Bible’s stories.

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by s0cratus

=.
1.
Of course more than 90% in the Universe is Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
The problem is that we don’t know their concrete physical parameters.
2.
Another alternative:
Dark Energy may be Vacuum.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
===.

Hmmm? So you agree that Dark Matter and Dark Energy (or something) and Dark Matter occupy the vast majority of the universe? Or do you maintain that it's nothing more that an "invention" as you indicated in Post #20 on page 2? I'm still trying to establish what your position is. If English is not your native language, and are using a translation program, that might be part of reason why your posts are difficult to understand, and might explain the reason for the cut and past format.

Dark Energy would not necessarily have any "physical parameters". I agree we don't know much about it. There are a number of thoughts that it might be a property of space, or it might not exist at all. But it does seem to provide a possible explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Interesting link though. The thing is that is does not wipe out the concept of Dark Energy, but attempts to better define it by suggesting it may be the energy produced by the vacuum of space. That's certainly plausible, but note that it's not certain nor is it a final explanation. It's that it MAY (or MIGHT) be what's going on. Since you had earlier declared that "Dark Energy" is an "invention", do you also feel that the hypothesis of the article is an "invention" as well?

Just an added note:
The term "Dark Energy" has been used only to describe that something unknown, most likely energetic, is involved with the acceleration of the space of the universe. What that something might be has been unknown. So for lack of any better information, "Dark Energy" has been inserted as a term until it is better understood.

[jtur88]

Does galaxies have appetite?
---Does a magnet have an appetite?

Where does the Great Bear constellation run?
---I know what it does in the woods. Does that help?

[s0cratus]

Originally Posted by NightBazaar

Hmmm?
Dark Energy would not necessarily have any "physical parameters".
I agree we don't know much about it.

Interesting link though.
The thing is that is does not wipe out the concept of Dark Energy,
but attempts to better define it by suggesting it may be the energy
produced by the vacuum of space. That's certainly plausible, but
note that it's not certain nor is it a final explanation. It's that it MAY
(or MIGHT) be what's going on. Since you had earlier declared that
"Dark Energy" is an "invention", do you also feel that the hypothesis
of the article is an "invention" as well?

Just an added note:
The term "Dark Energy" has been used only to describe that something
unknown, most likely energetic, is involved with the acceleration of
the space of the universe.
What that something might be has been unknown.
So for lack of any better information, "Dark Energy" has been inserted
as a term until it is better understood.

My opinion about Vacuum, dark Energy and dark Matter.
a).
The Vacuum ( as a whole ) is a Homogeneous Space
between Galaxies of the lowest ( the background )
level of temperature: T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K.
#
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to classical
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
#
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy Density.
===.
WE cannot reach the temperature T=0K and we
cannot reach the energy density of Vacuum.
But just because we cannot reach these Vacuum’s
parameters it does not mean that they don’t exist.
P.S.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
====.
b)
The Vacuum is itself some kind of Energy.
This Vacuum Energy Space is not empty ‘box’, but a ‘Dirac sea’
where unseen ‘virtual antiparticles’ exist.
If the Vacuum is itself some kind of Energy, so the
‘virtual antiparticles’ is also itself some kind of energy particles.
Later the sum of these unseen ‘virtual / potential energy particles’
was called a ‘ dark matter ‘ .
==.
c).
‘ Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned
into particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.’
/ -- University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb /
' Somehow' from ' Somewhere'
From ' Somewhere' , ' Somehow' to the Visual World.
In the other words: the process, when potential energy particles
jump / radiate from Vacuum and become visual was called a
‘ Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation / polarization.’
===.
Israel Socratus

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by s0cratus

My opinion about Vacuum, dark Energy and dark Matter.
a).
The Vacuum ( as a whole ) is a Homogeneous Space
between Galaxies of the lowest ( the background )
level of temperature: T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K.
#
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0 ( according to classical
thermodynamics theory ) or E= ∞ (according to quantum theory)
#
The Vacuum is a Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy Density.
===.
WE cannot reach the temperature T=0K and we
cannot reach the energy density of Vacuum.
But just because we cannot reach these Vacuum’s
parameters it does not mean that they don’t exist.
P.S.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
====.
b)
The Vacuum is itself some kind of Energy.
This Vacuum Energy Space is not empty ‘box’, but a ‘Dirac sea’
where unseen ‘virtual antiparticles’ exist.
If the Vacuum is itself some kind of Energy, so the
‘virtual antiparticles’ is also itself some kind of energy particles.
Later the sum of these unseen ‘virtual / potential energy particles’
was called a ‘ dark matter ‘ .
==.
c).
‘ Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned
into particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.’
/ -- University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb /
' Somehow' from ' Somewhere'
From ' Somewhere' , ' Somehow' to the Visual World.
In the other words: the process, when potential energy particles
jump / radiate from Vacuum and become visual was called a
‘ Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation / polarization.’
===.
Israel Socratus

You missed my point. You earlier mentioned that Dark Energy is an "invention" of science. Such wording leaves a distinct impression that you're suggesting it's a complete fabrication that has no merit or reason. While there's no question the nature of Dark Energy is still very much unknown, it's based on observations.

You posted the Eureka Alert article indicating that Dark Energy may be produced by the vacuum of space. I asked if you feel Dark Energy is just an invention, then do you also believe that the Eureka Alert article is also an invented description. You have not answered the question. Instead, you replied with "If a tree falls in the forest....", etc., etc., and wander off in other directions instead of providing a simple answer to a simple question.

I have no problem with the idea that the energy of the vacuum of space might indeed be what produces Dark Energy. What I object to is that you seem to be saying is that there is no Dark Energy. Does the Eureka Alert specifically state that? If so, where? I must've missed it.

You said (regarding the Eureka Alert article):
"2.
Another alternative:
Dark Energy may be a Vacuum."

The key is "may be" (might, possible), which leaves the subject open without making a flat affirmation that it's the only explanation. It could be right, or it could be wrong. Further it does not dismiss Dark Energy. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Eureka Alert article is a bad idea. I think it's a very reasonable idea. What I'm saying is that if Dark Energy is just an invention of science, then you'd also have to include the Eureka Alert article as an invention as well. Your point then becomes counterproductive.

Yes, I'm familiar with the "Dirac Sea" concept (which involves infinities) as put forth by Paul Dirac in 1930. I also know it's not unanimously considered to be very elegant. While it has plausible merits, it also has problems. Further, you run into another problem in that it too would have to be just an "invention" of science according to your line of reasoning.
Dirac sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you need to qualify your statement that Dark Energy is just an invented explanation of science.

Also, what does all this have to do with Bible stories?



Last of all, the cut and paste formatting you're using for your posts make it hard to read and difficult to easily reply to for selected points. Please use the standard formatting provided by C-D. If you choose to continue with your own formatting, then I see no need to further reply since it's a waste of time to bother with trying to change your format. Thanks.