Talk:Dark energy/Archive 2

message: I think that energy should be capitalized in the title. Not too big, but it helps add professionalism.
Goaliemaster121 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: In the article says that the universe has "74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter". Where is antimatter and ordinary energy in these numbers? With ordinary matter? If so, a clarification in the article would be good. 201.52.135.189 02:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put simply there is very, very little anti matter about where there is normal matter (ie everywhere in the observable universe) as the two anihilate each other when they come into contact. What anti matter there was in the big bang anihilated itself with an equal ammount of matter a very short time after. What we are left with today is the extra matter left over as the matter/anti matter ammounts in the big bang wernt't exactly equal. E=mc2 tells us that normal matter and energy can be converted back and forth. The 4% ordinary matter also includes normal energy as the 2 are different states of the same thing. --LiamE 02:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, Antimatter has a smaller half-life than regular matter so it degrads faster than matter (70.187.185.194 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should antimatter has a shorter lifetime than matter? --Felixbecker2 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antimatter and ordinary energy 

message: 1. Cosmic inflation
 
2. Leaking gravity (into other dimensions)
3. A failure of general relativity. Spacetime curvature is fictitious and dark matter does not exist.
4. Incorrect interpretations. Hubble's law is not correct and redshift is not a reliable distance indicator. 
The 3rd and 4rd options seem the most promising candidates to me in the future. -- Orionix 13:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lambda-CDM model is an excitingly successfull theory. Unless you can cite an alternate theory which passes the test of the scientific method, is not yet falsified but falsifiable, there aren't alternatives worthy mentioning in the article. Private speculations and opinions are better discussed on USENET. --Pjacobi 14:31, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
The PSR J0737-3039 is a good varification to general relativity but the fact that dark matter and gravitational radiation have never been directly detected is suspect to me. Just because general relativity makes correct predictions doesn't mean that gravitational waves really exist. These could just be geometrical entities. --Orionix 14:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other explanations for an accelerating universe 

message: I've been working on a paper about dark matter and dark energy for a writing class I'm taking.  I found a Scientific American article from January 2001 titled "The Quintessential Cosmos", and based on that article it appears that the discussion in this article about negative pressure could use a bit of work.  It's probably correct in the case of the cosmological constant but details seem to be lacking. I'll probably edit it in a while (couple weeks) when I'm not so busy and sick of writing, but the key point is that when the ratio of pressure to energy density drops below -1/3, gravity becomes repulsive. --DonJuan 16:30, 2005 April 21 (UTC)
:What, specifically, are the problems with the discussion of negative pressure? I wrote that, as well as the more technical, detailed discussion in Equation of state (cosmology). I was trying to keep the article from getting technical, but in the case of the cosmological constant I couldn't resist putting a short, simple argument about the thermodynamics of a box of cosmological constant in. --Joke137 19:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Pressure 

message: ok.. instead of having:
((supernova|type 1a supernovae)) 
shouldn't it be:
type 1a ((supernova|supernovae))
??
:Probably a good idea, but I don't think the current version will cause much confusion.  Gnixon 16:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  newbie request 

message: Moti Milgrom's idea of Modified Newtonian Dynamics should be included in the text.
Please see the FAQ and MOND Website. helohe 22:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MOND has nothing to do with dark energy. See dark matter. –Joke137 22:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woops, I didnt read that Topic correctly. helohe 00:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOND: Modified Newtonian Dynamics 

message: These edits seem to be original research, and so I removed them. Please, provide references to published articles, before you add this. Awolf002 12:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medium of the universe/aether 

message: :In cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy...
In what sense is it a form of energy? Is this a good use of the term energy? --ExtraBold 19:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's "stuff".  And it's not matter.  And it has an energy density, certainly, so it "is a form of energy" in the same sense that matter is also a form of energy.  Past that, if you can think of a better name/description I'll pass it on to Michael Turner (cosmologist) the next time I'm in Chicago.  -- SCZenz 19:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a form of energy? 

message: 10-120 is the often quoted density. The discrepancy is due to whether you used the Planck mass with G=1 or the reduced Planck mass, with 8πG=1: the difference is 1/(8π)2. The number universally quoted by cosmologists and particle theorists is -120, which is, I think, the number we ought to use here. –Joke137 18:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always assumed that with an exponent that large, nobody cared about "rounding off" a factor of 1000.  I still that might be a contributing factor in what cosmologists cite, but I don't really care either.  Go for it. -- SCZenz 19:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  120 or 123 

message: As far as I know, Einstein did NOT propose the cosmological constant to obtain a static universe. The Einsteinian universe is indeed static but that was not what he was seeking (and stable is a characteristic that Einstein's universe does not have). He wanted a closed universe as only a closed universe was in his eyes physical. He also hoped to be able to explain mass generation through the cosmological constant until de Broglie showed that it is possible to have a curved universe with cosmologial constant and no mass (de Broglie universe). Then, Einstein saw, his constant had no need and said, it was a mistake to propose it.
That Einstein wanted a static universe is a widely spred declaration. Nevertheless, it is not completely right as can be read in Einstein's original article. So, I am thinking to make some changes to that part in the article.
N.M.B.R.-KN.141.70.111.178 09:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read several reputable sources that say he wanted a static universe.  Now, if you have primary sources that say the opposite, by all means go ahead—but please cite them. -- SCZenz 10:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's constant 

message: I was looking for info about the acceleration of the universe, and was redirected to this article, but there does not seem to be any info here about the acceleration of the universe. Is there any way to get back the accelerating universe article.
GoldenBoar 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information has been folded into this article (under "implications for the fate of the universe") and ultimate fate of the universe. --Christopher Thomas 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accelerating universe 

message: can you please explain or verify?
are galaxies farther then the Hubel horizon receeding from us in a speed greater 
than the speed of light?
:Yes. Space is allowed to expand faster than light (this is how most proposed FTL drives nowadays work). This is discussed at observable universe, and also briefly at de Sitter universe. --Christopher Thomas 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The receding speed of the farthest galaxies 

message: OK. So the universe is "missing" approximately 70% of the expected dark energy.
The universe is also accelerating at rates faster than in the past.
Then could it be that, the reason for the acceleration of the universe is that it is being PULLED by the dark energy; where 70% of the missing dark energy actually lies outside of the known universe? Is this a logical hypothesis?
John
:I'm afraid that doesn't work; let me try to clarify.  The universe's energy density is known, but it's 70% unaccounted for, and that extra unknown 70% is called dark energy.  One of its effects is to accelerate the universe.  However, this cannot be due to it pulling from "outside" because the universe is uniform at large scales.  Furthermore, the limits of the "known universe" are simply the furthest distance light has travelled since the big bang; since gravitation travels at the same speed as light, there can't be anything "outside" pulling.  Does that help? -- SCZenz 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dark energy and acceleration of the universe 

message: What is the evidence of the universe expanding as opposed to the local region of space contracting. Also, I have noticed things like microwaving of food taking less time, which may have something to do with a change in the (cosmological?) relationship between the food, microwaves, and time. Also, the [[Lagrangian point]s occur to me in this context. A lagrange point in the center of mass of two objects makes sense, but what about the other 4?Hackwrench 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraction of local space 

message: How about the theory that the Universe is expanding with increasing speed?
I found some references on the net, but not in wikipedia.
http://astro.isi.edu/notes/accelerate.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/accelerating.html
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/nsfoutreach/htm/n50_z2/pages_z3/01_pg.htm
:Huh? Did you read this article? Awolf002 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universe Expansion Accelerating? 

