Starship Asterisk*

"Research by University of Arizona astronomy professor Rodger Thompson finds that a popular alternative to Albert Einstein’s theory for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not fit newly obtained data on a fundamental constant, the proton to electron mass ratio.
"Thompson's findings, reported at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Long Beach, Calif., impact our understanding of the universe and point to a new direction for the further study of its accelerating expansion."

http://uanews.org/story/dark-energy-alt ... g-out-room

Maybe we don't need no dark matter to explain the accelerating expansion here-abouts? There goes my favorite hypothesis, that the early universe was expanding more rapidly 13 billion years ago, but that accelerating expansion might have slowed down now. We can't know the answer because the information to confirm or refute that notion has yet to arrive. Proton/electron mass ratio is a new one on me.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news ... 12413.aspx
(I couldn't find a recording of his presentation, perhaps available only to AAS members.)

Psnarf wrote:Maybe we don't need no dark matter to explain the accelerating expansion here-abouts?

Dark matter?

Chris Peterson wrote:

Psnarf wrote:Maybe we don't need no dark matter to explain the accelerating expansion here-abouts?

Dark matter?

Dark energy

saturno2 wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Psnarf wrote:Maybe we don't need no dark matter to explain the accelerating expansion here-abouts?

Dark matter?

Dark energy

Psnarf used up all his dark energy researching dark matter. Now he's pooped

(Sorry I couldn't get back sooner, I was dealing with a catastrophic hard drive failure. Kept making a high-pitched noise, probably the heads in contact with the platters trying to seek sector zero. After its use as a paperweight, I'll open it up and wrap a removed platter with a melted toothbrush to make a mirror. I briefly held a toothbrush in boiling water to make a thumb-pick.)

Matter, energy; it's all the same. Does "dark" mean it is beyond the range of the visible, or we simply cannot detect it? Is it electromagnetic in nature? "Energy" is defined as the ability to do work, at least that's what my physics professors kept on about. Yes, the third paragraph does indeed refer to astrophysicists' hand-waving trying to invoke dark energy. I was unsuccessful in my search for dark energy. None of the local electronics shops had any in stock. Rather like Monty Python's cheese shop sketch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0

μ = mp/me = 1,836.15267245

mass of proton by mass of neutro 1836 this number seems familiar



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... 40&bih=809

I humbly apologise for dismissing the dark side so flippantly. I didn't know that 73% of the entire universe is dark matter; 23% dark energy; about 5% everything else.
Source: NASA JPL lecture by Dr. Jason Rhodes (US NASA Science lead, Euclid Project), January 17 on NASA JPL Live

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/28594019
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/28594019/theater
--
Obquote:
"Hey, Luke! Join the Dark Side, eh?" SCTV.

Psnarf wrote:I humbly apologise for dismissing the dark side so flippantly. I didn't know that 73% of the entire universe is dark matter; 23% dark energy; about 5% everything else.

It's the other way around: 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter.