New method 'confirms dark energy'

[DMX7]

So, when I don't understand you, it's my fault. But when you don't understand others, it's their fault.

That's exactly what I was thinking. He's like a child.

[LnGrrrR]

Because our beaches would melt. Duh!

I'm not satisfied with that answer. You haven't explained fully to me why we can't turn sand into ice cream; therefore, your logic is flawed.

[LnGrrrR]

Photons can travel through nothing like other particles and have wave properties as well. Trying to say the red shift needs a medium with light as it does with sound ignores the above. Welcome to the you learn in freshman physics or chemistry.

Tbh, I'm taking a freshman chem class to satisfy a science course, and we aren't learning about photons. It's more about chemical equations and their interactions (changes of state, enthalpy, whether energy is released or not, etc etc)

Physics class we probably would go over it though.

[MannyIsGod]

Wait till you get to the portion about spectroscopy. If you don't cover photons I'll be shocked.

[LnGrrrR]

Wait till you get to the portion about spectroscopy. If you don't cover photons I'll be shocked.

I know a little about spectroscopy, since I work in comm. (We have to deal with OC-192, 10g/sec fiber cables sometimes, which use multiple wavelengths of light to carry different traffic across different freqs/spectrums.) I don't know much beyond the general theory though. 10g/sec links tend to go up once and stay up.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe that's because you're not asking the right questions.

I'm pretty sure I asked the right question for what i responded too, but I could be wrong.

Have an example?

Also, "blind trust" in the experts? First off, it's not quite "blind trust" when it's peer-reviewed. Second, unless you're actually performing these experiments yourself, how are you able to lay claim to some sort of firsthand knowledge? You're getting your info from outside sources as well.

I'm not. I already pointed out I am arguing against people who cannot explain it. That's what I find ironic.

Everyone else seemed fine with the explanations. You were the only one who didn't.

I can't help but wonde5r if it's because they want to be against me.

Again, do they understand it?

If I demand reasons on why science can't turn sand into ice cream, and the board explains it but I'm not satisfied with their answers, does that mean that the board is wrong?

Of course not. Maybe someday we will be able to rearrange molecules at the nuclear or quantum level. Today we don't know how, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Has anyone here said the universe was nothing? I don't think so, so I don't know why you're asking that question.

Yes. Without looking back I cannot say who. Someone did, hence my response on those lines.

Again, no one has brought up that strawman.

If that's what you wish yo believe.

But the universe has mediums. Even vacuums have some small amt of resistance IIRC. The only "true" vacuums are in lablike settings. (Again, IIRC.)

Not talking about vacuum, but what would be the unknown tangible fabric of space.

Who said space is nothing? I must've missed that claim.

Yes, you did, but I'm not going to look back for you.

Remember please, I said this was an unknown theory to me. As I searched it, I don't disagree with the theory. I disagree with how others are explaining it.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh, welcome to science, Wild Cobra. We use the best model we have (i.e., what can discern with our senses, intelligence, and tools) to form an explanation for an event or series of events.

I see you conveniently miss some of my statements so you can perceive me as stupid, rather than ignorant to this theory that is new to me.

Your bad, not mine.

[Wild Cobra]

God damn why can't this fool understand that Photons are different? SMH.

Why can't you understand what I have been saying?

I know photons are different.

[Wild Cobra]

Photons can travel through nothing like other particles and have wave properties as well. Trying to say the red shift needs a medium with light as it does with sound ignores the above. Welcome to the you learn in freshman physics or chemistry.

Then explain how they red shift.

Why are you saying that space has no medium? Seems to me that the medium that space is composed of is this dark energy. The photons have to interact with something if they are to change frequency.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not. I already pointed out I am arguing against people who cannot explain it. That's what I find ironic.

You can't even explain it enough for the majority on this board to grasp either. Does that mean that you don't understand it?

I can't help but wonde5r if it's because they want to be against me.

Doubtful.

Again, do they understand it?

To be honest, your questions haven't proven that you understand it either. Should we just take you at your word, when you won't even take scientists at THEIR word?

Of course not. Maybe someday we will be able to rearrange molecules at the nuclear or quantum level. Today we don't know how, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I don't quite think you got my point.

Yes. Without looking back I cannot say who. Someone did, hence my response on those lines.

I didn't see it, but maybe you're right. (shrug)

Not talking about vacuum, but what would be the unknown tangible fabric of space.

Are you asking what's on the edge of the universe, or how we separate "universe" from "not-universe"? Someone more knowledgeable about this may be able to give some of the latest and greatest theories.

Remember please, I said this was an unknown theory to me. As I searched it, I don't disagree with the theory. I disagree with how others are explaining it.

Fair enough. What part, specifically, are you disagreeing with? The.. consistency (for lack of a better word) of a vacuum medium?

[LnGrrrR]

Then explain how they red shift.

Why are you saying that space has no medium? Seems to me that the medium that space is composed of is this dark energy. The photons have to interact with something if they are to change frequency.

Did you mean to say dark matter?

[Wild Cobra]

Did you mean to say dark matter?

No, I said that right. Not sure I'm right though.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you asking what's on the edge of the universe, or how we separate "universe" from "not-universe"? Someone more knowledgeable about this may be able to give some of the latest and greatest theories.

