Dark Energy Theory

50431 views
198 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May, 2009
Dark Energy Theory
Posted by TAET on Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:14 PM

                                           DARK ENERGY
                     "THE ATOMIC EMISSION THEORY"

 A Proposed Explanation and Model Of Dark Energy

I am an amateur scientist, and believe I do not yet possess the experience and qualifications to be comfortable in preparing a formal paper for a journal, but feel comfortable in expressing my idea here in a forum.

I have recently developed a Theory I believe which may explain what Dark Energy is, and where it comes from. I would like to express my Theory here for open feedback, both positive and constructive, to the fellow readers. After some research and reading, I believe my Theory is both original and, above all, the correct solution to the Dark Energy enigma.

I call my idea, “The Atomic Emission Theory (TAET)”.

Briefly, Dark Energy (DE) are the emissions produced as a waste product, from all atoms. Like a car engine running, producing waste emissions and expelling it from it's exhaust pipe, so does the atom. From here now, the atom is viewed as a kind of micro engine. An Atomic Engine (AE). Continually running, the AE produces its own emission we refer to as DE. These emissions are expelled out from the atom in all directions, and are not able to re-enter the atom due to the continual buildup and outward pressure of the DE within the atom itself. Each different atom produces a slightly different amount of DE determined by its Relative Atomic Mass (RAM). But for simplicity of the explanation I will refer to a generalised unit of DE for all atoms, to be the same. But if the AE is expelling a waste product, then does it not also need an energy source to maintain it? More on this further down.

The amount, and the pressure of the DE produced is less than that of electrostatic forces, covalent bonds, or gravity. The integrity of the atom, their bonds with each other, and gravity are still maintained, even to the larger scales of people, planets, stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters.

As the DE is being squeezed out from the AE due to its continual production, it makes it's way past and around other AE's until it reaches an area of lesser density. DE continually moves from dense areas towards lesser dense areas. For example, DE builds up within a rock. As the DE becomes denser, the outer layers of the rocks' DE are pushed out further and further, creating a larger and larger DE bubble. A kind of a square dance occurs between the DE from deep inside the rock with it's neighboring AE's which are also producing their own DE. This dance continues all the way to the lesser dense area of the rock, and eventually out. All this occurs because the AE's are continually making more and more DE causing more and more pressure. But yet it is still not strong enough to rip the atoms, or their bonds with each other apart.

DE has been continually produced since atoms were in existence. DE is not absorbed by atoms or any other objects (It has not yet been determined if Black Holes adsorb DE or not. Mathematical modeling would be required to determine if this is, or isn't the case. From here on in, we will make the supposition that Black Holes DO NOT adsorb DE.).

DE has therefore been continuously filling the universe with time. Since DE cannot be re-absorbed back into atoms, it therefore exerts a pressure against them. And since atoms can be bound together with electrostatic forces, other bonds and gravity which are stronger than the DE's force, the DE therefore exerts a pressure on the Entire Combined Unit (ECU) as a whole. If the ECU is not bound to another ECU through electrostatic forces or gravity, then it may be pushed into a determined direction. A push into a determined direction, and its speed at which the ECU travels, is determined by the amount of DE that is being produced, and the surrounding environment.

Let us look at an example of three galaxies (3 ECUs) which are far enough apart that they are NOT locked in together with gravity. Picture the three galaxies at the three points of a virtual triangle all equally spaced apart. Because a galaxy is entirely locked in together with gravity to produce one single ECU, that galaxy is therefore producing one combined DE bubble as a whole. The DE is continually being pushed outwards from its host galaxy in all directions. As each galaxy's DE bubble expands, the inside of the virtual triangle of galaxies will eventually become filled with approximately three times the density of DE, as apposed to the outside of the virtual triangle which will approximately get one and two times the density of DE. Therefore the pressure of DE on the inside of the triangle will be greater than the outside of the triangle, thus allowing the gravitationally UNLOCKED galaxies to be pushed apart in equal and opposite directions. As the three galaxies keep producing more and more DE, they will keep being pushed further and further apart. This process will continue to separate the galaxies until other encroaching galaxies or galaxy clusters come close enough to effect them with their gravity or DE bubble. The universe keeps expanding.

This is the Theory in a nutshell. But then what about the energy required to run the AE's which produce the DE. After some thought, I come to the conclusion that each atom may come already pre-packed with its entire energy supply built into itself. Whether string theory may help solve this dilemma I am unsure. But if atoms do come with their own energy pre-packed, then that would lead to the conclusion that all atoms will eventually run out of their energy, and thus eventually stop producing DE. If they stop running what happens to the atoms then? Do they fall apart into their constituents and drift around, or be pushed around throughout the Universe? Are these constituent parts then the Dark Matter (DM) which is spread throughout the Universe? There is some evidence leading towards this hypothesis. We often experience and see atoms which break down and loose some of themselves. Radioactive decay occurs with carbon 14 giving it a half-life of 5730 years, the radioisotope 40K has a half-life of 1.28 x 109 years, and others such as 87Rb and the nuclides thorium 232, uranium 238 and uranium 235 also decay with time.

My mathematical skills are quite rudimentary and have therefore not even attempted to do the complex mathematical calculations required to substantiate my Theory. My Theory is fully based on past research, reading, experience, and what I believe to be an elegant and logical solution. I look forward to any feedback received.

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:31 PM

As a thought experiment, I find it very interesting.