message: Could be what indicates this web the answer to the "Unsolved problem in physics" marcked in the article? The page seems interesting, but I don't know if the creator is a genius or crazy. Llull 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we will have to wait for some peer-reviewed publications, otherwise any inclusion of this would violate the no original research policy. Awolf002 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Website belongs to individual who is likely to be a crank.  Can't know for sure until seeing his unpublished works (coming out this year).  - JustinWick 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible anwser to the "Unsolved problem in physics"

message: Could it be that the rate of elapse of time has been slowing over the last 5 billion years?
The expansion appears to be accelerating, which would mean galaxies that are 13 billion years away don't appear red-shifted enough compared to galaxies that are within 5 billion years away. If the elapse of time had slowed down, the red-shift of the most distant galaxies would appear less*1 than it would otherwise (and those galaxies would therefore appear to be receding, and therefore the universe expanding, less fast than they would otherwise).
Then consider the galaxies that appear to rotate too fast for their supposed mass. If the elapse of time had slowed down, the rotations would look faster now than they would have done at the time the light set off towards us. The galaxies might tell you how much time had slowed down by.
Then you could correlate the history of the rate of elapse of time with the supernova data to see if it resulted in the decelerating universe that everyone had expected before it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Why should the rate of elapse of time be slowing down? Well, I saw some famous scientist on the telly a few years ago who had a theory that the speed of light had varied over the history of the universe. Instead, his speed of light could have been constant, and it could have been his speed of time that was changing.
*1 One might think that if time had since slowed down, the most distant galaxies would look as though they were receding faster, not slower. But we can't see their motion; all we can see is the red shift. Red shift means lower frequency light. If time were slower now, that frequency would look higher to us. That would look like less Doppler effect and therefore a lower receding speed.
--Vibritannia 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SCZenz covered that below. --Falcorian (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?

message: Here's a very different possible explanation... the basics are that very distant things (recently measured) are far dimmer than they aught to be, thus further. What about global dimming?--Smkolins 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any proposed mechanism for the standard candles being dimmer. They're chosen precisely because they always have (roughly) the same brightness, due to the physics of how Type Ia supernovae work. Changing this requires proposing that the laws of the universe have changed over that time period. If there's intervening matter causing dimming, 1) it should be nonuniform, and 2) it should leave absorption lines in the spectrum of the supernovae. Observations to date instead indicate that the light is relatively unhindered, giving a distance range within the error bounds stated in the original publications. Given this, and the other circumstantial evidence for the presence of dark energy, it seems to be the most reasonable explanation available given the present state of observations. --Christopher Thomas 20:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Dimming?

message: We were discussing the cosmological argument for the existence of God in my philosophy course; and the teacher started talking about negative gravity or dark energy; and how the universe is speeding up and expanding, etc. I wasn't sure what he meant; but it sounded like he was theorizing that if the universe was indeed infinite, than the universe would be a dark cold place right now; so since it isn't, it would prove that it is a finite universe. He was attempting to argue against one of the 4 options brought up in the Cosmological argument (he tried to disprove 3 of the possible options; which would prove that option 4 is the only one. Option 4 [last one] states that the universe had to have a beginning (creator) or a finite first cause). The option he tried to eliminate out of the 4, with this argument/evidence, is that the universe is possibly infinite, needing no finite cause. But what I don't understand is why he had to argue this in the first place; wasn't the traditional view of the big-bang thoery already implying that the universe is finite (it blows up, shrinks due to gravity; then shrinks again, etc.). So the traditional view would already imply the universe is finite; why would he rely on this relatively new finding to cross out that option? 24.23.51.27 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make much sense to me, either. The current view is that there is no evidence to suggest that the universe has finite spatial extent, so it could be spatially infinite (if it were, we would never be able to tell). On the flip side of the coin, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe is more than 14 billion years old: nobody knows what, if anything, came before the big bang, and there appears to be little immediate prospect of finding out. –Joke 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finite & Philosophy 

message: The article says several times that the expansion is accelerating, but in terms of the Hubble factor this is not really true, since the Hubble factor is still thought to be decreasing.  --Michael C. Price talk 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected, I hope, with the aid of cosmic acceleration.  --Michael C. Price talk 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion "accelerating"

message: Considering the various issues which are not yet satisfactorily explained by GTR and QM, how likely is it that a paradigm shift and new set of theories will eventually be developed to explain everything satisfactorily?  This might be worth a paragraph of discussion either in this article or a related one.  Strikes me as a bit embarrassing to be unable to explain why 70% of the universe appears to be missing.  --Scott McNay 04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of discussion do you have in mind, and what sources would you use? -- SCZenz 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occam's Razor? 