It's all conjecture at that point. That's not what I mean anyway. Is space absolutely nothing, or does it have some unknown fabric? There is at least some interacting force or fabric to stretch light as it expands. It it was nothing, light could only expand because of the Doppler effect, which is probably the gravitational forces within a galaxy that light interacts with.

Fair enough. What part, specifically, are you disagreeing with? The.. consistency (for lack of a better word) of a vacuum medium?

Without going back, I forget. Several things were mentioned. The only thing that sticks to mind is that someone claims that space has no fabric, yet they agree the expansion of space stretches the wavelength as space expands. I simply cannot accept that explanation. What is stretching the wavelengths if space is completely void, if it's not the Doppler effect?

[MannyIsGod]

If you really want to understand it then read a bit about quantum mechanics. Until then your opinion doesn't really matter.

The point is not whether modern physics theory is right or wrong but rather that your criticisms involve elementary misunderstandings of the very basic principles of theory.

[MannyIsGod]

And yes, space has no fabric. In outer space, there is of course particles at an incredibly low density but there is no medium or ether as you refereed to it earlier. The reason light is able to traverse this is because unlike sound it is a particle. Its not a very difficult concept at all.

How or why it displays the qualities of a wave, such as the Doppler effect that gives us the red shift is much harder to understand but it does not mean there is a medium. Also, you do not seem to understand that while a sound wave may spread out and that is why it displays the doppler effect the same is not true for a photon. It does not spread out.

[Wild Cobra]

And yes, space has no fabric. In outer space, there is of course particles at an incredibly low density but there is no medium or ether as you refereed to it earlier. The reason light is able to traverse this is because unlike sound it is a particle. Its not a very difficult concept at all.

How or why it displays the qualities of a wave, such as the Doppler effect that gives us the red shift is much harder to understand but it does not mean there is a medium. Also, you do not seem to understand that while a sound wave may spread out and that is why it displays the doppler effect the same is not true for a photon. It does not spread out.

Then what causes the red shift with an expanding universe if space has nothing to interact with the photons?

[LnGrrrR]

Then what causes the red shift with an expanding universe if space has nothing to interact with the photons?

I think redshift/blueshift/Doppler effect occurs independent of the medium. (It's not the medium causing the Doppler effect, but the moving away/towards the observer. The media is just carrying the signal.)

[MannyIsGod]

Depends on where the photon is traveling though. Gravity and other forces. Quantum Physics does not subscribe to the theory of a medium nor is there any evidence. As someone tried to explain to you, the Doppler effect is not the mechanism used for the cosmological redshift.

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on where the photon is traveling though. Gravity and other forces. Quantum Physics does not subscribe to the theory of a medium nor is there any evidence. As someone tried to explain to you, the Doppler effect is not the mechanism used for the cosmological redshift.

I can go with gravity. However, if we are to say gravity or forces are to change the wavelengths, then how can we say a quasar is traveling 3X the speed of light, if gravity or forces changes the perception of said light? How do you reliably subtract one variable from several and claim with certainty that the universe is expanding?

You see what I mean, or not?

[LnGrrrR]

then how can we say a quasar is traveling 3X the speed of light,

We can't. Nothing can go faster than light speed. (Now, you might be able to cheat it by bending space/time, but that's not quite the same.)

[MannyIsGod]

Claim for certainty? Its a theory. Its the theory that best econompasses the observed data, but I don't think anyone has every claimed its a certainty. As I said above, it may very well be wrong but the questions you're asking have been asked for a long time and there are workable theories for them.

However, if the universe was not expanding we would be seeing extremely different - even opposite - sets of observed data. That fact that quasars appear so far away that they would have to exceed the speed of light to get there, for instance, is data in favor of expansion.

[Wild Cobra]

Claim for certainty? Its a theory. Its the theory that best econompasses the observed data, but I don't think anyone has every claimed its a certainty. As I said above, it may very well be wrong but the questions you're asking have been asked for a long time and there are workable theories for them.

However, if the universe was not expanding we would be seeing extremely different - even opposite - sets of observed data. That fact that quasars appear so far away that they would have to exceed the speed of light to get there, for instance, is data in favor of expansion.

OK, you are now starting to agree with me.

How does anyone know quasars are too far away to stay within relativistic speeds? That would mean knowing even more things that are just theories.

[LnGrrrR]

How does anyone know quasars are too far away to stay within relativistic speeds? That would mean knowing even more things that are just theories.

I don't know why you put "just" there. It's not like we could actually travel out to the quasar itself to get a measurement; theory is all we will have for quite awhile.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know why you put "just" there. It's not like we could actually travel out to the quasar itself to get a measurement; theory is all we will have for quite awhile.

Exactly.

So how can everyone say with certainty my questions are wrong?

Am I the one saying anything here with certainty, or is it others?

Science is meant to be questioned.

[MannyIsGod]

OK, you are now starting to agree with me.

How does anyone know quasars are too far away to stay within relativistic speeds? That would mean knowing even more things that are just theories.

If you want to rewrite an encompassing physics theory that can account well for all observable data then you are free too. Until something better comes along, I'm going to go ahead and go with the modern theory.

In other words how do we "know" where quasars are? Because when all the data of the universe is taken into account, that is where modern physics theory says they are. Its not some simple arbitrary theory. Its the sum of the work people like Hubble, Einstein, Doppler, and those that came before them. Thats why the OP is big news.

Do you understand all of this?