I think where you'd want to concentrate next is on the energy balance: if the atoms "come with" their total energy supply (all they need for their natural state, plus all the excess that will bleed off as the "waste" DE component you propose), then where is that energy "now"? On balance, there is a certain amount of mass-equivalent energy we can calculate for the Universe. But it is much less than would be required to provide the observable effects of expansion. That means the balance can't be in baryonic mass. If it were in dark matter, then the baryonic atoms would need a way to communicate with it ... a way to bridge the gap.

So, you'd need that mechanism to provide the energy from the dark matter to the baryonic matter as part of the normal course of running the atomic engines.

Supposing this transfer actually takes place (either between DM and BM or between BM and some other source), then the balance will be upset if we don't have a mechanism to explain it.

We're also missing some way to see and measure it ... otherwise we're still in the same box we started in (it looks like magic).

As an name for it, Atomic Emission doesn't seem quite right, since there are other atomic emissions that are quite well known -- and this is not. I would agree that Atomic Waste Theory doesn't exactly conjure up favorable images, but something other than TAET is probably advisable, so as not to confuse the issue.

Welcome to the Forum.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:37 PM

chipdatajeffB

As a thought experiment, I find it very interesting.

I think where you'd want to concentrate next is on the energy balance: if the atoms "come with" their total energy supply (all they need for their natural state, plus all the excess that will bleed off as the "waste" DE component you propose), then where is that energy "now"? On balance, there is a certain amount of mass-equivalent energy we can calculate for the Universe. But it is much less than would be required to provide the observable effects of expansion. That means the balance can't be in baryonic mass. If it were in dark matter, then the baryonic atoms would need a way to communicate with it ... a way to bridge the gap.

So, you'd need that mechanism to provide the energy from the dark matter to the baryonic matter as part of the normal course of running the atomic engines.

Supposing this transfer actually takes place (either between DM and BM or between BM and some other source), then the balance will be upset if we don't have a mechanism to explain it.

We're also missing some way to see and measure it ... otherwise we're still in the same box we started in (it looks like magic).

As an name for it, Atomic Emission doesn't seem quite right, since there are other atomic emissions that are quite well known -- and this is not. I would agree that Atomic Waste Theory doesn't exactly conjure up favorable images, but something other than TAET is probably advisable, so as not to confuse the issue.

Welcome to the Forum.

Thankyou. Yes I also didn't think Waste Theory was a favourable choice. Excretion and secretion to name just a few were also ruled out. Though will keep an open view to a better decriptive name.

As for the energy and where is it 'now', I really have no idea. Whether 'String Theory' can eventually supply a solution to that delema I am unsure. Maybe it could it be tucked away within the atom in a theorised other dimension? The mechanism with which the internaly stored energy is used and then converted into waste is still undeveloped and unkown.

I did though come up with a potential exeriment to determine if atoms do produce a waste product such as DE. A very expensive one at that. It would require a dense material such as gold to be made into a large 10 metre diameter sphere with a very small hollow chamber in the centre. The chamber has deep corrogations to allow maximum surface area with minimum chamber volume. In the centre of the chamber would be a precise and sensitive pressure gauge. The entire unit would be placed in a very highly toleranced pressure and temperature controlled room. This again would be placed within another 2 more similar rooms for added control. Over a period of about 3 years I would expect the pressure gauge to measure a slow increase in chamber pressure. It may take as high as 10 years and the sphere may also need to be larger. The theory is that the DE would seep out of the sphere and also into the centre. This would greatly depend on how fast the DE is secreted. The sphere would need to be large enough to supply some back pressure, back towards the centre chamber. It is also unkown how easily DE would pass around other AEs. What is the seepage ratio (movement past other AEs) as apposed to the secretion ratio (how fast is it coming out of the atoms)? This experiment may indirectly tell us if atoms are expelling a waste product such as DE or not.

All theoretical of course. Any thoughts?

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Monday, May 18, 2009 5:52 PM

On contemplating the Theory name some more I thought of what may be a better suited official discriptive title, "The Atomic Dark Energy Emission Theory (TADEET)". It seems to describe the essence of the theory in full . And for around the water cooler, gym room, and the bar, the shortened version that some may prefer, "The Atomic Emission Theory (TAET)" may still be used.

Cheers.

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:16 AM

Q.) Why are both the Pioneer spacecrafts slowing down more than what they should be?

A.) Possibly due to the Dark Energy Emission theorised to be being expelled from atoms. If TADEET is correct (the experiment mentioned above can give supporting evidence for it), than that could explain the Pioneer anomaly. The Dark Energy (DE) throughout our Solar System is continually growing and slowly moving out. The Pioneer spacecraft though are travelling faster than the growth rate of DE in our Solar System. This therefore means that the spacecrafts are trying to travel faster, and through the Solar Systems DE bubble. Because DE can produce pressure against atoms and Entire Combined Units (ECUs), the spacecraft therefore are pushing through and against the very thin DE soup, causing them to slow down! The spacecraft should continue to slow down until they lose all their excess momentum, when they will then begin to coast with, and at the same speed, as what the DE is travelling at. But once out of the Solar Systems' DE slip stream and into the Galaxys' DE slip stream, who knows what speeds they will be pushed to.

  • Member since
    March, 2009
Posted by Dantom on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:55 AM

Some Questions:

Would an atom be able to produce two or three times its own mass in waste, without reducing its own mass? It would need to produce something like that amount to account for the amount of dark matter that is supposed to exist.

The majority of the atoms that make up our planet are  trapped under the surface, as opposed to being on the surface and in the atmosphere. Would the release of this waste in a confined space and the resulting pressure cause all the bedrock to disintegrate into powder? Would the molten core of the earth not have expanded to be two or three times its present size?

 

 

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:18 AM

Dantom

Some Questions:

Would an atom be able to produce two or three times its own mass in waste, without reducing its own mass? It would need to produce something like that amount to account for the amount of dark matter that is supposed to exist.

The majority of the atoms that make up our planet are  trapped under the surface, as opposed to being on the surface and in the atmosphere. Would the release of this waste in a confined space and the resulting pressure cause all the bedrock to disintegrate into powder? Would the molten core of the earth not have expanded to be two or three times its present size?

 

 

Thankyou for the questions.

First, let me try and clarify some things I had not mentioned earlier, which I should do now. The Atomic Dark Energy Emissions Theory (TADEET) is actually a "Component Theory" of a more encompassing and still developing "Parent Theory". The Parent Theory is:

The Atomic Engine Theory (TAET) - Sorry about the same acronym as used earlier. This says that the atom is a type of engine. Energy goes in (like petrol in a car), it is used up to do work (ie: wiz electrons around, create photons, and a multitude other other functions), then the converted energy which is classed as waste (Dark Energy) is pumped out (Just like the pollution that is pushed out from a car engine).

There are 3 main "Component Theories" which make up the whole Atomic Engine Theory.

They are:

1.) The Atomic Power Supply Theory (TAPSyT)

2.) The Atomic Power System Theory (TAPSmT)

and

3.) The Atomic Dark Energy Emission Theory (TADEET)

Now it's starting to get really scary. I have now opened up a can of worms. A huge can!

You asked if an atom can produce two or three times its own mass in waste. The answer is yes. Cars do it all the time. They each produce tons of waste every year. Much more than their own body mass. And they can continue to do this until they breakdown. As long as a fuel (energy) is being pumped in regularly, the car engine and the atomic engine can continue to produce more and more waste (The atom does NOT convert its own mass to do the work. It uses another energy source altogether). This analogy in itself may not in fact be the best example to use, as the Dark Energy itself may in fact be massless, unlike car pollution which does have mass.

This now leads to 'The Atomic Power Supply Theory (TAPSyT)'.

Where is this other power supply (energy) coming from? STILL UNKOWN! This is not an area I have yet solved. Someone else may even solve this part one day. Yes, by solving the Dark Energy enigma, I have created yet more questions. That's science for you. Two possible ideas for this area are: 1.) A huge amount of Energy (not sure in what form) is pre-packed inside the atoms when they are first formed. String Theory?? Maybe. OR 2.) Another form of energy is pumped in and then used to do the work. Gravity? Gravitons?? Maybe. This area needs further development.

Then there is 'The Atomic Power System Theory (TAPSmT)'.

How does the atom convert and use the power supply? What is the mechanism with which it uses the energy? STILL UNKOWN! Again another question, and an area I have not yet solved. This is an even more complex part to solve than TAPSyT.

But as for your second question. We do know that there are (relatively) large gaps between atoms. Even atoms that are bound together in a molecule still have gaps between them. It is in these gaps that the very thin Dark Energy builds up. And as the pressure builds up, the DE seeps outwards to the lower pressured areas (say, out from our planet and into space where it is less dense). The gaps are large enough between the atoms to allow the DE to easily seep out to the outer layers of our planet and not disintergrate the bedrock (it may though assist in explaining why the core is liquid and not solid). Also the atomic bonds are stronger than the pressures created by DE. Of course within a star it would have greater resistance and back pressure, possibly even assisting in creating the crushing pressures required to start nuclear fusion. But generally, the gaps between the atoms are sufficient, even to large scales. That is why for the earlier experiment I suggested to confirm TADEET, you need a VERY dense and large mass, to create just enough back pressure and enough slow build up in the centre, to get at least some reading with our instuments. Because I have not done the mathematical calculations, I am still not sure whether a practical, large enough mass could be used to create enough back pressure of DE to be measured.

And as for TADEET, you have already read. My main aim with TADEET was to explain Dark Energy and where it comes from. But as you can see there are at least two more areas which also need further development.

If TADEET can first be proven, then we have ourselves some more work ahead of us with TAPSyT and TAPSmT.

  • Member since
    April, 2009
Posted by RIP_Shadowfox on Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:36 PM
so i read in a recent Sky and Telescope magazine that a new study found that (theoretically, of course) dark energy remains the same despite the size of the area its in. In the article they say for example that if a certain amount of dark energy is in an area the size of a cubic centimeter and the area then expands, the energy doesn't expand with it. They said that this shows that dark energy isn't made of some form of particle. If that's true, what would it be and how would the atoms in your theory produce it?

"The search for truth is more precious than its possession." - Albert Einstein

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:15 PM

RIP_Shadowfox
so i read in a recent Sky and Telescope magazine that a new study found that (theoretically, of course) dark energy remains the same despite the size of the area its in. In the article they say for example that if a certain amount of dark energy is in an area the size of a cubic centimeter and the area then expands, the energy doesn't expand with it. They said that this shows that dark energy isn't made of some form of particle. If that's true, what would it be and how would the atoms in your theory produce it?

 

Thankyou. I did a search on the Sky and Telescope magazines website. There are many articles on Dark Energy of which some I read, but was unable to find the one you are referring to. Do you have the Title of the article so I may find and read it, so I can better understand what they are claiming? I look forward to reading the article in question so I may then answer any discrepancies there may be. Thankyou.

  • Member since
    April, 2009
Posted by RIP_Shadowfox on Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:39 PM

 Dark Energy: Real and Overwhelming

 

 This is the article from the Apr. 2009 issue.

