Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energy

[Times Roman]

Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energy

These are the types of examples I'm always referring to that challenge what we know and what some of us consider a "fact". So we now have a good theory that debunks dark energy. The general thesis of the article....

"The passage of time would therefore be slower in the present and faster in the past."

This has huge implications if true.

Read on, then we can discuss when I have time....

Phys.org)—Dark energy is an unknown form of energy that is proposed to drive the accelerated expansion of the universe. A new study by University of Georgia professor Edward Kipreos suggests that changes in how people think about time dilation—the slowing of time predicted by Albert Einstein—can provide an alternate explanation of dark energy.

In the recent Hollywood film "Interstellar," a team of scientists travel through a wormhole in space to access planets with promising conditions to sustain life on Earth. One of the issues the team must grapple with is time dilation: each hour spent collecting data on a given planet is equal to seven years on Earth.

Einstein's general theory of relativity indicates that time dilation in response to gravity is directional in that an object in high gravity will have slower time than an object in low gravity. In contrast, Einstein's theory of special relativity describes reciprocal time dilation between two moving objects, such that both moving objects' times appear to be slowed down relative to each other.

The new paper makes the case that instead of being reciprocal, time dilation in response to movement is directional, with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.

The study, "Implication of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration," was published Dec. 23 in the journal PLOS ONE.


A molecular geneticist whose lab works on cell cycle regulation, Kipreos became interested in cosmology and the theory of special relativity several years ago. He says the phenomenon can be easily understood in the context of how Global Positioning System satellites work.

"The satellites, which travel in free-fall reference frames, are moving fast enough, in relation to the Earth, that you have to correct for their time being slowed down, based on their speed," he said. "If we didn't correct for that, then the satellites' GPS measurement would be off by a factor of two kilometers per day."

This simple example—GPS satellites sending out the time, which is then detected back on Earth, where the distance between the two is measured—is based on the theory of special relativity and the Lorentz Transformation, a mathematical map that describes how measurements of space and time by two observers are related.

"Special relativity is supposed to be reciprocal, where both parties will experience the same time dilation, but all the examples that we have right now can be interpreted as directional time dilation," Kipreos said. "If you look at the GPS satellites, the satellite time is slowing down, but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."

An alternative theory, the Absolute Lorentz Transformation, describes directional time dilation. Kipreos found that this theory is compatible with available evidence if the "preferred reference frame" for the theory, relative to which directional time dilation occurs, is linked to centers of gravitational mass. Near the Earth, the preferred reference frame would be the "Earth-centered non-rotating inertial reference frame," which is currently used to calculate the time dilation of GPS satellites.

"A strict application of the Absolute Lorentz Transformation to cosmological data has significant implications for the universe and the existence of dark energy," Kipreos said.

As the universe gets larger, cosmological objects, such as galaxies, move more rapidly away from each other in a process known as Hubble expansion. The Absolute Lorentz Transformation indicates that increased velocities induce directional time dilation. Applying this to the increased velocities associated with Hubble expansion in the present universe suggests a scenario in which the present experiences time dilation relative to the past. The passage of time would therefore be slower in the present and faster in the past.

Supernovas that explode with the same intensity are used as "standard candles" to measure cosmological distances based on how bright they appear. Supernovas that are relatively close to the Earth line up on a plot of distance (based on the redshift of light) and brightness. However, in 1998 and 1999, the observation that supernovas at greater distances are fainter than would be expected provided evidence that the rate of universe expansion has accelerated recently.

"The accelerated expansion of the universe has been attributed to the effects of dark energy," Kipreos said. "However, there is no understanding of what dark energy is or why it has manifested only recently.

"The predicted effects of time being faster in the past would have the effect of making the plot of supernovas become linear at all distances, which would imply that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the universe. In this scenario there would be no necessity to invoke the existence of dark energy."

[probuild42]

Thanks TR now I have a headache! To sum it up in theory as the universe expands time is slowing down and dark matter may not really exist?

