Dark energy/ map of redshift causing substance

[Zyxzevn]

Dark Energy Measured with Record-Breaking Map of 1.2 Million Galaxies

"Dark energy" is a substance that causes photons to redshift. If certain people think that this redshift is
purely caused by speed, they might even think that this "dark energy" causes the expansion of the universe.

The structure is very similar to the spread that we would expect from plasma.
So indirectly science has again proven that plasma causes redshift,
but have not yet figured that out.

[Metryq]

Somebody has been using Occam's razor to scrape paint off their sneakers again.

[Michael Mozina]

Dark Energy Measured with Record-Breaking Map of 1.2 Million Galaxies

Since "dark energy" claim were originally related to observations of SN1A events, not galaxy mass layout patterns, I have no clue how any of that "mapping" allows them to determine anything about "dark energy". How does that work exactly, or is this just another great example of mainstream "hype"?

[Zyxzevn]

How does that work exactly, or is this just another great example of mainstream "hype"?

My guess is that they measured the brilliance with the (estimated) redshift of each object.
If the redshift is larger than expected, they add some "dark energy" in between.
So literally they are measuring the substance that is causing redshift.
They probably use statistics of astronomical proportions, for additional hype.

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently I'll have to read 7 or so papers to figure it out.

I must say that living in the dark ages of astronomy just seems so childish at this point and so counterproductive in terms of human spaceflight, and human exploration of space.

If we look at the various types of plasma filaments and structures of the universe, they *scream* of electrical activity, and electrical current, in everything from coronal loops, to the Birkeland currents that connect the massive electrical dots of the universe.

In terms of exploring spacetime, we don't need to bring all the energy with us into space, we simply need to learn to "tap into" the energy circuits of spacetime and then space travel becomes so much easier.

The mainstream uses 95 percent "dark magic", and 5 percent "pseudoscience" (according to Alfven) to arrive at mathematical "postdicted fits" without any "curiousity" about the role of electricity in space. In fact a fair percentage of the mainstream "fears" the idea, loathes the idea, and they actively run from the idea. A few of them even publicly misrepresent basic EU theory in order to cause other curious human beings to wallow around in their willful ignorance with them. It's just so very sad, so utterly irrational and so ridiculous.

Everything we need to explain the observations of spacetime can be done with ordinary plasma physics, and ordinary (and observed in the laboratory) scattering processes in plasma, right down the background temperature which Eddington nailed to within a 1/2 of degree using basic physics. I finally got around to start reading Thornhill and Talbott's book this weekend and I must say that they did a great job of explaining the history of that particular debate. Nicely done.

The mainstream currently requires 4 unique "supernatural" forms of matter/energy/processes to explain the basic observations of spacetime, before we even start to count concepts like infinitely dense objects. The whole concept of "expanding space" seems irrational considering the threads we observe in spacetime. The expansion process could never be equidistant in every direction in such an environment, so the whole concept is just ridiculous in the final analysis.

They currently need 'dark energy' mythology to the tune of 70 percent of their "mathematical magic", and another 25 percent of their math depends upon the existence of "invisible matter". And of course there isthe ever magical inflation entity that saved us all from living inside a singularity.


I couldn't "make up" a weirder creation mythology than LCDM theory if I tried, and of course nobody would believe it even if I did.

Oy Vey.

[willendure]

Everything we need to explain the observations of spacetime can be done with ordinary plasma physics, and ordinary (and observed in the laboratory) scattering processes in plasma, right down the background temperature which Eddington nailed to within a 1/2 of degree using basic physics.

I think we have debated this before? .5 of a degree sounds mightily accurate, until you add that it was .5 of a degree out from the true value of 2.725 or 16.7% too big. Put that way, the error is looking quite large.

But worse still, "Eddington's model is a factor of more than 700 million times too small at the 2.64 mm wavelength of the CN transition [the vertical line on the left in the plot] where a measurement of 2.3 K was made in 1941."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

Oh dear...

[Michael Mozina]

I think we have debated this before? .5 of a degree sounds mightily accurate, until you add that it was .5 of a degree out from the true value of 2.725 or 16.7% too big. Put that way, the error is looking quite large.

I don't recall having a conversation with you about the CMB before, but it's possible. Compared to the 45-50 degree range of "early" BB theories, it was certainly a whole lot "closer than" the real LCDM theory "predictions" about the temperature of the IGM. All the mainstream numbers have been *postdicted fits* to known data. It took the mainstream 4 or 5 tries to get any closer than Eddington did on his *first* try in 1926. It's certainly not bad compared to early attempts by LCDM proponents.

But worse still, "Eddington's model is a factor of more than 700 million times too small at the 2.64 mm wavelength of the CN transition [the vertical line on the left in the plot] where a measurement of 2.3 K was made in 1941."

How about a published *source* citation for that claim? Where did Ned Wright even get the data and which specific formula did Ned use make those various plots? What's with the black dots on that graph? Ned only made a rather vague reference to one of his books.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

Oh please! Ned Write's *unpublished nonsense* doesn't constitute an actual scientific argument! It's nothing more than a unpublished website hit piece. It's sad that the mainstream is reduced to citing Ned Write's unpublished website all the time. It's like their "go to" unpublished source of all misinformation about EU/PC theory.

The universe would have to experience *zero* scattering, and *no* inelastic scattering at all in the IGM for the LCDM number to be correct.

FYI, I explained some of the numerous problems with LCDM theory here by the way:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 76#p111379

[willendure]

Well, I do have to concede that Eddington got close with a bit of guesswork or back-of-an-envelope calculation didn't he? Perhaps if his initial guesstimate could be refined it may provide a valid explanation.