• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixie of key said:
What happening for expanding space when is expanding?
...
Why that happening?
...
33
rakkautta
:)
Click to expand...

Godsdidit. Gods are rakkautta.
Accept Gods in your life, you will be rewarded with infinity and eternal space which pushes rakkautta.
 
Last edited:
Pixie of key said:
:D

33
love
:)
Click to expand...

Just talking to yourself again, perchance just waiting for the next article with which to spam the thread?

The Man said:
Pixie of key said:
What happening for expanding space when is expanding?

Space metric system getting bigger.

Why that happening?

It happening because space expanding.

:dl:! :dl:! :dl:!

33
rakkautta
:)
Click to expand...

Again, no one here has told you this, why repeat a conversion you apparently have with just yourself? Fact of the matter is we don't know why, as you have been told before. However, the models indicate that a positive vacuum energy density can result in such expansion, that we do observe, and that vacuum energy has been estimated at 10−9 joules per cubic meter. So your question basically comes down to 'why does the vacuum have a positive energy density' and again, right now, we just don't know and may never know.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Click to expand...

Again have you ever tried the rope experiment I suggested and what were your results?
 
"Incredible. You don't see many like this," said former hurricane hunter meteorologist Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private Weather Underground. "In fact in the Western Hemisphere, we've never seen anything like this."

"Worldwide, this is the ninth Category 5 storm this year, which is tied for the second most on record, Masters said. Normal years are around five to six. A Category 5 storm has winds of 157 mph or higher."

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-hurricane-patricia-monster-quickly.html

:D

33
rakkautta
:)
 
Last year i write that way!


Pixie of key said:
I think it was extra expanding movement / energy from outside solarsystem which pushing inside expanding Sun and expanding planets which release some inside expanding energy / movement and thats expanding energy / movement pushing away / out from expanding Sun and expanding Uranus! thats why expanding Sun had a expanding Sunspots and expanding Uranus had a expanding storm!

maybe expanding Earth had also some extra pressure changing already and there mide coming some more for next half or one year time!

EternalPressureChanging
Click to expand...



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124956&page=40

33
love
:)
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I got through the whole thing. Three times. This stuff is confusing to me.

It seems to be saying that the universe was created at a spot. Stuff expanded. We are in a portion of that stuff, far from the center, observing stuff around us expand away from each other. We can only possibly observe a small portion of the stuff. There may be stuff much nearer to the origin of the universe that is far more powerful than the stuff we could observe in the universe. Outside our observable universe, and nearer to the origin of the bug bang, there may be massive powerful things that move close to each other, and in doing so release massive amounts of energy. By the time that we can see light from this on Earth, it may look like a star or galaxy that is relative close to us, but may in fact be something much farter away and much older. These things may be the result of the observed dark force in our observable universe.

At least that was how I understood it. This stuff is confusing to me.
Click to expand...

If it is saying that it has proof from the math and the studies to prove it. If it does not have those, it is wrong. Frankly, from your description, it just sounds wrong.
 
Pixie of key fantasizes about science - item 100

Pixie of key said:
"Incredible. You don't see many like this," said former hurricane hunter meteorologist Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private Weather Underground. "In fact in the Western Hemisphere, we've never seen anything like this."

"Worldwide, this is the ninth Category 5 storm this year, which is tied for the second most on record, Masters said. Normal years are around five to six. A Category 5 storm has winds of 157 mph or higher."

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-hurricane-patricia-monster-quickly.html
Click to expand...
Ah - the continued delusion that that weather is cosmology or can be explained with gibberish :p!
Snipped usual EternalGibberish, EternalFantasy and EternalIgnorance about science from a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos
 
Do we need a new theory of gravity?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=10948184

One of the real challenges in building theories of gravity is that you need to make sure that your theory makes sense at the very large cosmological scales, without predicting ludicrous things for the solar system, such as the moon spiralling into the earth. I don't think enough of that kind of synoptic analysis gets done. Cosmologists tend to focus on the cosmological properties and they don't always check: does my theory even allow stable stars and black holes to exist? Because if it doesn't, then you need to throw it out straight away.

Over the past decade hundreds of researchers have come up with all sorts of ways to change gravity. Part of the problem now is that there are so many different theories that if you were to test each one individually it would take forever. I've done a lot of work on trying to come up with unified descriptions of these theories. If you can map them all onto a single mathematical formalism, all you have to do is test that one thing and you know what it means for all the different theories.

In doing this mapping process we've discovered that a lot of the theories look very different to start with, but at the mathematical level they're moving along the same lines. It suggests to me that people are stuck in one way of thinking at the moment when they build these gravity theories, and that there's still room to do something completely different."


Yes!

There is no pulling force att all!

No curving space att all!

Movement is pushing force!

Thats all what eternal recycling need!

Just pushing force which is only real force! :D

http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l2

33
rakkautta
:)
 
Last edited:
Pixie of key fantasizes about science - item 101

Pixie of key said:
Do we need a new theory of gravity?
...
One of the real challenges in building theories of gravity is that you need to make sure that your theory makes sense at the very large cosmological scales, without predicting ludicrous things for the solar system, such as the moon spiralling into the earth. I don't think enough of that kind of synoptic analysis gets done. Cosmologists tend to focus on the cosmological properties and they don't always check: does my theory even allow stable stars and black holes to exist? Because if it doesn't, then you need to throw it out straight away.