"The search for truth is more precious than its possession." - Albert Einstein

  • Member since
    March, 2009
Posted by Dantom on Friday, May 22, 2009 4:29 AM

TAET

You asked if an atom can produce two or three times its own mass in waste. The answer is yes. Cars do it all the time. They each produce tons of waste every year. Much more than their own body mass. And they can continue to do this until they breakdown. As long as a fuel (energy) is being pumped in regularly, the car engine and the atomic engine can continue to produce more and more waste (The atom does NOT convert its own mass to do the work. It uses another energy source altogether).

Sorry, I really can't get my head around this theory.

You put an external supply of fuel into a car, it is burnt in the engine and produces energy and waste. The waste has many times the mass of the car, but this is the product of the fuel that has been burnt. The fuel provided would have an even greater mass than the waste produced. If "pure" energy was put into the car, no waste would be produced. 

What you are saying is that an Atom can produce many times its own mass in waste without an external supply of fuel and without reducing its own mass.

Your whole theory seems to rest upon the assumption that atoms are excreting waste which they are generating from nothing, and you even say yourself that this can't be explained.    

TAET

This analogy in itself may not in fact be the best example to use, as the Dark Energy itself may in fact be massless, unlike car pollution which does have mass.

Dark Matter or Dark Energy is the name given to the mass which exists in our galaxy, but can't be seen, meaning that it can't be detected using the light and radio frequencies that are currently available to our observatories. 

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:02 AM

Dantom

TAET

You asked if an atom can produce two or three times its own mass in waste. The answer is yes. Cars do it all the time. They each produce tons of waste every year. Much more than their own body mass. And they can continue to do this until they breakdown. As long as a fuel (energy) is being pumped in regularly, the car engine and the atomic engine can continue to produce more and more waste (The atom does NOT convert its own mass to do the work. It uses another energy source altogether).

Sorry, I really can't get my head around this theory.

You put an external supply of fuel into a car, it is burnt in the engine and produces energy and waste. The waste has many times the mass of the car, but this is the product of the fuel that has been burnt. The fuel provided would have an even greater mass than the waste produced. If "pure" energy was put into the car, no waste would be produced. 

What you are saying is that an Atom can produce many times its own mass in waste without an external supply of fuel and without reducing its own mass.

Your whole theory seems to rest upon the assumption that atoms are excreting waste which they are generating from nothing, and you even say yourself that this can't be explained.    

TAET

This analogy in itself may not in fact be the best example to use, as the Dark Energy itself may in fact be massless, unlike car pollution which does have mass.

Dark Matter or Dark Energy is the name given to the mass which exists in our galaxy, but can't be seen, meaning that it can't be detected using the light and radio frequencies that are currently available to our observatories. 

Thankyou. Yes, I understand. I ALSO sometimes find it difficult to absorb and understand a NEW idea or concept. Especially when they are revolutionary and a little mind blowing.

To help myself understand NEW ideas and concepts (which may be of help to you as well) I usually do the following:

- Learning NEW ideas is not a Race. I take it slowly.

- Read every sentance slowly.

- PAUSE .  .  .  .  . After every sentance.

- Allow the idea to sink in.

- Sometimes I even read it out loud.

- I have 2 Dictionaries near me. They're right next to me now. One is a standard dictionary for every day words, and the other is the Dictionary of Physics (Penguin Reference) for the more complex physics jargon often used by scientists in the field. I need these both to help me out.

- And I even sometimes print up the material, take it with me somewhere and read it there. Sometimes in my garden, at a park, riding public transport, or even just in bed at night. A highlighter can also help.

OK. I'll try and clarify a few things now.

1.) External Energy IS being used by the atom (Atomic Engine), to do work. See TAPSyT above. String Theory is at this point the best candidate for possibly answering how the energy is stored in the atom without adding to the Relative Atomic Mass. The External Energy being used IS NOT part of the atom itself (it IS NOT the energy inside neutrons, electrons, etc). It IS a seperate source altogether. This External Energy most probably also does NOT have mass or weight.

2.) DARK ENERGY (DE) at this point, DOES NOT have mass or weight. Only Force and Pressure.

I say "at this point", because the complex mathematical models have not yet been produced. The TADEET model may still work with DE having a small amount of mass and weight. But then this would create further problems on the External Energy supply also requiring to have mass and weight.

At this point, Dark Energy HAS NO mass or weight. Therefore the atom is NOT producing many times its own mass in waste, because DE has NO mass or weight. Just Force and Pressure.

As for my quote above,

I added this because I know some people may have already picked up the 'difference' in the anology, where car pollution has mass and weight (you can even trap and weigh it in a big container), and DE itself, most likely DOES NOT have mass or weight. That is why I said, that the car pollution may not be the best analogy to use. One pollution has mass and the other does not.

Also, just a reminder, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are two very different things. The Dark Matter has mass and weight (just can't be seen with out telescopes -  scientists estimate it to make up about 33% of the universe), whereas Dark Energy is different stuff (TADEET - massless atomic waste), and is estimated to make up about 66% of the universe, whilst the rest (all the atoms) roughly make up just under 1% of the universe.

I hope this has helped to clear things up.

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:31 PM

Pressure is probably not a word which applies here. What's the concept you're describing by the term?

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Saturday, May 23, 2009 5:58 PM

chipdatajeffB

Pressure is probably not a word which applies here. What's the concept you're describing by the term?

Thankyou.

Collins Dictionary - PRESSURE: "2. the application of force by one body on the surface of another. 5. Physics the force applied to a unit area of a surface."

The concept decribed by that term here is: PRESSURE: "1. the force applied by Dark Energy (DE) to the surface of atoms, molecules and Entire Combined Units (ECUs)."

