Comments on: Dark Energy

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:05:46 +0000

Mike, I think it is made clear in this relatively old feature article that no one knows what dark energy is, except that its existence can explain the observations better than anything else. At the moment.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:03:45 +0000

From Mike Landis via email:

“Why is everyone claiming that dark energy has been discovered? Nobody discovered anything except that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. No one has isolated dark energy. Can you please not jump to conclusions.”

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 13 May 2010 13:52:49 +0000

Luis, I strongly recommend you ask a native English speaker to edit your website if you wish to try and get your message across, it’s very hard going as it stands…

As to the technical aspects, who says the universe is expanding at light speed?

By: Luis Biarge

Luis Biarge — Thu, 13 May 2010 12:12:57 +0000

I’m against Universe expansion and also with accelerated expansion:

For example a question: – The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? At what speed expand the diameter (radius x 2)?

This and more questions, doubts, proofs and hypothesis in bigbangno.wordpress.com

Thanks.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:13:40 +0000

@Brian Why should common sense apply. Common sense is simply an evolutionary adaptation that allowed our earthbound ancestors to understand their environment and survive, there’s no reason why our brains should be able to understand the universe using common sense.

But, look at it this way: stare at the back of your hand, the light reflected from your skin that reaches your eyes and is transformed into an image in your brain that you “see” takes a finite amount of time to reach your consciousness, that means that you’re seeing the back of your hand in the past. It’s the very recent past but the past nonetheless. Light from the sun takes a few minutes to reach the earth, so that’s slightly further into the past. Light from distant stars takes even longer…

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:27:04 +0000

Then there is the claim that by looking further into the Univserse we are looking back in time.
This pre supposes that from where we are in this scheme of things our sitiuation is relativly new……
and “out there” is very very old.
Try proving that.

Then there is this contradiction……
If all this around us is the product of the “big bang….” should that not ensure
that everty thing we see and measure in the universe, will be of the same age?

Where in the Universe are things stationary, and where are those that are moving away…..away from what?
surely not us here!
There shouild be a new chair introduced in our Universities, and an oportunity for students
to study for a degree ( PhD ) in Commonsense. what a difference that would make.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:51:45 +0000

“far reaches” doesn’t just mean a long, long way away…observing phenomena at “far reaches” cosmologically speaking means a long, long time ago too.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:47:59 +0000

We are constantly reminded that all things in the Universe. that will provide us with the answers to “how, why and when” with regard to the Universe, are always identified as being in the “far reaches of the Universe “

The planet that we all rest on, it also is located in the far reaches of the Universe.

We have a sample of the countless trillions of Suns in the Universe, right here on our door step,
Not to mention moons, planets ….It’s all here. Why bother with rest.

Accuracy is more easily achieved right here, inaccuracies are proportional to the square of the distance from Earth.

Distance and Astronomers are amongst the biggest liars in the Universe.

Dark energy? You mean Invisible energy.

All of the potential energy that drives the Universe is all around us. Universe means universal.
All energies are universal through out the Universe.

The only dark energy in the Universe is in the form of the black clouds of doubt,
Hovering over the heads of the cosmologists.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:53:47 +0000

@Brian “Edudicator” – nice homonym, or was it just a typo. For a theory to be considered it most certainly does not have to be understood by as many people as possible. I suspect there are millions of people who don’t understand the theory behind tunneling diodes and yet they know it is valid every time they switch on their TV or various other electronic gadgets…

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:16:20 +0000

If A theory ,is to be concidered, it must be understood by as many people as possible, not just
by a small group of intelectuals.
Common sense must be the edudicator.

The “big bang”concept is so devoid of commonsense that it is embarrassing .
Ask a proponent of the “big bang”concept to explain this idea but with out using any
mathematical formulae whats so ever……then see what emerges.
This planetery system of ours is almost insignificant in this infinite Universe.
We àre not in the centre of anything….. we are almost not there at all.

Try sitting on your mortor boards, and think carefully about it before jumping to some
unreasoable conclusion. the Univere is much more simple that the physists would have us believe.