Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-05-24T17:42:34Z

Frobinson:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]]and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.(The previous statement is an Inferential logical fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.)
<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 35 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> Sound like [[global warming]]?
#The eccentricity of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by Jesus, described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that a fundamental constant of physics, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity". [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>
#The barn and ladder paradox: Person A has a ladder too long to store in his barn. Person B takes the ladder and runs very fast into the barn. For A, who is at rest with respect to the ladder, the ladder will contract, and if the velocity is fast enough, it will fit in the barn. But to B, who is moving with the ladder, it is the barn that will contract, making the problem even worse. So, who is correct? Does the ladder fit in the barn? This problem was considered in the book Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths, and the author, who supports Relativity, claim that both are correct. The ladder both fits and doesn’t fit in the barn. This is obviously against elementary rules of logic.
(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Dark energy

2011-05-24T17:36:55Z

Frobinson:

[[Image:56200main dark expansion-lg.jpg|300px|right]]The '''dark energy''' hypothesis is one of two concepts that [[Big Bang]] [[cosmology|cosmologists]] and [[astrophysicists]] to support the [[expanding universe]] theory. Along with [[dark matter]], it was invented to explain the most serious differences to date between [[astronomy|astronomical]] observations of an [[expanding universe]] and their own expectations. It is "the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate";<ref>[http://www.encyclopediaproject.net/wiki/Dark_energy New World Encyclopedia]</ref> Astronomers and cosmologists have been speculating on the nature of this dark energy for around {{years ago|1998}} years.

== The problem ==
In 1998, the Supernova Cosmology Project observed 42 Type Ia supernovae, most of these from the ground, in an effort to measure the rate of deceleration of the expansion of the [[universe]].<ref name=scp>Perlmutter S., Aldering G., Goldhaber G., ''et al.'' "Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae." ''Astrophys. J.'' 517 (1999) 565-586. {{arXiv|astro-ph/9812133v1}} Accessed July 26, 2008</ref> (Type Ia supernovae are objects of easily discernible brightness and thus are favorite objects for standardization of [[redshift]] and hence of the speed of expansion.) These supernovae were actually much dimmer than expected, a finding that indicated an ''acceleration'' of expansion, not the deceleration that gravitational attraction would produce. A competing group, the High-Z Supernova Search Team, reported similar results from their observations of 14 other supernovae.<ref name=hiz>Reiss AG, Filippenko AV, Challis P, ''et al.'' "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant." ''Astron. J.'' 116 (1998) 1009-1038. {{arXiv|astro-ph/9805201v1}} Accessed July 26, 2008</ref> (The symbol ''z'' stands for [[redshift]] in this context.) The findings of an accelerated universe came as a profound surprise to all interested observers and commentators.<ref name=Newman>Newman P, and Tyler P, eds. "[http://universe.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html Beyond Einstein: What is the Mysterious Dark Energy Pulling the Universe Apart]?" [[NASA]], n.d. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> More recent surveys have shown that the discrepancy persists.<ref name=Reiss>Reiss AG, ''et al.'', "Type Ia supernovae discoveries at z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution", ''Ap. J.'' '''607''':665-687, 2004</ref><ref name=Astier>Astier P, ''et al.'', "The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of Ωm, ΩΛ, and w from the First Year Data Set," ''A&A'' '''447''':31-48, 2006</ref>

==Young Earth Creation Science solution==
[[John Hartnett]], in ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]],''<ref name=Hartnett>Hartnett, John. ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]''. Creation Book Publishers, 2007. ISBN 9780949906687.</ref> reminds his readers that Moshe Carmeli first formed a new model, called [[Cosmological Relativity]], and through this model predicted that the universe would in fact appear to be accelerating. He made this prediction in 1996, ''two years before'' the publication of the Type Ia supernova data and the introduction of the idea of "dark energy" into cosmological discussions. In making this prediction, Carmeli ''did not'' invoke either dark energy or dark matter.

Hartnett extended Carmeli's model and discarded several assumptions that Carmeli initially had thought were safe. This included the assumption that the matter density of the universe is at the critical level for a "coasting" universe.

The full derivation of Hartnett's field equation that describes the motion of far-off objects is included in Appendix 2 of his book. Briefly, Hartnett begins with Moshe Carmeli's [[Cosmological Relativity]], which adds a dimension of the radial velocity of a far-off object to the Einsteinian dimensions of space and time. This radial velocity is related to the distance of the object by this equation:

<math>v = \bigg( \frac{1}{\tau} \bigg) r</math>

where <math>\tau</math> is a constant (evaluated at 4.28 * 1017 s) that is the reciprocal of the Hubble factor ''H''0 in weak gravity.<ref>Evolutionistic astronomers might assume that this value gives the age of the universe; it does in fact give a value very close to the visible radius of the universe, measured in light-years. It probably does represent a value that an observer at the limits of the visible universe might measure for its age—because the Carmeli-Hartnett system ''also'' predicts tremendous time dilation at the center of the expansion.</ref>

Adding this dimension requires adding a new term to the classic space-time interval, and so:

<math>ds^2 = \Bigg( 1 + \frac{\Phi}{c^2}\Bigg)c^2dt^2 - dr^2 + \Bigg(1 + \frac{\Psi}{\tau^2}\Bigg) \tau^2 dv^2</math>

where r is the distance of the object from [[earth]] (or more properly, our [[galaxy]]).

An observation of a far-off object is typically made at a given moment and from a given place, and so ds=dt=0. So the above equation simplifies to:

<math> - dr^2 + \Bigg(1 + \frac{\Psi}{\tau^2}\Bigg) \tau^2 dv^2 = 0</math>

Carmeli's solution is:

<math>\frac{dr}{dv} = \tau \sqrt{1 + (1 - \Omega ) \frac{r^2}{c^2\tau^2}}</math>

where <math>\Omega</math> is the mass-energy density fraction of the universe. Specifically, <math>\Omega = \rho/\rho_c</math>, where <math>\rho_c</math> is the ''critical'' mass density, above which the universe would be closed and destined to collapse.

The integral of the above equation, expressed in dimensionless numbers, is:

<math>\frac{r}{c\tau} = \frac{\sinh(\beta \sqrt{1-\Omega})}{\sqrt{1-\Omega}}</math>

where <math>\beta</math> = <math>v/c</math> is the radial velocity of the object, as a fraction of the [[speed of light]]. This fraction is itself a function of the [[redshift]] of the object (symbol: z):

<math>\beta = \frac{(1+z)^2 + 1}{(1+z)^2 - 1}</math>

The key fact is that the matter density anywhere in the universe is ''also'' a function of redshift. In the simple case of "flat" space,

<math>\,\Omega = \Omega_m(1+z)^3</math>

where <math>\Omega_m</math> is the weighted-average mass-energy density of the universe in the present [[epoch]].

Hartnett tested these equations against the High-Z Supernova Search Team data. To do this, he used these equations to convert <math>r/c\tau</math> to an absolute magnitude:

<math>\,m(z) = M + 5 \log D_L (z;\Omega)</math>

Here,

<math>D_L (z;\Omega) = \frac{(1+z)}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}\frac{r}{c\tau}</math>

is an independent luminosity distance, and

<math>M = 5 \log \bigg(\frac{c\tau}{Mpc}\bigg) + 25 + M_B + a</math>

where <math>M_B</math> is the highest absolute magnitude of any given supernova and <math>c\tau</math> is expressed in mega[[parsec]]s.

Recall that <math>\beta</math> is a function of z, and r is sensitive to the mass-energy density fraction.

Hartnett plotted the difference <math>M-M_B</math> against redshift for the supernovas studied most recently by Riess and Astier<ref name=Reiss/><ref name=Astier/>. He then adjusted the parameters <math>a</math> and <math>\Omega_m</math> to achieve the best statistical fit to the observations. He obtained these values:

<math>\,a = 0.2284</math>

and

<math>\,\Omega_m = 0.0401</math>

The second value is consistent with a mass-energy density that is four percent of critical. This is about twice as much matter as Fukugita ''et al.'' have determined that the universe has within it, but also at the upper limit of the range of that value.<ref name=baryon>Fukugita M, Hogan CJ, and Peebles PJE, "The cosmic baryon budget", ''Ap. J.'' '''503''':518-530, 1998</ref> It is also the same as the fraction of mass-energy in the universe that most evolutionists now believe to be composed of ordinary or baryonic matter (see below).

Hartnett's model thus predicts as much mass-energy as other astronomers have already estimated that the universe has, and no more, within the limits of that estimate.

== Evolutionist/uniformitarian view ==
=== The dark energy concept ===
Reiss, Astier, and their respective teams did not use this model. Instead, they relied upon the Friedmann-Lemaître cosmological model. That model predicted far more mass-energy than the universe possesses, beyond any rational estimate.

Saul Perlmutter, Michael Turner, and Martin White appear to have coined the term '''dark energy''' to name the phenomenon that is causing the apparent acceleration that they found.<ref name=neolog>Perlmutter S, Turner MS, and White M. "Constraining dark energy with SNe Ia and large-scale structure." ''Phys. Rev. Lett.'' 83 (1999) 670-673. {{arXiv|astro-ph/9901052v2}} Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> The term appears again in the more comprehensive paper of Bahcall, Ostriker, Perlmutter, and Steinhardt, that proposes that a heretofore unsuspected form of energy "overcomes the gravitational self-attraction of matter and causes the expansion [of the universe] to speed up."<ref name=triangle>Bahcall NA, Ostriker JP, Perlmutter S, and Steinhardt PJ. "The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe." ''Science'' 28 May 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5419, pp. 1481-1488. {{doi|10.1126/science.284.5419.1481}} Accessed July 26, 2008</ref><ref name=Preuss>Preuss P. "[http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/dark-energy.html Dark Energy Fills the Cosmos]." ''ScienceBeat'', Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, June 1, 1999. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref>

In 2001, Reiss and his colleagues used the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] to capture on film the furthest supernova then seen, SN1997ff, at a distance of 10 billion light-years. The magnitude and redshift of this object were consistent with a decelerating expansion. This is consistent with the model that Reiss and others were forming at the time, stating that the expansion of the universe was initially decelerating and later accelerated after its matter density dropped below a critical level.<ref name=Lloyd>Lloyd, Robin. "[http://ww.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/farthest_supernova_010402.html Farthest Supernova Detected, 'Dark Energy' Suspected]." ''<http://ww.space.com/>'' April 2, 2001. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref>

In 2003, a survey of 11 Type Ia supernovae by the HST confirmed the earlier findings of an accelerated expansion of the universe. Astronomers consider this the most definitive evidence to date for the existence of dark energy.<ref name=HubbleConf>Knop RA, Aldering G, Amanullah R, ''et al.'' "New Constraints on $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST" ''Astrophys. J.'' 598 (2003) 102 {{arXiv|astro-ph/0309368v1}} Accessed July 26, 2008</ref>

=== Nature of dark energy ===
[[Image:DarkMatterNASA1.jpg|300px|right]]Dark energy today is inferred, not detected. The calculated quantity of dark energy is the apparent excess of [[energy]] that somehow abruptly accelerated the expansion of the [[universe]]. Current estimates of the time that has passed since this acceleration occurred vary from 5<ref name=Chaikin>Chaikin, Andrew. "[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darknrg_020115-1.html Dark Energy: Astronomers Still 'Clueless' About Mystery Force Pushing Galaxies Apart ]." ''Space.com'', January 15, 2002. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> to 7.5 billion years.<ref name=Williams>Williams G. "[http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy Dark Energy, Dark Matter]." Science Mission Directorate, [[NASA]], May 15, 2008. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref><ref name=nasa1>Authors unknown. "[http://www.nasa.gov/missions/deepspace/f_dark-energy.html Dark energy changes the universe]." [[NASA]], February 27, 2004. Accessed July 25, 2008.</ref>

[[Naturalism|Naturalistic]] cosmologists estimate that 70 percent of the total energy in the universe consists of dark energy.<ref name=Williams/> [[Dark matter]] occupies another 25 percent. The remaining portion is the familiar, or baryonic matter of which all objects are made.<ref name=nasa1/>

[[Uniformitarianism|Uniformitarian]] cosmologists have three theories of what form this energy might take:
# It is a fundamental property of the universe, as [[Albert Einstein]] originally suggested. Einstein's original idea was that this force, which he called a "cosmological constant," would exactly counterbalance [[gravity]] and thus keep all galaxies and other objects of similar size in the same place. Einstein initially discarded his own findings after [[Edwin Hubble]] showed that the universe was expanding. Some modern cosmologists suggest that Einstein might have been right after all.<ref name=Lloyd/><ref name=Preuss/><ref name=Williams/><ref name=nasa1/><ref name=Chaikin/>
# It is a previously unknown type of energy fluid or field, and perhaps even a fifth elemental force, in addition to the previously known four forces of gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Some scientists name this new force "quintessence" (literally, fifth essence), a term that ancient Greek philosophers once coined for a fifth "element" of nature in addition to the four elements that they thought they knew (fire, [[atmosphere|air]], [[earth]], and [[water]]).<ref name=Preuss/><ref name=Williams/>
# It is not a new property or force but a manifestation of an error of our understanding of an old one, namely gravity.<ref name=Preuss/><ref name=Williams/>

=== Implications of dark energy ===
[[Image:56197main dark schematic-lg.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Three suggested fates of the universe]]Evolutionistic cosmologists have thus far realized only that their understanding of cosmology is incomplete. They now know that the universe is expanding, that this expansion is accelerating, and that their existing models cannot account for this acceleration or begin to suggest a cause. They believe also that dark energy can explain the current temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.<ref name=Chaikin/><ref name=WMAP>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold, B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html WMAP Mission Results]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> But they are no closer to defining the nature of dark energy than they were when Perlmutter ''et al.'' first coined the term.

This has not stopped them from speculating on what might happen to the universe in the future. They currently recognize three possibilities:<ref name=nasa1/>
# The universe will expand indefinitely and isolate our galaxy.<ref name=Chaikin/>
# The "quintessential" substance will reverse its repulsive effect and become attractive. This will stop the expansion and contract the universe into a point, an event they call the "Big Crunch."
# The universe will expand rapidly enough to tear the fabric of space and ultimately cause all baryonic matter to disintegrate, an event they call the "Big Rip."

Other scientists raise the question of whether the proportion of dark energy in the universe is a fundamental quantity of space. If it is not, they say, then this universe is only one of many.<ref name=Britt>Britt RR. "[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040531.html Dark Energy Tied to Human Origins]." ''Space.com'', May 31, 2004. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref>

== Criticisms of the dark energy concept ==
===Creationist criticism===
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] wrote the following about the concept of dark energy:
{{cquote|Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the [[universe]] together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured. We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.” Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the [[big Bang theory|big bang theory]].<ref>Brown, Walt, "[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang]?", ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 8th ed., 2008</ref>}}

Dark energy is a mathematical convenience. Some authorities admit that it may never be detectable. One reason why no one would ever detect it is that it represents an error. [[Evolution]]istic cosmologists have admitted that dark energy might represent an error of their understanding of gravity. Creationists suggest that the error is far more fundamental.

=== Secular criticism ===
David Cline wrote in ''[[Scientific American]]'' in 2003 the following:{{cquote|We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, [[dark matter]] and dark energy, serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.<ref name=Cline>David B. Cline, "The Search for Dark Matter," ''Scientific American'', Vol. 288, March 2003, p. 52.. Cited in Brown, Walt, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes54.html#wp1458731 Big Bang]?" ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 8th ed., 2008.</ref>}} Similarly, David Shiga authored an article in 2007 published by ''[[New Scientist]]'' titled "Is Dark Energy an Illusion?".<ref name=Shiga>Shiga D, "[http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11498-is-dark-energy-an-illusion.html Is Dark Energy an Illusion]?" ''New Scientist'', March 30, 2007. Accessed January 6, 2009.</ref>

=== A Competing Secular Explanation ===
Timothy Clifton, at Oxford University, said in an interview published at Space.com on October 1, 2008 that the solar system might be enclosed in a volume of space having a disproportionate lack of matter. According to his "void model," light from far-distant objects appears dim, not because the objects are retreating from the earth or even because the cosmos is expanding, but because the void condition does not focus the light as a matter-filled cosmos normally would. Clifton expresses one misgiving about his model that clearly reveals his worldview, however: it would negate the so-called Copernican Principle and require astronomers and cosmologists to regard the earth as a special place.<ref name=Clifton>Moskowitz, Clara. "[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble]. Space.com, October 1, 2008. Hosted on <http://www.foxnews.com/>. Accessed October 1, 2008.</ref>

== Proposed investigations ==
Fermilab's Experimental Astrophysics Group has proposed a Dark Energy Survey, using a special 500-megapixel camera mounted on a ground-based telescope.<ref name=DES>Authors unknown. "[https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/ The Dark Energy Survey]." Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref>

NASA and the [[United States]] Department of Energy have also proposed a Joint Dark Energy Mission, essentially a new, very-high-resolution space telescope. Three different telescope designs are now under study.<ref name=jdem>Newman P and Tyler P. "[http://universe.nasa.gov/program/probes/jdem.html Beyond Einstein: The Joint Dark Energy Mission]." [[NASA]], n.d. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> Timothy Clifton, the proponent of the "void model" mentioned above, hopes that observations by JDEM might provide a reliable test of his model.<ref name=Clifton/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/glossary.shtml Relativity Calculator - Glossary ]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[category:physics]]

New Evidence in Support of Dark Energy:
First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy.

Dark energy makes up some 74% of the Universe and its existence would explain why the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

The finding was based on studies of more than 200,000 galaxies.

Scientists used two separate kinds of observation to provide an independent check on previous dark energy results.

Two papers by an international team of researchers have been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society journal.

One type of observation used by the astronomers involves measuring a pattern in how galaxies are distributed in space. This pattern is known by the term "baryon acoustic oscillations".

The second type of observation involves measuring how quickly clusters of galaxies have formed over time. Both of these techniques confirmed the existence of dark energy and the acceleration in the expansion of the Universe.

The concept of dark energy was first invoked in the late 1990s by studying the brightness of distant supernovas - exploding stars.

Einstein was right

To explain why the expansion of the Universe was speeding up, astronomers had to either rewrite Albert Einstein's theory of gravity or accept that the cosmos was filled with a novel type of energy.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said co-author Dr Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.

"The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

The Anglo-Australian telescope was used in the galaxy survey
The latest findings have come from a galaxy survey project called WiggleZ, which began in 2006 and finished this year. WiggleZ used data from Nasa's Galaxy Evolution Explorer (Galex) space telescope and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in Australia.

The survey mapped the distribution of galaxies in an unprecedented volume of the Universe, looking eight billion years back in time - more than half the age of the Universe.

Cosmologist Bob Nicholl, who was not involved with the research, told BBC News: "This is a major step forward. These guys are serious, major scientists and we've been waiting for this result for some time.

The professor of astrophysics at Portsmouth University, UK, added: "It's re-confirmation of dark energy, it gives us another data point to fit our theories around and it shows us the way to the future. More astronomers are going to be doing this in years to come."

While dark energy makes up about 74% of the Universe, dark matter - which does not reflect or emit detectable light - accounts for 22%. Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up just 4% of the cosmos.

However, despite scientists being able to infer the existence of dark energy and dark matter, these phenomena still elude a full explanation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926