OH, MY, MY MY! I like how you see that someone is using the word kinetic and you see it as if it is your victory, even though you don't understand what is written. HeHeHe. Did you read the paper? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0402/0402316.pdf - Full Paper Did you notice that it is a paper on a scalar field that is the dark energy and dark matter. Did you notice that the Lagarangian that he uses is Lorentz invariant. Did you notice that he uses the Robertson-Walker metric? which means that he is doing the calculations in the framework of GR.
Not true. If you look closely he claims the field changes over time from one state to another. I haven't but now that I have got you to read it, I want to comment. How is it that anybody would find this concept viable. If the field shifts from one mode to another that suggests that the Dark Matter state fades out and a Dark Energy state gains in enfluence. That would seem to say galaxies must fall apart rather than just a simple expansion of the universe.
That doesn't make my statement untrue. He specifically said that dark energy/matter are different forms of the same thing. But just as a rpeat, because it seems I missed it.. could you exlpain why you think the paper says the following two things? 1) where some unknown field of universal kenetic energy causes gravity ” 2) and replaces Dark Energy and Dark Matter!!!
Yes I agree that I am confused since you say that the calculations of your theory (that have not yet been done) give the correct results. If they give the correct results please show them. If the calculations have not been done, please do not say that they give the correct results.
He hasn't got any calculations. He hasn't got any proof. He doesn't understand shit about the paper he thought supports his idea (common, he doesn't even know a damn thing about sr/gr, let alone that he can understand quantum field theory). My advice: ignore all this crap, and spend your energy replying to people who are really looking for a bit of help instead of just wanting an opportunity to have somebody educated look at their pet theory, and then go into discussion about things they will never understand anyway.
Vitrually true. Untrue. Untrue. I would hope that getting 2.5 or of 3 wrong sould suggest that perhaps your advice is ill advanced.
You could disprove this one very easily. You said two things about it: 1) some unknown field of universal kenetic energy causes gravity 2) and replaces Dark Energy and Dark Matter!!! The paper doesn't actually say either. If you disagree and think it does, please explain why.
Persol, *********************** Extracts ************************* Vanderbilt News - David Salisbury "One way to think of this is that the universe is filled with an invisible fluid that exerts pressure on ordinary matter and changes the way that the universe expands," says Scherrer, a professor of physics at Vanderbilt University Now, theoretical physicist Robert J. Scherrer has come up with a model that could cut the mystery in half by explaining dark matter and dark energy as two aspects of a single unknown force. His model is described in a paper titled "Purely Kinetic k Essence as Unified Dark Matter" In this context, a field is a physical quantity possessing energy and pressure that is spread throughout space. Scherrer's formulation has some similarities to a unified theory proposed earlier this year by Nima Arkani-Hamed at Harvard University and his colleagues, who attempt to explain dark matter and dark energy as arising from the behavior of an invisible and omnipresent fluid that they call a "ghost condensate." ************************************************* I think you protest to loudly.
I think not. 1) some unknown field of universal kenetic energy causes gravity Your quote says nothing of the sort. 2) and replaces Dark Energy and Dark Matter He doesn't say anything about replacing hit. He says they are different aspects of the same thing. That's like saying H2O replaced ice.
Yea, Whatever, Persol. It doesn't say that, verbatum but others less prone to argue about everything, I believe see my point so have a nice day.
It doesn't even imply it. This is what you do with most of your 'scientific support'. Take what someone says and completely misinterpret it.
Fine. So says the great Persol. The point was his kenetic energy field saw Dark Energy and Dark Matter as one in the same but changing over time. UniKEF sees Dark Energy and Dark Matter as one in the same but changing with distance. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And that has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that "universal kenetic energy causes gravity". I'm willing to agree that meant to say 'dark energy/matter are one in the same' (as misleadingly as you phrased it), but your first comment was just completely off base.
I'll not argue your point but I think it is a borderline call. In the case of UniKEF it causes gravity. In the referenced case it influences (in the case of Dark Matter but it would appear that Dark Energy is still considered anti-gravity.
No... it's not any more anti-gravity than me standing up is anti-gravity. Hell, his simulation does nothing about gravity at all. He still has the same dynamics caused by gravity and dark matter/energy... he's just simulating it in another way.
Persol! Will you pack it in. You are in left field making arguements over nothing. Unless you now want to claim Dark Energy is not claimed to have anti-gravity attributes? He has not changed the functions of Dark Matter or Dark Energy. He has simply said they are the same thing (which I have also said). Dark Energy has and has always had the function of repulsive force (anti-gravity). So for you to bump your gums over and over like you know something I don't know is getting a bit lame. How dare you claim this has nothing to do with gravity. You been drinking again? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, he has. Perhaps you should actually read the paper you posted. Replusive force does not equal anti-gravity... and it sure as hell doesn't equal gravity. Mac, this should be fairly easy for you. Show where his equations say anything about gravity... Oh wait, that wasn't what the paper was about anyhow. Perhaps you should actually read these things before you post claims about them which are AT BEST stretching the truth.
Well. I did and before you pop off about not understanding what I read you are wrong on that as well. I'll be back and post a link to Dark Energy. How much do you want to lose? I'll make you a wager that they refer to it as anti-gravity or repulsive gravity force. Only because you want to be difficult. Anybody that knows about Dark Energy knows it is an anti-gravity force. The fact that he deals with the mathematics of showing how Dark Energy and Dark Matter can be one and the same changes nothing about the function. **************************************************** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy Dark energy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and has negative pressure resulting in an effective "repulsive gravitational force". Dark energy may account for the accelerating universe as well as a significant portion of the mass in the universe. Two proposed forms of dark energy are the cosmological constant and quintessence, where the former is static and the latter is dynamic. Distinguishing between the two requires high precision measurements of the expansion of the universe to see how the speed of the expansion changes over time. Making such measurements is a topic of current research. *************************************************** I am afraid it is you that want to stretch the truth to have an arguement. You lose. Move on.
