Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan's Canada Cannabis Legalization Logitech Giveaway

We're giving away Logitech hardware to lucky 420chan users to celebrate recreational legalization on October 17!
Round 1 Giveaway Entry     Discussion Thread
Intergalactic Electromagnetism by Bruon Rossi - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 06:53:57 EST ID:tC4KRASE No.57199 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1518954837151.gif -(2096340B / 2.00MB, 400x354) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2096340
Hey /sagan/,

Quick question for y'all. Currently we observe the universe to be expanding at an accelerating rate and no equations can account for the force behind this since all scientists tend to be looking at gravity alone. However, the electromagnetic force is something like 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, and has the same inverse relationship to the square of the distance between the objects, meaning even at vast cosmic distances it should still be relevant, in fact MORE relevant, than gravity.

Maybe instead of "dark energy" it is simply the electromagnetic repulsion between galaxies who all gained like charges through the big bang or whatever and they simply move apart like two protons would?

Has this theory been debunked or seriously investigated?
>>
Nicolaus Copernicus - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:01:59 EST ID:tC4KRASE No.57203 Ignore Report Quick Reply
cmon guys bump.
>>
George Hale - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:01:40 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57207 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, the problem is the inverse square law (or approximation) over distance (which treats object as points) fits the genuine differential calculus description the better the larger the relative distances are.
And besides experimental evidence there is an incredible strong mathematical / rationalistic argument about it based on the three dimensions of space that every fundamental force has to behave in this fashion.
>>
George Hale - Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:13:03 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57208 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also any explanation that tries to explain universal expansion as "just" stuff moving for whatever reason has to take into account the finite size of the observable universe. This is explained currently by the cumulative rate universal expansion of space exceeding the speed of light, at this distance.
So any competing theory has to either:
  • Show another reason for the "edge" of the observable universe
  • Refute General Relativity
  • Do essentially the same "trick" as current theory, namely attributing the movement to the expansion of space not stuff moving.
>>
Alan Guth - Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:08:33 EST ID:tC4KRASE No.57209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57208

so why cant a finite number of galaxies be repelled due to like net charges
>>
Alan Guth - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:03:22 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57209
Because it does not match observations. For this idea to be a valid theory the rate of acceleration would have to drop off over distance.
Observations show the opposite to be true: Galaxies further away not only move faster (first derivative), they also accelerate faster (second derivative) and even the change of this acceleration is increasing (third derivative)
>>
George Hale - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:33:16 EST ID:4qSB6SyR No.57212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57210

so what is your theory
>>
Alan Guth - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:57:23 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57212
I see dark energy basically as a fudge factor cosmologists came up with to condense all the stuff they can't explain about redshift measurements.

It would be nice if it turns out to be related to the passing of time somehow, but I haven't seen any indication that would help finding that relation. If it is it's certainly not straight forward though since if it were people would have found it already.
>>
William Fowler - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:00:17 EST ID:4BZDvE1l No.57214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519815617969.jpg -(93598B / 91.40KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>theory

stop right there.
you need to google a definition of "scientific theory".
if you want to be taken seriously at all, you have to stop using the word "theory" in scientific discussions as another word for "HEY GUISE I GOT THIS CRAZY IDEA LOL".

"Electric Universe" is just the latest pseudo-scientific fad for people that are superficially interested in science, but unwilling or unable to actually learn about science. the EU movement has all the symptoms of a cult.
>>
Alan Guth - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:10:26 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I also like the steady state cosmology, which basically means instead of a big bang matter, energy & space is constantly created.
https://thesciencegeek.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/
The reason why the observable universe isn't in infinity large (the overall universe would be) is that created space prevents light after a certain distance from reaching us.
The problem with that theory is it contradicts big bang cosmology and in order to establish this theory one would have to observe the creation of matter somehow. This doesn't sound like it would be a big deal but at this scale we would talk about a rates of 6 atoms per cubic kilometer created every year.
>>
Gerard Kuiper - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:01:00 EST ID:kjgELPni No.57216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519851660925.png -(37698B / 36.81KB, 165x115) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Where's the missing mass hiding? (+ what actually tf *is* DM & DE?)
Pic related.
>>
Ejnar Hertzprung - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 05:06:10 EST ID:ipXKhk7s No.57218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7jVTGjb-I
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:12:32 EST ID:4qSB6SyR No.57219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57214

ok nerd calm down i know the difference. notice i never typed "scientific theory", i was using it in the layman's meaning, an "idea based on a bit of thinking". i never said my idea or the guy i was asking for his idea had come up with a true scientific theory like evolution or something
>>
Karl Jansky - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:21:30 EST ID:PAGBpgJc No.57220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519960890192.gif -(747912B / 730.38KB, 300x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57199
Inflation theory doesn't say that stuff in the universe is moving away from each other, rather that the space-time where the stuff resides is expanding, giving the red shifted appearance of most celestial objects. I'm not sure where you got the gravity thing from, as it's not really coming into play.
>>
Thomas Henderson - Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:30:53 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Place your bets dudes and dudettes.

Dark energy is:
1) something we haven't discovered yet
2) an error in our understanding of physics
3) cthulhu ftaghn ia ia ia ia tekeli
>>
Rudolph Minkowski - Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:41:19 EST ID:oI9ZFXsB No.57273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57240
Those aren't mutually exclusive.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.