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:54 AM

TAET

RIP_Shadowfox
so i read in a recent Sky and Telescope magazine that a new study found that (theoretically, of course) dark energy remains the same despite the size of the area its in. In the article they say for example that if a certain amount of dark energy is in an area the size of a cubic centimeter and the area then expands, the energy doesn't expand with it. They said that this shows that dark energy isn't made of some form of particle. If that's true, what would it be and how would the atoms in your theory produce it?

 

Thankyou. I did a search on the Sky and Telescope magazines website. There are many articles on Dark Energy of which some I read, but was unable to find the one you are referring to. Do you have the Title of the article so I may find and read it, so I can better understand what they are claiming? I look forward to reading the article in question so I may then answer any discrepancies there may be. Thankyou.

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!

Thankyou very much for this little gem. I ended up buying the whole article from online so I could be sure I understood what was fully being said. The article supports the TADEET model wonderfully. Thankyou.

The article that you mentioned was from the Sky and Telescope (April 2009 edition) - Article: Dark Energy: Real and Overwhelming. Pages 16 and 17. Part of it read, "Apparently the amount of dark energy in a given volume of space - a cubic centimeter, for instance - remains the same no matter how greatly space expands. This means that dark energy is somehow associated with empty space itself, rather than being some kind of particles or field residing in space - which would thin out as space expands, as atoms and galaxies do."

The TADEET model postulates exactly the SAME! As space expands, so does the Dark Energy (DE).

As DE comes out from the atoms as waste, it actually makes more space. The space between atoms, IS DE! The space between planets IS DE! The space between galaxies IS DE!

DE IS SPACE, and, SPACE IS DE! They are not separate things.

They are in fact one and the same!

As DE is expelled from the atom, it envelopes it, whilst pushing the DE that was there only a moment before, further outwards! DE (SPACE) expands! The amount of DE (SPACE) in that same CUBIC centimetre has not changed! It has just expanded further outwards, thus making the DE (SPACE) bubble larger and larger. And it does not get thinner as space expands because DE is the expanding SPACE! And this is exactly what the article says. Thankyou.

And if you remember from before, if galaxies are not close enough to be locked in together with gravity, then as the DE (SPACE) expands between them (remembering DE (SPACE) has force against atoms and ECUs), the galaxies will then be pushed apart.

The article also says, "A cluster's growth is really a competition between gravity's pull and the accelerating expansion of space, explains William Forman (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)."

The TADEET model also supports this statement. DE (SPACE) is also growing and expanding both in galaxies, and also between cluster's of galaxies. The only thing preventing them from separating and being pushed apart is the gravity, which if you remember from before is a stronger force than that of DE's. The DE (SPACE) is instead pushed further out from that galaxy or cluster of galaxies adding to the growth of its DE (SPACE) bubble.

Thankyou once more for the article. It has helped give the TADEET model some professionally researched supporting evidence. Thankyou.

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:39 PM

               CURRENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE TADEET MODEL

 

1.) THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE.

- Data shows that the universe is expanding. This expansion of the universe supports TADEET's explanation of why this is happening.

 

2.) THE PIONEER ANOMALY.

- The two Pioneer spacecraft heading in different directions out from our solar system, are both slowing down more than what they should be (taking all the gravity of the sun and planets, stray cosmic particles and atoms, etc, into account). This also supports the TADEET model, as this is what the model would predict to happen.

 

    POTENTIAL FUTURE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE TADEET MODEL

 

1.) THE GOLDEN GLOBE EXPERIMENT

- This is the experiment mentioned earlier of the large, dense, gold sphere, which may give further supporting evidence in the form of real data and results. When, or if, the experiment ever gets funding and support from an experienced agency, is yet to be waited for.

 

2.) THE PIONEER ANOMALY PREDICTION

- The TADEET model doesn't only explain why the Pioneer spacecraft are slowing down more than what they should be, it will also predict what will happen to them over the next 20 to 30 years or so.

The TADEET model predicts that the two spacecrafts will keep slowing down to a cruising speed, equivalent to the speed of that of the solar system's expanding Dark Energy (DE) bubble, minus any gravitational effects from the sun and planets that they may still be having on them at their, then current distance.

The two spacecraft will continue to cruise within our expanding solar systems DE slip stream (bubble) until they leave it, and enter the Milky Way's (our galaxy's) DE slip stream (bubble).

This is where the prediction gets even better! Not only will they slowly begin to speed up to match the speed of the Milky Way's DE slip stream, they will also slightly change direction!

That's right! Because the two spacecraft will be exiting the solar system at different angles to each other, and to the plane of the Milky Way, they will be hitting the DE slip stream of our galaxy on an angle. Imagine a person swimming down a creek which is entering into a larger river. As the swimmer enters the river, the force of the river will, both, change the swimmer's direction, and speed. This is what will happen to the two Pioneer spacecraft according to TADEET!  WOW! This will be great supportive evidence for TADEET. It is like an experiment in progress, with the results continuously coming in.

At this point NASA are still receiving data from the two Pioneer spacecraft. For how much long we don't know. I just hope the funding to continue receiving the data and the power on the two spacecraft last long enough to see the exciting results come through. I can't wait!!

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:57 AM

A correction, and my apologies to all. The Pioneer spacecraft have not been in contact with for quite a while now. Though there have been numerous attempts to re-establish a signal from the spacecrafts, none have been made. I was a little disappointed to read this.

Whether NASA or any other space agency are still able to determine their exact locations using other means, I am unsure. And unfortunately, the two Voyager spacecraft which are currently also heading out from our solar system, may have possibly had too many course corrections during their long journey to be able to show the DE effects descibed above.

