Coffee House Musing

Before the discovery of Dark Energy, we heard constantly about how just a tiny percentage of matter, as a ratio of the whole of space in the Universe, would literally be able to pull all of space back to a singularity.A matter condensed region of the universe, like our Solar System ( and throw in our Galaxy, though it is less dense) is more than strong enough to counter Dark Energy, right? (Keep in mind that we dont even know if Dark Energy is a combined product from multiple inflationary factors, be they forces or fields)I would ask you 2 questions, but you admitted that there was no observational evidence on Earth for local inflation.Question 2 is whether there is any inflation of space observed in our Solar System.Question 3 is whether there is evidence of spatial inflation, from Dark Energy or whatever else, in our galaxy.

The title of article is Dark Energy Deniers but the title is somewhat misleading.The issue of the Cosmological Principle is mentioned.There are scientists who feel that the expansion rate is inaccurately measured due to using averages that are taken from looking at the expansion in vast voids.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Answered in Message 42. Pay attention.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Repeat, since my post was short and targeted.Your posts have been cluttered and misleading. You even seemed to bring religion into one recent post, unless I was mistaken.

Correction:You not only brought religion into the discussion, but actually uttered "god" and then had the audacity to attribute it to me.Despicable.( yes, it was in post 42)

Yes I did ... in an analogy. Talk of religion bothers you? Did no such thing.

quote:

---

To posit otherwise without evidence is like saying there is a different god to control the properties of each individual atom. I wouldn't put it past you to believe this.

---

That attributes nothing to you. It questions your intellect.Nuance doesn't occur to you, does it.

Since we have two accurate (better than 5σ) measures of H₀ and they differ and their error bars do not overlap, that right there tells you something is not quite kosher.There are scientists that have questions about each measurement technique. And some question whether dark energy exists at all.Until more information is available the consensus from the evidence we do have is that all of space is expanding everywhere at about 70 km/s/Mpc.

So you went through all of these subtle slight of hands ( twisting my questions.twisting my words. then cluttering them), and you still are ducking the actual questions.The questions are essentially whether or not we have actual evidence for expansion of space at the galaxy level ( and lower).I know a direct answer to a direct question tends to trim 95% of words off your post, but that is your fault.

There is also the question of whether lumpy sections of the Universe see space expand like ithey do s in the vast void areas.Back to the difference between space with particles and space without and the relative effects of the interaction with Dark Energy.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

LNA asks again: Even one galaxy is too small for our sensors to measure this today. And even a local groups of galaxies, with their bobbing and weaving around, are too small. M31 in Andromeda is on a collision course with our Milky Way and the magnitude of that swamps out any space expansion. You need to go way further out.Edited by xongsmith, : "on", not "pn"

I remember hearing dozens of hypotheses about every single aspect of how the Universe works and every aspect of cosmology, which is basically the same thing. I remember hearing hypotheses about what astrophysicists thought the effect would be on the expansion of the Universe with different proportions of matter. You seem to think there was a consensus, but there never was because we didn't have enough data. In science there are always scientists who question each other's work.Scientists propose explanations for observations and everyone talks about them for a while and they turned every which way to see if they work. Sometimes they work and every time someone someone figures out a new way to test it their new data confirms it. Sometimes the observations start to look like their hypothesis is incomplete or even wrong.If you only heard one thing constantly then you were listening to the wrong people.

Plenty of solid equations showed that space was affected by matter. Even to this day, with Dark Energy thrown into the mix.Matter causes gravity to kick in. It not only slows the creation of space, but it can stop it enough to make it static.And enough matter, combined with other factors ( such as the factors involved in space expansion), can c as ise all of space to contract.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Then the evidence for creation of space in our Galaxy weakens.And it is really relevant to a Dark Energy discussion.Even the very existence of Dark Energy is based on assumptions. The biggest one is whether gravity has been correctly understood.

Yeah, you can't do any of this without math, but it also takes precision observations. Most of our observational power has been developed since then, covering the whole electromagnetic spectrum, plus gravitational waves.

You seem to be pissed off because there are limits to our knowledge. That's why we have dozens of new specialized telescopes and observing satellites coming on line. We're learning more all the time.This is the golden age of astronomy!