message: I've removed
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6156110.stm News story: More evidence for dark energy being the cosmological constant
O.K. NASA did a press conference and now several sites and papers will pick up something about that.
But: 
* Generally speaking, our own article should be better and more comprehensive than a news story, even from the better sources, like BBC
* Specifically regarding the new insights: Let's wait for the scientific papers, and reactions by other scientists. Then bring our article up to date and link to these papers as references.
Pjacobi 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps our article should be more comprehensive, but in the mean time..... --Michael C. Price talk 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out only item of (valid) information which is in the BBC take but is missing here. --Pjacobi 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are none then your 2nd point was irrelevant.  Links to news stories are still useful for background, verifiability and links to more information, other related stories.  --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Hubble newsitem and another link newstory on the same discovery. The scientific paper will be by Adam Riess et al, published on Astrophysical Journal on February 10, 2007. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Hubble Space Telescope Discoveries of Type Ia Supernovae at z > 1: Narrowing Constraints on the Early Behavior of Dark Energy Riess et al. Haven't read it yet, but I do believe that's it. --Falcorian (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use some judgement on external links 

message: "making up 70% of all energy, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space."
That sounds so familiar ... fills all of empty space ... oh, wait ... AETHER!
As I recall, that was ad hoc the first time ... here we go again. It'll be interesting to hear how this energy interacts with light quanta. 206.124.153.122 13:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If dark energy is the cosmological constant then its interaction with light is the same as with everything: viz via the Einstein field equations.  So no aether. --Michael C. Price talk 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DragoonWraith 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Apparently Wikipedia considers "aether" and "quintessence" to be different names for the same thing, namely the Aristotlian (is that the proper adjective?) notion of gigantic spheres upon which the planets were fastened. However, I had always heard of that substance referred to as quintessence, while "aether" was a separate idea created several centuries later to give light waves something to wave through. This is the meaning that I am using here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DragoonWraith (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the context of dark energy "quintessence" and the "cosmological constant" are mutually exclusive alternatives. --Michael C. Price talk 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something sounds familiar 

message: The fact that the visible world makes up a very small percentage of the universe, while the invisible universe making up much more, points to a Creator. The research that has been done on "Dark" forces seems to vindicate the idea that God, who had for a long time been working on Heaven, switched to the creation of the visible universe fairly recently. It also shows that an invisible force is not just keeping the universe from collapsing but is actively expanding it. Yes, I think that "Dark Energy" is actually God and "Dark Matter" is Heaven. In 2 Corinthians 4:18 (New International Version) it states, "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." Scientists seem to be avoiding this conclusion based on sciences tradition of avoiding "supernatural" conclusions and not for lack of empirical evidence of the effects of Him. It is understandable for science to try to come to a "natural" conclusion, but the idea that God and Heaven have all but been discovered should at least be considered and deserves more attention, even if it is just by the media and the public at large. I think that because of the lack of awareness of this discovery, Christians have missed a great opportunity to point out evidence for God and Heaven.
Since these discoveries remain virtually unknown by most Christians, and the idea that "Dark Energy" could be God himself instead of just a tool he uses is mostly unexplored, the top would be considered original research; I am not the first one to suggest a connection, however, so the idea warrants at least a brief mention in the article. 
Sources that have suggested a direct connection to "Dark Energy" include:
*Scientists say there is a place for God in the Universe
*http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html
*http://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/God_Science.htm
*Is this the answer to God, the universe and all that?
*"I am hoping that these phenomena can be explained away without resorting to something that dominates the Universe"
These sources connect the expansion of the universe to God (the effect of "Dark Energy" instead of "Dark Energy" itself):
*http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html
*http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientific-evidence-supporting-creation-faq.htm
*http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/scientific_case_for_creation.htm
*http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/newproofs.shtml
*http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/reviews/vs-sciencegod.htm
*http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986-3,00.html
Muslims also claim a connection:
*http://www.albalagh.net/general/expansion_universe.shtml
*http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_03.html
--Jorfer 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these sources are reliable for inclusion on this page. --ScienceApologist 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Physics page.  It deals with science.  If you find God, then you will get a Noble Prize.  Until then, it's not Physics, not science, and any quotes you give are from man made ancient texts, not science. 24.218.135.18 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it God???