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by HalterEgo on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:05 PM

When you talk about the emission of the waste energy from an atom do you consider it to be a new exotic form of energy we have no means of measuring yet?  Wouldn’t it mean that the expansion of space is determined by the emission of  waste energy from atoms? Is there enough matter in the Universe to produce enough dark force for this paste of expansion, and preserve the total amount of the dark force in any given moment in space? I got the feeling that what you are suggesting is a constant emission of energy from atoms over time and accumulation of DE, am I right or wrong? So, there would be a correlation between the emission of the TAEET and DE. But if so, have you determined the correlation ratio between the two. Correlation ratio would be responsible for the speed of the Space expansion. Of course, for DE we don’t even have a unit of measurement when we don’t even know what it is. So if you could find that correlation between the TAEET and the expansion of space maybe the unit of measurement for DE will be named after you.

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:42 PM

HalterEgo
When you talk about the emission of the waste energy from an atom do you consider it to be a new exotic form of energy we have no means of measuring yet?  Wouldn’t it mean that the expansion of space is determined by the emission of  waste energy from atoms? Is there enough matter in the Universe to produce enough dark force for this paste of expansion, and preserve the total amount of the dark force in any given moment in space? I got the feeling that what you are suggesting is a constant emission of energy from atoms over time and accumulation of DE, am I right or wrong? So, there would be a correlation between the emission of the TAEET and DE. But if so, have you determined the correlation ratio between the two. Correlation ratio would be responsible for the speed of the Space expansion. Of course, for DE we don’t even have a unit of measurement when we don’t even know what it is. So if you could find that correlation between the TAEET and the expansion of space maybe the unit of measurement for DE will be named after you.

Thankyou.

Yes. According to TADEET, the expansion of space is determined by the waste energy of atoms. Yes, DE is a constant emission from atoms, and accumulation, over time. And yes, it is a new exotic form of energy we yet are unable to detect directly (that is why scientists have been experiencing great difficulty in determining what it actually is).

But, we can see DEs effects on its environment and the universe. We do see expansion of the universe. Measurements by professional scientists have been made and published in respected Journals.

If TADEET is definately the correct model, then we can also now design experiments to measure DE. According to TADEET, DE exerts force (pressure) against atoms and ECUs. With this important information in mind, we can now, either, design experiments such as the Golden Globe one I mentioned earlier, or, specially designed spacecraft to be sent out into space. Either way, we do have the ability to design, build, and run the experiments now, to hopefully obtain accurate measurements and data on DE. Once this important new data is obtained, we can then determine further universal implications, such as how will the universe possibly evolve in the future. Which direction will it follow? Crunch, Rip? Other?

A few things have prevented me from trying to do my own calculations. Firstly, my very average mathematical capabilities. And secondly, depending on whether atoms do deteriorate and breakdown into Dark Matter over time (this is a totally different theory altogether), then I am unsure if the amount of "normal" matter (atoms, etc) are the same today as they where earlier on in the universe. This would make a great difference to the calculations required, in order to find any correlation between current "normal" matter, and the amount of DE in the universe today. And unfortunately, I just don't have those skills to do that.

We need to run experiments to obtain more data. Any new data collected would greatly assist whoever it may be, in preparing a detailed formula and mathematical model of DE.

Thankyou for your questions.

  • Member since
    April, 2009
Posted by RIP_Shadowfox on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:20 PM

TAET

2.) THE PIONEER ANOMALY.

- The two Pioneer spacecraft heading in different directions out from our solar system, are both slowing down more than what they should be (taking all the gravity of the sun and planets, stray cosmic particles and atoms, etc, into account). This also supports the TADEET model, as this is what the model would predict to happen.

 

 

would you be able to explain how the theory predicts this happening? is it that it seems like its slowing because space is expanding around it? is space really expanding that fast?

"The search for truth is more precious than its possession." - Albert Einstein

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:18 AM

RIP_Shadowfox

TAET

2.) THE PIONEER ANOMALY.

- The two Pioneer spacecraft heading in different directions out from our solar system, are both slowing down more than what they should be (taking all the gravity of the sun and planets, stray cosmic particles and atoms, etc, into account). This also supports the TADEET model, as this is what the model would predict to happen.

 

 

would you be able to explain how the theory predicts this happening? is it that it seems like its slowing because space is expanding around it? is space really expanding that fast?

Thanks.

I briefly touched on this earlier on, near the start, but will endevour to shed some more light on how this occurs.

I'll try and use a metaphor (which I usually find only gets me into more trouble than what they're sometimes worth). But I'll go ahead anyway.

The effect of the spacecraft slowing down is not because of the DE (space) being expelled from the spacecraft itself and expanding outwards. This process is happening, but is EXTREMELY negligible in the scheme of it all.

But when you combine ALL the atoms DE output in our solar system together (and don't forget, even in interplanetary space, there are floating atoms all around. I think I read somewhere, something like 1 atom every cubic centimeter or there abouts, is out there, everywhere - But these are not the ones slowing the craft down the amount it is. This was taken into account), it adds up to a large amount of continuously outflowing DE. Because the DE is mainly densest at the centre of our solar system due to the mass of our sun (there will be dense spots around Jupiter and Saturn due to their mass as well), the DE gets pushed outwards to lesser, dense areas, from the centre of our solar system continuing all the way out.

Imagine a 'river' of ALL the combined DE flowing out from the centre of our solar system, all the way out, and eventually joining other 'rivers', from other nearby solar systems.