Over the past decade hundreds of researchers have come up with all sorts of ways to change gravity. Part of the problem now is that there are so many different theories that if you were to test each one individually it would take forever. I've done a lot of work on trying to come up with unified descriptions of these theories. If you can map them all onto a single mathematical formalism, all you have to do is test that one thing and you know what it means for all the different theories.

In doing this mapping process we've discovered that a lot of the theories look very different to start with, but at the mathematical level they're moving along the same lines. It suggests to me that people are stuck in one way of thinking at the moment when they build these gravity theories, and that there's still room to do something completely different."
Click to expand...
What we do not need are ignorant rants of gibberish that are nothing to do with the real world and are not a theory of gravity, Pixie of key :jaw-dropp.
Do we need a new theory of gravity? is partially wrong or at least incomplete. General Relativity has been tested on scales outside of the Solar System. Gravitational lensing at all scales are tests of GR. The match between observations of dark matter and dark energy and the calculated values from the CMB is confirmation of GR.
The problems are that there are a lot of alternative theories of gravity and the few tested ones tend to give similar matches.
What Dr Tessa Baker has done is extract a common mathematical basis for many alternative theories of gravity and looked at future astrophysics experiments to tell the difference between them.
 
Last edited:
"In addition, the astronomers found that massive galaxies were more plentiful than had been thought. Galaxies that were previously hidden make up half of the total number of massive galaxies present when the Universe was between 1.1 and 1.5 billion years old. These new results, however, contradict current models of how galaxies evolved in the early Universe, which do not predict any monster galaxies at these early times.

To complicate things further, if massive galaxies are unexpectedly dustier in the early Universe than astronomers predict then even UltraVISTA wouldn't be able to detect them. If this is indeed the case, the currently-held picture of how galaxies formed in the early Universe may also require a complete overhaul."


http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-vista-earliest-giant-galaxies.html

Of course you need new theory for everything! :D

33
rakkautta
:)
 
Study suggests black hole jets get their power from spin


http://m.phys.org/news/2014-11-black...ets-power.html


And later that way! :D

Powerful jets from non-spinning black holes

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-power...ack-holes.html


"CfA astronomer Ramesh Narayan and his colleague have discovered an alternative explanation for the driving mechanism of the jets. Instead of rotation-powered, magnetically dominated jets, they find that non-spinning black holes can also drive powerful jets by means of the intense radiation emitted by hot gas. The gravity of the black hole attracts the radiation, which becomes concentrated enough that its pressure can drive the jet's particles at speeds up to about half the speed of light, at least under appropriate disk geometries.

Their result provides an alternative explanation for some puzzling astrophysical observations. Ultraluminous X-ray sources around the sky are thought to arise around black holes of about ten solar-masses in size, but the models can't explain the energetics of all of the observations unless the X-ray emission is emitted in narrow beams rather than isotropically. In the new alternative scenario, in which radiation drives the jets, the source naturally emits particles in narrow beams."

33
rakkautta
:)
 
Pixie of key said:
"In addition, the astronomers found that massive galaxies were more plentiful than had been thought. Galaxies that were previously hidden make up half of the total number of massive galaxies present when the Universe was between 1.1 and 1.5 billion years old. These new results, however, contradict current models of how galaxies evolved in the early Universe, which do not predict any monster galaxies at these early times.

To complicate things further, if massive galaxies are unexpectedly dustier in the early Universe than astronomers predict then even UltraVISTA wouldn't be able to detect them. If this is indeed the case, the currently-held picture of how galaxies formed in the early Universe may also require a complete overhaul."


http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-vista-earliest-giant-galaxies.html

Of course you need new theory for everything! :D

33
rakkautta
:)
Click to expand...

Pixie of key said:
Study suggests black hole jets get their power from spin


http://m.phys.org/news/2014-11-black...ets-power.html


And later that way! :D

Powerful jets from non-spinning black holes

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-power...ack-holes.html


"CfA astronomer Ramesh Narayan and his colleague have discovered an alternative explanation for the driving mechanism of the jets. Instead of rotation-powered, magnetically dominated jets, they find that non-spinning black holes can also drive powerful jets by means of the intense radiation emitted by hot gas. The gravity of the black hole attracts the radiation, which becomes concentrated enough that its pressure can drive the jet's particles at speeds up to about half the speed of light, at least under appropriate disk geometries.

Their result provides an alternative explanation for some puzzling astrophysical observations. Ultraluminous X-ray sources around the sky are thought to arise around black holes of about ten solar-masses in size, but the models can't explain the energetics of all of the observations unless the X-ray emission is emitted in narrow beams rather than isotropically. In the new alternative scenario, in which radiation drives the jets, the source naturally emits particles in narrow beams."

33
rakkautta
:)
Click to expand...

You continue to cite phys.org as though it in some way supports you despite the fact that it proves you wrong at every turn.

Is it a language problem or what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom