 

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.

[sigurdV]

If I may, I'd like to recap what I've learned from this thread in my words. Perhaps I am sympathetic to sigurd's question, as it arises naturally from a lack of understanding of what dark energy is. I do not agree that this thread belongs in silly claims, though it may better fit in the Q&A forum

 

My paraphrasing of the question raised in this thread is:

What observational evidence do we have that rules out centrifugal force from a rotating universe as an explanation of accelerating expansion of the universe?

After my own aimless fumblings, two answers were posted that answers this question, at least to my satisfaction.

 

NOTE: It is my understanding that centrifugal force is indeed the correct name for the force that sigurd is asking about, since he is asking about a rotating frame. HyperPhysics explains it better than I could, and offers us this easy to understand illustration.

 

NOTE2: It is not at all clear to me that universal rotation necessarily means that the universe must be rotating "in" something else.

 

Rotation of the universe does not adequately explain the accelerating expansion of the universe because:

1.) There is no observed axis of rotation. We observe accelerated expansion in every direction, not on a plane, and Euler's theorem shows that there cannot be numerous axes of rotation.

2.) We would need to either be at the center of rotation (which places us at a privileged location in the universe and is unacceptable for philosophical reasons) or we would need to be able to translate rotation so that every observer can see himself as the center of rotation (which can only be done with an even number of spatial dimensions).

3.) Conservation of angular momentum shows that if the universe were both rotating and expanding, the angular velocity would be slowing down, therefore the centrifugal force causing expansion would be decreasing. We observe increasing acceleration, so centrifugal force from a rotating universe still requires additional "dark energy" to explain observations, even if we ignore points 1 & 2.

 

Have I correctly summed up the answers given to the question as I have worded it?

sV: I always enjoy tour entries, but im suddenly wary...

On the Euler effect:

 

So the axis of a spinning object cannot be rotated, 

no matter how strong force is applied? 

Or does the second rotation affect the rotation of the first?

What happens if a stronger force is applied at the same time on both spin and axis.

 

On Rotation:

 

I Know of no object having nothing to rotate in, does anyone?

Does anyone scientifically think that our universe is such an object?

Then please show me the proof that there is nothing outside it!

 

AGAIN:

 

Unless im silly or mistaken:

1 It is a scientific fact that all observed rotating objects rotate in something.

2 Therefore: If the universe rotates then there is something for it to rotate in!

[Cyberia]

All objects in space from the size of small moons upwards, rotate. It seems to be a property of mass when not held in place by another gravitational field. They are in a vacuum and not in "something".

 

Similarly, the universe itself could rotate solely because of the mass in it.

[JMJones0424]

On the Euler effect: So the axis of a spinning object cannot be rotated, no matter how strong force is applied? Or does the second rotation affect the rotation of the first?What happens if a stronger force is applied at the same time on both spin and axis.

 

Answered by coldcreation here:

 

According to Euler's rotation theorem, simultaneous rotation around more than one axis at the same time is impossible. If two rotations are forced at the same time, a new axis of rotation will appear.

 

On Rotation: I Know of no object having nothing to rotate in, does anyone?

Does anyone scientifically think that our universe is such an object?

Then please show me the proof that there is nothing outside it!

 

AGAIN: Unless im silly or mistaken:1 It is a scientific fact that all observed rotating objects rotate in something.2 Therefore: If the universe rotates then there is something for it to rotate in!

 

Is having something to rotate in a necessary condition of rotation?

[sigurdV]

1 Answered by coldcreation here:

2 Is having something to rotate in a necessary condition of rotation?

 

1 I agree on a new axis of rotation... :angry:

Just being Silly: Let the force go on and on...

 

What is the outside story? (How will the axis move)

(A)Can force be so applied so the axis once,and only once, takes all

possible positions before it returns to origin?

 

And the inside story?

What force(s) will someone inside feel?

We are appliyng two forces...

(B)Can a third force be applied in a different direction?

 

2 I will swallow the bait :D

 

Yes...

I mean Yes Indeed Sir,

and: Yes Again! (For Emphasis!)

 

Now, please, tell us all about your "rotating object having no environment"...

 

(Or admit there is no such object.)

 

3 If somebody previously had told me I would find a spinning top interesting then...

Oh hell...Lets instantly teleport it to intergalactic space!

Ops! Now its a flying saucer!

The wolfling is not in the driver seat,he is glued to the wall and the roof...

"What more could happen to me" he seems to think?

To sum up: We are watching an observer in an approximately

two dimensional object spinning in a three dimensional environment,

and now we plan to add to his misery...

But we seem to be out of rotational possibilities, dont we?

 

Can we rotate his time axis?

Watch out! A black Hole is coming by... :ph34r:

 

The End of this Silly Story?

What do you think Mr Jones?

Only You! can make this...eh...make sense?

 

PS Read the silly continuation of the story in sigurdV posts.