Now, imagine our solar systems DE 'river' is flowing at about 10 km/hr, and the spacecraft which is swimming through the DE 'river' (as a person may in a real river), is trying to swim outwards as well, at about 30 km/hr. You can now see that the spacecraft is trying to travel 20 km/hr faster and through the outward flowing DE 'river'.

This is where the resistance comes in and slows the swimmer (spacecraft) down. You also need to remember that the spacecraft is NOT continuously pushing through the DE 'river' with continuous propulsion. It had ONE HUGE PUSH at the start of its journey, and then was left up to its own momentum to keep going. That is why the DE 'river' is slowing the two spacecraft down. And once they slow down to the same speed of the DE 'river' (10 km/hr), then they will just flow along and coast with it (minus any gravity still tugging on them from the sun and planets, trying to pull them even further backwards).

I hope this has helped clear that up for you. Thanks for your question. It was a good one for me to help further clarify things.

  • Member since
    April, 2009
Posted by RIP_Shadowfox on Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:16 PM

 im still not entirely sure where the resistance comes from. if the craft is flying at a certain speed of its own and its also being pushed by the DE, wouldn't it continue to travel at a certain speed? i don't understand why simply traveling within the flow of DE would slow it down to the same speed as the DE.

"The search for truth is more precious than its possession." - Albert Einstein

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by HalterEgo on Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:35 PM

Hello again, 

English is not my first language so i will be brief. 

The awerage density of space with the thermodinamics known to us and the speed of two dots in space over time would mean that the Universe would behave quite different. The model you get is pretty much what happenes when for an example, you try to inflate a baloon: It picks up momentum when enough DE is accumulated and slows down when it reaches certain distance between the two spots. That would mean that more and more of DE is needed as space gets bigger and would finally get to a point where it would need an enormous amount of energy from each atom. That also mean that space would constantly change the paste of expansion. Finally, if atoms are not able to produce that much energy, gravitational force would start to take effect untill it reaches critical level of DE in the unit of space again, which would then allow the expansion again.

I think you are wasting your time with this one, but don't let it discourage you.  Einstein once said:quote " It's not that I am so smart, it is just that I stay with problems longer".

 

Bye

  • Member since
    March, 2009
Posted by fluflu on Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:51 PM

You have a very good theory which you called " The Atomic Emission Theory " ( TAET). This idea perhaps can be applied to some other enteties but not the Atom as to be used as an explanation to Dark Energy. Light is a formed of energy and as you know light is made out of photons and photons fades out that is they loose their energy this is also a particle that is no longer active. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are some other formed that may had derived from the collisions of other matters or a combinations of matter including the Atom. What it is not is a waste product of some other matter or of the Atom. I do agree to some extend that the Atom may release some formed of waste product as an emission but again science knows a great deal about the Atom and by now it will had found such emission as you are postulating. This TAET can be best apply to the BBT and which may have some relation to the construction of the Backgound Radiation which in turned may had influence or is influencing Gravity in the general Cosmical Universe. Again, you are developing a very good theory that may be tested through experiments and observation. Such a theory can also be developed into a book, congratulation and keep following your intuitions. You are a Scientist. 

  • Member since
    April, 2009
Posted by RIP_Shadowfox on Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:22 PM

fluflu
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are some other formed that may had derived from the collisions of other matters or a combinations of matter including the Atom. What it is not is a waste product of some other matter or of the Atom.

 

 

if we have no idea what dark energy is, how can we say that it cant be a waste product? if we cant detect it, how would we have seen it coming from atoms or not?

"The search for truth is more precious than its possession." - Albert Einstein

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:27 PM

RIP_Shadowfox

 im still not entirely sure where the resistance comes from. if the craft is flying at a certain speed of its own and its also being pushed by the DE, wouldn't it continue to travel at a certain speed? i don't understand why simply traveling within the flow of DE would slow it down to the same speed as the DE.

Thanks.

My first preference in trying to explain things to people is using pictures and drawings. I also like using items. The other day, when explaining this theory to my friend who was visiting, I used some ornimental glass beads, as atoms and galaxies. And my hands and fingers and movement as DE. I love using actions. They say a thousand words. Explaining complex things and ideas using just language, is always a very difficult thing to do.

So I've come up with a very easy experiment for you to try. You need to actually do it, to understand it well. Thinking about an experiment doesn't always give you a real (and sometimes can be quite wrong) perception of it. DOING experiments is very powerful is solidifying an idea or concept in your mind.

OK. Here is your experiment for you to try out.

1.) Go to the park on a day when there is a VERY LIGHT breeze of wind, coming STEADILY from one direction. This is very important! The breeze MUST be light and steady.

2.) Face the breeze head on. Feel the light breeze on your face. Imagine this is Dark Energy coming towards you, from the centre of a solar system. Imagine you are a Pioneer spacecraft.

3.) Turn your body around 180 degrees. Feel the light breeze on your back. Can you feel the 'LIGHT PRESSURE' of it on your back?

4.) NOW RUN VERY FAST, with the wind!     AS FAST AS YOU CAN RUN!   KEEP RUNNING for as long as you can!    Observe and feel the wind around you.

5.) What did you feel?

When you have done the experiment, please write back with your results you experienced.

I look forward to your reply.

Cheers.

PS: Be careful when running in the park, especially if it has recently rained and the ground is wet.

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:46 PM

Hi,

Just received this information from a qualified and published physicist from another Forum, in relation to TADEET, so I thought I would post it here for all to read. All information is welcomed and useful.

Patrick's reply was,

"It is an hypothesis and not a theory. On brief reading it seems to contradict several well tested "laws", not least conservation of energy, reciprocity and quantum mechanics (all tested to very high order and found to agree with predictions) . All of which would need new small (presumably) correction terms. You need to make predictions that can be tested experimentally, and show that it is consistant with current laws of physics at the levels tested so far, otherwise it will have no real scientific credence. "

A thankyou to Patrick. I will look into, and read further information relating to the above and keep you posted. This may take a while.

Cheers.

  • Member since
    March, 2009
Posted by fluflu on Friday, June 05, 2009 7:19 PM

We don't need to see Dark-Energy to visualized an effect or a cause. There must be a starting place as to what is causing some phenomenom to take place. For science it seems that there are other major players behing the making of the UNIVERSE. This unseen power they had called it " DARK-ENERGY " and along with it  " DARK-MATTER ". I agree with this two terms cause they make sense since in our visual Universe energy and matter are both at work. For this forum the concerned is if Dark-Energy is a waste product of the Atom and my respond in short is that so far science has not detected such waste from an Atom. I will think that there may be some other waste from some other place which may be a combination of everything that is in " SPACE " . I would  like to developed a theory as to how " SPACE " came about which is not from any BB or BBT. Again dark-energy may be just a mirror image of all existence and reflecting back to hold everything in place but to make such assumptions is to asked " whats behind the " DARK-ENERGY ". As we go deeper and deeper we developed pertinent questions as though discovering the number " ONE " and them discovering the number " ZERO ". We  then go further and discover the next number which is a negative " ZERO " but we are yet to discover the next number that goes beyong and creates a new mathematic. Whats beyong " DARK-Energy" and " DARK-MATTER " is something like looking for that new Number which will create a new SCIENCE and this is what will happen when it comes to light. Thats a whole new world that has more information as to the making of the UNIVERSE --- a Universe behing another Universe. The main fabric holding all of existence is " SPACE " and for my thinking and question is: " is SPACE made of something ? " or is Space the just that " NOTHINGNESS ".  Something which is not created it just " is ".

  • Member since
    May, 2009
Posted by TAET on Friday, June 05, 2009 9:16 PM

TAET

Hi,

Just received this information from a qualified and published physicist from another Forum, in relation to TADEET, so I thought I would post it here for all to read. All information is welcomed and useful.

Patrick's reply was,

"It is an hypothesis and not a theory. On brief reading it seems to contradict several well tested "laws", not least conservation of energy, reciprocity and quantum mechanics (all tested to very high order and found to agree with predictions) . All of which would need new small (presumably) correction terms. You need to make predictions that can be tested experimentally, and show that it is consistant with current laws of physics at the levels tested so far, otherwise it will have no real scientific credence. "

A thankyou to Patrick. I will look into, and read further information relating to the above and keep you posted. This may take a while.

Cheers.

With the above reply in mind I have gone off and done some further research and reading. I have broken the above reply into 2 components to look into.

First is the 'Conservation of Energy' which I will address now, and the second is the 'Reciprocity', which I am still researching and reading further on which may take some time. Quantum mechanics is quite general and will be covered in both areas.

Conservation of Energy:

Wikipedia: The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant.

This I have also broken down into two parts.

The Atomic Engine Theory has been broken up into smaller component theories or areas of research. They are TAPSyT, TAPSmT and TADEET. It is the TAPSyT component that will be required to supply a solution for the energy inflow, whilst the TADEET component deals with the 'waste' energy outflow.

Though it sounds a little convenient, it is often done in many fields of study to assist in specialisation, and as to uncomplicate the complicated. For example the study of the human body can be broken up into different fields say of the Nervous System, Circulatory System, Reproductive System and so on and so on. People will often specialise in one main system, whilst others will generalise in all. This breakdown of specialisation can also be done to other mechanical systems such as the automobile. There are engine specialists, transmission specialists, auto electrical specialists and so on.

TADEET does not claim to be making energy from nothing. It is a waste product due to the working process's within the atom (outflow 'waste' energy). To maintain the 'Conservation of Energy' principle, the TAPSyT component will be required to fulfil this explanation. As yet, there are other fields of theoretical research such as in String Theory, Gravitational Theory, and others which may or may not solve this component. Even if they are unable to solve to TAPSyT inflow problem today, other fields of research and ideas may arise further down the track.

Then there is the complex study of quantum mechanics and general relativity. As I have been reading, I have found that there are still many facets which are yet to be resolved. One website which was interesting was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics. There also appear to still be unresolved issued between quantum laws and general relativity(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics), with quantum theory's historical estimate of the vacuum energy density in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) and many more, even though there have been great amounts of research and experiments to help build up the models we know and use today.

Definately more research is required! But as mentioned before, experiments and collecting further data will only assist in helping to solve some of these problems. I am attempting to devise a 'cheaper' experiment which may be run to help establish if TADEET is correct or not. This is not going to be easy! (any ideas anyone?)

As for 'Reciprocity' I will need to read, and research further, before getting back to you on this issue.

Cheers.

  • Member since
    March, 2009
Posted by fluflu on Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:46 PM

The Pioneer Anomaly is due to other causes such as escaping from the gravity which may be stronger the further the craft gets from the Sun and other objects. Its like a " Push " and " shove ". The influence of the gravity at its most distance point and the reentering into another " Space " sort of speaking where there may be a gap before the craft come into the influence of others phenomenom with gravitational nfluence. Something like two magnet when place to repel each other --- this is what may be causing the crafts to slow down. Dark Energy has nothing to do with it ------ 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

ADVERTISEMENT

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Receive news, sky-event information, observing tips, and more from Astronomy's weekly email newsletter.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...