The simplest answer is that there is some unknown force we cannot observe, hence "dark." if pulling we call it matter. If pushing we call it energy. That -is- how you use Occam's Razor: start with the simplest model and test against the data. E
Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2011, at 22:03, [email protected] wrote: > > Good points, but first it was dark matter, which is not such > a popular idea any more, and now it is dark energy. > Sounds a lot like the theory of "ether" that was > prevalent well into the 19th century. > > I have no idea what this "dark energy" is , either. And that > seems to be the problem, no-one else knows what it is. > > Well, I am a 'civilian' amongst people with knowledge of such things > that I can hardly imagine. Just saying that Ockham's razor > strikes me as a smart idea itself. Which is the simpler explanation ? > Usually the simplest explanation is the right one. Not always, usually. > > About physics, I may shoot off my mouth but ultimately > others will supply the "final" answers. > > Billy > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > message dated 10/6/2011 9:46:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] > writes: > I don’t think you want to want to rule out dark energy. I have no idea what > it is, but it seems to represent the bulk of the mass in the in the universe; > therefore, it would have a great deal of influence on the gravity. If > gravity is a form of energy, then dark matter matters. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RC] Dumb Question > > > > Opik's Razor > > > > Clear as a bell. Great, succinct way to explain things. > > > > OK, understanding that much now, here's my dilemma : > > After any explosion the energy source is depleted. > > None remains. The gunpowder or U-234, or whatnot, > > is used up. > > > > Seems to me that what propels the explosive "cloud" is > > momentum. The shrapnel or other residue no longer > > draws on a source of energy. It is self propelled, > > you might say. > > > > Or think of a skier. He or she pushes off at the top of a ski run. > > That's all the energy it takes. Not even one HP. But in a half minute > > the skier is zooming along at 70 MPH. Gravity does just about > > everything necessary. But is gravity a form of "energy" ? > > > > If it is, I have never heard of gravity described this way before. > > > > In a 3-dimensional volume there is no up or down, of course, > > and gravity can pull in any direction. > > > > Now, do we know that the Visible Universe is limitless or infinite > > in extent in every direction ? We don't have a clue. > > > > There was an astronomer / astrophysicist named Opik, think this > > is the correct spelling, who posited that we exist in a field of universes, > > like soap bubbles in a sink, each bubble a universe. > > > > Is this view testable ? Maybe it is. If it is true, then no energy source > > is necessary to account for acceleration. Nearby bubbles / universes > > are providing the impetus. The gravity would be very distended, > > no idea if it could be measured, but even an itty-bit per cubic X of volume > > and that would be sufficient, so it seems to me. Viz Cumulative effect > > added up over billions of years. > > > > Ergo, no need to speculate about "dark energy." You need to > > identify where the celestial gravity is coming from. > > > > This model is simple ( Ockham's razor ) and elegant. > > > > OK, tear it apart, see if I care. > > > > Billy > > > > > > PS > > You do realize, don't you, that I need coherence > > for my system of science-fiction planets ? > > Why else would I be so tenacious ? > > I don't really have feelings for the Crab Nebula > > or for far off galaxies discovered by Hubble, > > but I have proprietary interest in my > > dozens of imaginary worlds. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > message dated 10/6/2011 [email protected] writes: > > Actually, the pitcher’s upper arm isn’t traveling at 95 mph, but with the > leverage of his external limb, wrist, hand, and digits he can achieve 95 mph > at the tips of his fingers when the ball is released. Stick an atlatl at the > end of his hand and you get even greater velocity thanks to the leverage of > the atlatl. The energy that propels the object is provided by the > thrower’s muscles, the velocity is increased by leverage. > > > > With a universe that is expanding at an accelerating pace, we have to assume > that there is some “muscle” that is still providing energy to increase the > rate of expansion. Who knows, perhaps the energy source ended and a > universe-sized atlatl is still whipping around because of the original energy > imparted by the big bang. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D. > Constructive Agreement, LLC > [email protected] > P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771 > > (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 4:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RC] Dumb Question > > > > comments below > > > > > > message dated 10/6/2011 3:40:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Hi Billy, > > > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 3:07 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > OK, assuming that much, why wouldn't simple inertia account for > > current observations about the accelerated speed of expansion > > of the universe ? That is, throw a baseball and for a time its speed > > is far greater than the speed of the pitcher's arm movements > > that released the ball. Yes, it begins to decelerate after a distance > > but not until X distance has been traversed. > > > > Um , yes. > > > > > > If for no other reason that a pitcher stands on a mound which is > > a foot or so higher than the playing field. > > > > Really obvious if the pitcher was standing on top of a mountain peak > > in the Sierras. The force of gravity would add acceleration to the speed > > of the ball, at least for X distance. And all this is about is the distance > "X." > > > > But is a pitcher's arm really zooming along at 95 mph when getting set > > to throw a ball ? That is a typical speed for a ball thrown by a > > major league pitcher. Seems to me this is also about > > the multiplier effect of leverage. > > > > > > Billy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Um, no. At release, the ball is moving exactly as fast as the fingers that > propelled it. After that, it slows down due to friction, unless gravity is > accelerating it downwards. > > > > If the universes is accelerating after "release", something is effectively > "pulling" it. > > > > E > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > > > > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