message: Everything is energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. By defenition, the energy that life has and that intelligence contains and that patterns in general posses, has to be comming from somewhere. The universe is not expanding or getting bigger, it is just getting more organized and structured as life evolves and celestial bodies orient themselves and gain structure. The new energy that they embody came from a source the phisical mass and is thus observed as dark matter because we can not SEE patterns, we can only observe them, nevertheless they still have energy. This same energy was origionally sourced from massive objects when they were random and did not have much intellectual or structural energy. As matter takes shape or gains structure, patterns, intelligence it appears to become cold, more distant, bigger. The universe appears to be expanding, but it is not really, where there was once matter, the same energy is not manifested in intelligence as matter in between is disipitated. More energy in intelligence is contained, as a result, less physical matter as well as heat is observed. This theory also proves the existance of aliens and extraterestrial life forms because we can not see or detect them, but their energy from intelligence and the lack of energy in matter that they have converted is absorbed. It is predicted that the universe will continue to appear to be getting bigget and colder and the proportion of dark matter and dark energy is increased as more matter is converted into life.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating because life and civilization is evolving at an ever increasing pace as the build up of patterns is cululative as it is self replicatory.
Everything is energy. Patterns, structure or order is energy. Order in the universe is increasing. This energy has to come from somewhere, it is obserbed from physical energy or matter. Energy can not be created or destroyed. Structure must be obtaining it's energy from somewhere. Structure can't not have energy because it has potential and everything is energy. It is very simple. Dark energy is not alive, it is life. 
:I'm deleting the above twaddle from the article. --Michael C. Price talk 12:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am reverting it's re-addition. It's not science, and I'm not sure one could even call it pseudoscience. --Falcorian (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Energy Comes From Life Intelligence and Patterns 

message: In other words, dark energy is made up of extraterestrials or life forms which we can not see or detect with our present instruments. As a result, we are not aware of it's existance. It might be helpfull in comparison with simpler lifeforms than our own. For instance, we can detect animals, birds and fish. They are less intelligent than us and thus we understand how they exist. We can even detect the presence of bacteria and other microscopic life forms because we can comprehend their existance. On the other hand, some other life forms might be more complicated for us to fathom and as a result we can not understand them and as a result can not even see them. Some of those life forms might include god or others that some might refer to as spirits or ghosts for lack of a better word, although it would be more accurate to call them extraterestrials or ultraterestrials. For instance if a life form evolved beyond the medium of an organic or a carbon based vessel, it might eventually turn into a presence that is pure energy. This is more advanced than our own carbon based existance and since we do not know how to communicate with them, we are not aware of it's existance. Now suppose that this life form, as advanced as it would be, is very efficient and does not emmit any measurable light or radiation why would it? Let's remember that it is very advanced and probably has better things to do than to communicate with us. So this life form never shows itself unless to those who are capable or reaching to it's level and the rest of us are left in the dark. It however does float and exist in our universe and thus has a mass that is exerting unfluence over us, but we only detect it as background radiation. 
In reference to spirituality, in biblical times creatures refered to as deamons were described to be as more intelligent, with great powers and more abilities than our own. This is something that we fear because man fears that which he can not understand, thus we ended up giving estraterestrials names like deamons angels and ghosts. It's not that they are good or evil, it's more of our own perception of them and their influences over us. Bad influences are perceived as demonic acts and good influences as benign interventions. In reallity they are probably not trying to either hurt or help us, they have much more important things to do, but they exert influences over us because we live in the same universe. In comparison would be how Native Americans used to perceive the european explorers as gods and then deamons, untill they learned more about them and realized that they were people too who were simply cunductiong their own explorations. Dark energy might be the presence of the Dark Forces or deamons which we still do not understand, fear and try to deny, untill we finaly realize that they exist just like us and we evolve to their level and join them ourselves. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/5211.asp
:Bollocks - dark energy is science. --Michael C. Price talk 12:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark energy physics, extraterestrials and spirituality connection 

