Starship Asterisk*

Alohascope wrote:
Well Art what do I know besides what 'they' (John Hopkins and NASA.)tell me? 'The Hubble Site.'
"With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip."
This from a site called 'The Hubble Site'
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php
"A free-standing science center, located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins University and operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for NASA."
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/

APOD Robot wrote:This tiny ball provides evidence that the universe will expand forever. [...] Today, evidence indicates that most of the energy density in the universe is in an unknown form dubbed dark energy. The form and genesis of dark energy is almost completely unknown, but postulated as related to vacuum fluctuations similar to the Casimir Effect but generated somehow by space itself.

tomatoherd wrote:Anyway, HOW does a force causing nanoscopic attraction contribute to cosmological expansion???

neufer wrote:

Alohascope wrote:
Well Art what do I know besides what 'they' (John Hopkins and NASA.)tell me? 'The Hubble Site.'
"With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip."
This from a site called 'The Hubble Site'
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php
"A free-standing science center, located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins University and operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for NASA."
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/

Well, it does state: "In the strangest and most speculative scenario"

If the cosmological constant is actually increasing with time it would seem that the sidereal year would also increase on the order of about 0.002 seconds per year (= 31,558,149.504 seconds/13,800,000,000 yr). Surely this would be noticed.

neufer wrote:

Alohascope wrote:
Well Art what do I know besides what 'they' (John Hopkins and NASA.)tell me? 'The Hubble Site.'
"With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip."
This from a site called 'The Hubble Site'
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php
"A free-standing science center, located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins University and operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for NASA."
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/

Well, it does state: "In the strangest and most speculative scenario"

If the cosmological constant is actually increasing with time it would seem that the sidereal year would also increase on the order of about 0.002 seconds per year (= 31,558,149.504 seconds/13,800,000,000 yr). Surely this would be noticed.

neufer wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimacassar wrote:

---

<<An antimacassar is a small cloth placed over the backs or arms of chairs, or the head or cushions of a sofa, to prevent soiling of the permanent fabric. The name also refers to the cloth flap 'collar' on a sailor's shirt/top, used to keep macassar oil off the uniform.

Macassar oil was an unguent for the hair commonly used in the early 19th century. The poet Byron called it "thine incomparable oil, Macassar." The fashion for oiled hair became so widespread in the Victorian and the Edwardian period that housewives began to cover the arms and backs of their chairs with washable cloths to preserve the fabric coverings from being soiled. Around 1850, these started to be known as antimacassars. They were also installed in theatres, from 1865.

They came to have elaborate patterns, often in matching sets for the various items of parlour furniture; they were either made at home using a variety of techniques such as crochet or tatting, or purchased. The original antimacassars were usually made of stiff white crochet-work, but in the third quarter of the 19th century they became simpler and softer, usually fabric embroidered with a simple pattern in wool or silk. Annie Chapman, the second canonical victim of Jack the Ripper, was said to have made antimacassars for a living shortly before she was murdered.>>

Alohascope wrote:Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

Martin wrote:
What is causing this effect to be an attractive force?

And what is the suspected correlation between this attractive force and the repelling force of dark energy?

geckzilla wrote:

Alohascope wrote:Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

You posted a link to Anthony Watts's website and some other one talking about scientists debunking the Big Bang or something like that. Definitely fringe stuff and not NASA or John Hopkins.

Alohascope wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Alohascope wrote:Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

You posted a link to Anthony Watts's website and some other one talking about scientists debunking the Big Bang or something like that. Definitely fringe stuff and not NASA or John Hopkins.

I checked back and can't find Anthony Watt's name or website in my posts .. I hadn't heard of him before you named his name.

Are you saying I did NOT post from NASA or John Hopkins?

Martin wrote:What is causing this effect to be an attractive force? And what is the suspected correlation between this attractive force and the repelling force of dark energy?

Markus Schwarz wrote:
The big problem with this is that
calculations yield an energy density 120 orders of magnitude above the observed value

geckzilla wrote:Yeah, I deleted the links. BB is always under serious question by serious scientists, but not widely or really at this forum since there aren't many people with the necessary skill to ask such questions in a meaningful way. You want to discuss parts of the BB you don't understand, fine. It's not sedition to be skeptical of mainstream science or anti-mainstream, it's just that it always gets us absolutely nowhere. That's why the rules were made to keep us on track as an educational and informative place rather than a place where confused and fruitless arguments occur.

Furthermore, I am once again reminded why we don't discuss the details of moderation in public as we've now derailed the thread. I do like to do this sometimes so that people can see more openly how moderation is handled and get a feel for the forum. I hope it did not bother you too much to have to be defensive for a moment in public. Anyway, please direct further questions to me via private message.

geckzilla wrote:You know nobody knows or cares who you are if you have an anonymous username or are an anonymous guest? You're already a "member" by choosing to participate, you just don't have the access to useful features. Some people just like to make things difficult...