Oh man, I'm going to go lift shit up and put down. This I understand!

[Times Roman]

Thanks TR now I have a headache! To sum it up in theory as the universe expands time is slowing down and dark matter may not really exist?

Oh man, I'm going to go lift shit up and put down. This I understand!

now let's discuss what was not in the article. reading between the lines so to speak......

............shall we?

The assumption of the article is that time has been slowing down, well, over time.

What some fail to realize, to a certain extent, is that the speed of light is also the speed of time. Another way of saying this is that as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. When you hit this theoretical limit, we call C, time stops. There is a very cozy correlation between the speed of light and the speed of time.

with me so far?

Everyone assumes that there is a big bang. Why? because the further back you look in time, objects seem to be moving away from you ever faster. So if you reverse the clock, er, the arrow of time, it would appear objects would be traveling towards one another.

Still with me?

But if time has been slowing down, when you look back in time, and based on the initial theorem, time passed more quickly.

And due to the correlation between time and the speed of light, if time was moving faster back then, then it stands to reason, light was traveling faster back then too.

So the universe is somehow slowing down. So if we look back in time to distant objects, then it too would seem reasonable that you would expect them to be moving away quicker the further back in time you look.

And if you are still with me, and this is somehow making sense, we now have posited a plausible argument against the big bang theory.

Those that can remember me yammering about the big bang, and how everyone just takes it for granted this is foundational theory, well, this is why I'm so skeptical about dovetailing theories together, each reliant on previous theories, to come up with a grand daddy theorem like the big bang. I'm not saying the big bang is wrong, what I am saying is are way too comfortable and taking it for granted that it is right.

The big bang is just a theory. And as our understanding of how the universe works, we may come to a point in time where we abandon the theory all together.

Like I've stated in my other threads, most can only see two possible options, either a big bang or a creator.

I'm now suggesting a third option.

And it's called, to quote a line from a famous Richard Prior movie....

"None of the above"


Make sense?

[Hoggage_54]

[lovbyts]

This article verifies what I and most people already know who are over 40. Time is speeding up. Remember how long the day felt when you were a kid compared to now?

"according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."


ObviouslyI dont agree with the last part of their theory of our time being slower.

[Times Roman]

This article verifies what I and most people already know who are over 40. Time is speeding up. Remember how long the day felt when you were a kid compared to now?

"according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."


ObviouslyI dont agree with the last part of their theory of our time being slower.

what I don't like about "dark energy" and "dark matter" is that the whole theory is based on a "mis-understanding" of what we know about physics.

In accounting, when you are running an equation, and the numbers don't add up they way you need them to, sometimes, when no one is looking, the accountant may "plug" a number into the data so that the equation does work.

And this is essentially what theoretical physicists are doing. They have created an equation based on the "known laws" of physics, and because shit don't add up the way they like, they plug a value into the equation so that this "equation" we are trying to make work, "works". Dark matter/energy has absolutely no factual basis. None. Other than it was inferred based on what we know about the laws of physics and that "things weren't adding up".

So they talk about these "plug numbers" as if they are real tangible attributes of the universe, when in reality, they have not yet made the transition from a math equation to anything we have even remotely observed.

This is a huge leap. By trying to substantiate these plug numbers, we are saying that we are more certain that our theory is more certain than not.

That's like betting the bank on god. We can never truly prove god exists (more on that elsewhere), and a scientist that is pragmatic would never make a leap of faith in any rational way on that subject. Yet, here they are, making a leap of faith with this theory of dark matter/energy. They talk about it with such certainty that most lay people assume the egg head physicists are right.

But there is NO certainty they are right.

And no one really questions them.

Why is that?

It's like some people never question their doctor, (but they should)

So why do we not question these theoretical physicists?

They make claims that we just take at face value?

Are they that arrogant?

Or is it that we are that naïve?