message: I deleted the information on multi-level cosmology. Recently, a standalone article on multi-level cosmology was deleted, and was even considered as a scientific notability test case. After a unanimous vote for deletion, it was speedily deleted. Given the strong consensus about deletion, and for the reasons cited in this test case, I feel it's justified to delete the information from this article. Kevinwiatrowski 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-level Cosmology 

message: In any astronomy or natural sciences class you will be told how luminiferous aether was proposed as something that filled all of space (specifically as a medium through which light travelled) but that it was later disproven. If Dark Energy does indeed fill all of space (as the first paragraph suggests as a possibility) would that not retroactively prove that aether was correct all along?
Xym 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because dark energy is not the transport medium of light.  Just because two (hypothetical) things occupy the same space does not mean they are the same thing. --Michael C. Price talk 08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean to say that Dark Energy replaced Aether exactly as I would not suggest that Dark Energy is a medium through which light travels. My speculation was that Dark Energy appeared to be 'something' that seemed to occupy all of space in much the same way that Aether was proposed to have also done. Xym 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aether was a very specific thing meant to work as a medium for carrying the electromagnetic field and fixing a reference frame for light.  The whole idea pretty much stopped making any sense when Einstein explained special relativity, and has long been rejected.  So yes, like the aether, dark energy would fill all of space, but otherwise it has nothing in common with that idea.  (In a sense, the cosmic microwave background---a sea of photons that (almost) uniformly fills the universe---is more like the aether, because it provides a natural frame of rest for the universe.  But the CMB's rest frame doesn't have any truly fundamental signficance like the aether's did.)  Gnixon 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Energy versus Luminiferous Aether 

message: This article is of very poor quality, and needs a total rewrite.  It is sufficiently removed from being illuminating of its subject matter, that deletion should be seriously considered until something better can be constructed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hermitian (talk • contribs).
:I've taken a detailed look at it, and it seems fine to me. Most of its statements appear to be correct and well-cited. The only drawback is that a layman might have trouble with some of its sections. What specific concerns do you have? --Christopher Thomas 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming here from Wikiproject Physics.  Article seems okay to me, too, but I've only skimmed it briefly.  Specific complaints?  Gnixon 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Even Wrong

message: However much I would like to contribute to this article, I just do not feel I am knowledgeable enough on the matter to have any constructive input. Instead, I have found a link to a news article that you may wish to consider in the body of this document. Thanks for reading, I hope you can make good use of it!  Whiskey in the Jar 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link.  On articles where I'm not a content expert I try to do copy edits and improve readability.  That stuff is always welcome.  Cheers, Gnixon 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics who have enough knowledge of cosmology to comment on this. The good news is, the article appears to be reputable (even the person proposing the idea is demonstrating suitable scientific cautiousness about it). However, per WP:NPOV, it would get at most a small note saying "a small number of scientists dispute the need for dark energy to explain the observed acceleration", until more people publish about it. --Christopher Thomas 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of the idea or read any papers about it (and the archive isn't behaving at the moment), but I can certainly say it isn't generating much discussion among cosmologists.  By notability standards it won't deserve much, if any, space here.  Gnixon 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Dark Energy an illusion?