Dark Energy?

I suppose if I think about it enough, I might be able to explain global warning using this quantum mechanics.

What has been the temperature rise (globally) over the last ten years? Anyone got any very hard scientific proof that its catastrophic or is it just something that happens on a cyclical basis regardless of the "human factor", or has it in fact remained constant or even declined? In fact CO2 increases lag a good 50 years behind temperature increases based on ice core studies over the last 2,500 years (so are not in fact the cause but rather the result of warming). Fact: the last mini ice-age happened during the Maunder minimum a period when there were no recorded sunspots for nearly 100 years. I'm all for cleaning up this planet and reducing pollution but please don't use the "myth" of global warming to convince people. Then again maybe "people" are stupid enough to believe the clap trap thats spouted and it will all have a beneficial effect in that they reduce polluting (people generally only think in soundbites and what the media push as fact).

Gravity - a simple explanation. It is not a force. It is merely the result of matter curving spacetime. Why? - we don't know yet. A body will continue in a staight line unless acted upon by a force. No force causes a planet to orbit the Sun, it is merely the planet carrying on in a straight line through curved spacetime. Hence an elliptical or circular orbit, depending on the curvature of spacetime.

Far as i know and understand GRAVITY is a force. There is no bending of space and time involved. We will leave that to black holes.

Planetation gravitational pull (as we know it) keeps all the planets moons in orbit around the planets.

Hence an elliptical or circular orbit, depending on the curvature of spacetime.

I dont agree. I think it is all based upon the strength of the gravitational pull of the bodies involved.

Strong pull= circular orbit............................weaker pull= eliptical orbit.


Lets not start bending time and space until it has been proven that it can be done. To bend time and space...........................you venture into the realm of time travel and worm holes.

Which i for one cant/dont accept as ever being a reality.

I do however think that mankind WILL one day achieve faster then light speed travel.

Gravity - a simple explanation. It is not a force.

You must be redefining English, because the dictionary definition, according to multiple dictionaries is:
'A force of attraction that exists between objects'.

If you want to redefine the English language then fine, assign a name to the phenomenon you are talking about, but don't call it gravity - that is already assigned to a very specific term. That is the reason why it may not exist. It is a set term. It must be 100% accurate to that term. You cannot change the theory and make it no longer follow the terminology, it will then become a new term, i.e. not gravity.

Are we getting stuck on semantics here?

I think what John is saying is that the classical theory of gravity as a force was that it was thought the body itself exerted a gravitational force directly on other bodies which is what Paul still 'believes'. What Einstein 'proves' is that its actually more like the mass of the body exerts a force on the fabric of space time rather than exerting the force on the other body. Think of a basket ball on a trampoline. Now roll a tennis ball towards it. What happens to the tennis ball as it passes the dip around the basketball. The Tennis ball changes trajectory. The gravitation of the basket ball has affected the tennis balls course. The dimple in the trampoline has affected the tennis balls course........The dimple/curveture in space time caused by the basketball has affected the tennisballs course. What happens when you put the tennis ball in the midddle of the tramplone and roll the basketball towards it. Same thing but the basketballs trajectory is much less affected by the smaller dimple caused by the tennisball. Bigger mass, bigger dimple in spacetime bigger gravitational affect. Very simple explanation that fudges some of the reality etc but it gets the basic point across I think.

My parents made babies, it has since been discovered that my theory of making babies was wrong and it was not the stork that delivers them but they are made via some other method. Guess I better come up with a different term and scrap the making babies term

i]You must be redefining English, because the dictionary definition, according to multiple dictionaries is:
'A force of attraction that exists between objects'.

If you want to redefine the English language then fine, assign a name to the phenomenon you are talking about, but don't call it gravity - that is already assigned to a very specific term. That is the reason why it may not exist. It is a set term. It must be 100% accurate to that term. You cannot change the theory and make it no longer follow the terminology, it will then become a new term, i.e. not gravity.[/i]

Thats the puzzle. As we understand it...............dark matter/energry acts upon objects in the complete opposite way to gravity (as we know it).

Hence i feel dark matter/energy should be referred to as "anti-gravity"

I am glad I started this thread, I realise that there are many disiplines that I have got knowlwdge of whatsoever. I do believe that most things are ultimately simple - with just the explanation being complicated. I like the illusion theory caus I suffer from a lot of them darn things meself.

Like the ancients, we might as well argue about the wind, they believed that the trees shaking was the cause of the wind and not the other way around. I wonder if we will ultimately discover the same about dark energy.
It's an illusion :shock:

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas"