Dark energy theory wrong? Is nickel the key to understanding the fate of the universe

The Cryptkeeper said:

So does a black hole in this universe create a big bang in another universe withing the multiverse? LMAO That's sorta on topic. Now just fit Dark Energy into that quandry and we're golden.

Click to expand...

the new universe in the multiverse would expand the same as ours is after the big bang, say their are white holes creating new universes in new big bangs it would be the force pushing the matter out and causing space time to inflate, dark energy. just like with our part of the multiverse.

darkdestruction420 said:

the new universe in the multiverse would expand the same as ours is after the big bang, say their are white holes creating new universes in new big bangs it would be the force pushing the matter out and causing space time to inflate, dark energy. just like with our part of the multiverse.

Click to expand...

Right. Good response.

The problem with the multi-verse theory is that if there really were an infinite number of other universes, one of them would have what you are describing, white holes pushing and pulling matter between universes.

Basically, the fact that we exist at all disproves the infinite multi-verse theory, because someone or something from one of these verses should have destroyed everything right now.

My theory is more that there is a limited number of parallel universes. Maybe just one or two others, and they are not much like the one we live in.

My theory is more that there is a limited number of parallel universes. Maybe just one or two others, and they are not much like the one we live in.

Click to expand...

That defines mult-verse for me right there.
We base what we know ... at this time ... on what we can see.
But as humans in general .... we see what we want to see ..... C my point .... hmmm
Eyes lie.

Another really interesting thing has been revealed about how we measure distances and calculate the universes age. It turns out stars we thought all had the same rough mass and put out the same sort of radiation and photons and always have the same brightness do in fact shrink and change over time and are not all the same.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110112143218.htm

Well that's a given. I guess rocket scientists aren't as smart as once thought.

and to re-but that article. one that explains that they correct for those effects in type la supernova already and in fact just made a big breakthrough in doing it with the type la supernova as the standard candle, something they've been trying to do for 20+ years.


Type Ia supernovae are used as standard candles, meaning they have a known intrinsic brightness. However, they're not all equally bright. Astronomers have to correct for certain variations. In particular, there is a known correlation between how quickly the supernova brightens and dims (its light curve) and the intrinsic peak brightness.
Even when astronomers correct for this effect, their measurements still show some scatter, which leads to inaccuracies when calculating distances and therefore the effects of dark energy. Studies looking for ways to make more accurate corrections have had limited success until now.
"We've been looking for this sort of 'second-order effect' for nearly two decades," said Foley.
Foley discovered that after correcting for how quickly Type Ia supernovae faded, they show a distinct relationship between the speed of their ejected material and their color: the faster ones are slightly redder and the slower ones are bluer.
Previously, astronomers assumed that redder explosions only appeared that way because of intervening dust, which would also dim the explosion and make it appear farther than it was. Trying to correct for this, they would incorrectly calculate that the explosion was closer than it appeared. Foley's work shows that some of the color difference is intrinsic to the supernova itself.
The new study succeeded for two reasons. First, it used a large sample of more than 100 supernovae. More importantly, it went back to "first principles" and reexamined the assumption that Type Ia supernovae are one average color.
The discovery provides a better physical understanding of Type Ia supernovae and their intrinsic differences. It also will allow cosmologists to improve their data analysis and make better measurements of dark energy -- an important step on the road to learning what this mysterious force truly is, and what it means for the future of the cosmos.

Everything isn't the same.

I just found something very interesting, it seems like we're on the brink of some very interesting discoveries and we've made an unbelievable amount of progress in the last 10 years. Hell, the last 5 years even. one of my hobbies is going back to stuff from like 10-15 years ago and then read my way forward to see how much we've learned and how our understandings evolved and what ends up being right and wrong and i especially like more radical/interesting/stiunning theories/studies/breakthroughs. ive heard of the james webb telescope being developed but i never realized how much more powerful it is compared to any of the others we hav .I cant wait for the james webb space telescope to be launched, its going to show us something incredible when its up to full power. right now the furthest objects we can see and measure their redshifts has already made huge progress the last 10-15 years, its been increasing by leaps and bounds everytime we launch our newest ones. We went from being able to see only small red shifts of like 2.0 to being able to see out to 10.0 which is unreal(redshift tells how far away and roughly how old the object is, higher redshifts=longer its lights been traveling to use and how its been effected by the expansion of space by becoming wider the further it goes). The new james webb space telescope will be able to see up to redshift 15-16 when fully operational, nearly doubling the distance we can see.

Yip..