What is the Mass / Energy of a Cubic Lightyear of empty space?

[Earl]

How would this be worked out?

How would we take into account virtual particles?

Is Space inside a galaxy different to Space in-between galaxys.

How much would the area be expanding per second?

[George Jones]

How would this be worked out?

How would we take into account virtual particles?

Take the density of dark energy and multiply it by the volume of one light-year.

The density of dark energy is 6.9x10^-27 kilograms per cubic metre (equivalent to about 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre).

A light-year is 9.46x10¹⁵ metres, so a cubic light-year is (9.46x10¹⁵ metres)³ = 8.47x10⁴⁷ cubic metres.

Therefore, the mass-equivalent of dark energy in a cubic light year is

M = (6.9x10^-27 kilograms per cubic metre) x (8.47x10⁴⁷ cubic metres)

M = 5.9x10²¹ kilograms.

To find the energy, use E = Mc².

[Ainsley]

Space inside a galaxy would contain more 'stuff' than the space between, I reckon.

[Earl]

Thank you for that break down George.

The total mass of 5.9x10²¹ kilograms is juts the mass of the virtual particles?

Is there a equivalent set of equations for Dark Matter, regular matter and any other "Stuffs"?

[JulianO]

Is there a equivalent set of equations for Dark Matter, regular matter and any other "Stuffs"?

Dark Matter and "other stuff" wouldn't fit the idea of an empty cubic lightyear.

If you want to fill your empty cubic lightyear with stuff, then it depends how much stuff you put into it, so it can be more or less any value you choose!

[Earl]

Dark Matter and "other stuff" wouldn't fit the idea of an empty cubic lightyear.

If you want to fill your empty cubic lightyear with stuff, then it depends how much stuff you put into it, so it can be more or less any value you choose!

Is there an average?

[George Jones]

Is there an average?

Averages:

dark matter = 1.8x10²¹ kilograms per cubic light-year;

regular matter = 0.35x10²¹ kilograms per cubic light-year.

[grey]

dark energy, dark matter... these are based on pure abstract theory and mere conjecture... dreamed up by mathematicians. we live in an electric universe, not a big bang universe where we need dark stuff to rationalize what we cannot understand based on a gravitational model that is based purely on speculation and non-scientifically observable and quantifiable elements..

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality:" - Nikola Tesla

the universe has been made more esoteric than ever by mathematicians who now dominate the realm of cosmology and spread all kinds of assumptions and fudge factors to validate absurd theories. dark matter, dark energy, these are what we in the academic world call "major" fudge factors.. how is it that 70% of the universe is comprised of dark energy (credited for the expansion of space, another questionable theory) and dark matter (invisible, undetectable and not made of "normal" stuff) accounts for 28% of the universe and only 2% left for "normal" matter??

expansion (inflation theory - devised by Allen Guth [MIT] giving rise to the Dark Energy fudge factor) - based on Hubble's law that the red-shift measured in galaxies is directly proportional to their distances, hence the further a galaxy is the faster it's moving away, not so, there have been many peculiar objects that directly contradict this assumption, most notably NGC-7603 that has a red-shift of 8700Km/sec while a quasar connected to the galaxy via a filament has a red-shift of 16800km/sec, and recent discoveries of 2 more quasars within the connecting filament have red-shifts of 117000km/sec and 72000km/sec... this is completely contrary to currently accepted theories... there are too many examples to cite but i leave you all with this.. would Hubble have come to the same conclusions if he had measured quasi-stellar red-shifts? i don;t think so, if not for Hubble's law, there is no need to run the clock back into a singularity, therefore, no big bang.. let alone the CMB (cosmic background radiation) temperature measurements which do not coincide with big bang predictions of 50 Kelvin, CMB is 3K, more akin to a stable non-expanding universe (predicted almost to the decimal place in a stable, non-expanding universe model)

a plasma universe.. 99% plasma - 1% regular atoms, all we see in the universe can be reproduced in labs and scaled to cosmological magnitudes when using plasma physics we can explain just about everything we observe in the universe today without the need for dark stuff.. and EM is 39 magnitudes, that's 1 with 39 zeros, stronger than gravity, and is more plausible than the gravitational model.

do yourself a favor and checkout the links below, in answer to your question, it is variable, depends on where you are taking your measurement and the EM field strength associated, determining the number (approximate) of charged particles predicted to be present... as for dark energy or dark matter, don't waste your time with that nonsense.

http://www.thunderbolts.info

http://www.plasmacolsmology.net

[Earl]

Some interesting points grey NGC 7603 is very interesting I have some links to do some further reading, its quiet interesting as I watched a BBC Horizon program about before the big bang, some of the scientists who were in this dismiss the Big Bang as impossible, and provide interesting theory's as to why.

Open minds

[JulianO]

dark energy, dark matter... these are based on pure abstract theory and mere conjecture... dreamed up by mathematicians.

Well not really, they are based on observation and a plausible way of interpreting the results.

we live in an electric universe, not a big bang universe ... various stuff based on abstract theory and conjecture....

There is too much to argue about here, and little in the way of proof. The thing about electricity is it comes in two flavours, and depending on how arranged either attract or repel each other. On big enough scales it tends to cancel out there being enough attractive and repulsive forces.

Gravity only comes in attractive flavour so it always adds up.

[grey]

Well not really, they are based on observation and a plausible way of interpreting the results.

I disagree... simply adding the equivalent of 96 to 98% of mystery element(dark stuff) to formulate "plausible" equations is not science... it's conjecture... mathematicians proved that heavier than air flight was impossible, and this after the Wright brothers had already flown... this was published in Scientific American! Don't get me wrong, Math is a critical and a vital tool for science, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

There is too much to argue about here, and little in the way of proof. The thing about electricity is it comes in two flavours, and depending on how arranged either attract or repel each other. On big enough scales it tends to cancel out there being enough attractive and repulsive forces.

Gravity only comes in attractive flavour so it always adds up.

In the EU model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force, planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by the exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails. Planets would quickly assume orbits that ensure the least electrical interaction.

gravity is an infinitesimally week force and does not allow for credible explanations of what is really going on out there.. again, EM is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity (1 with 39 zeros).. more plausible as theories go when we don't need to add a 98% fudge factor to equations to reproduce what we "observe" in plasma physics. yes, even planetary orbits can be explained... as for the the acceptance of relativistic theories, which i would equate to astrology, it is completely disjointed with quantum mechanics and leaves too many holes to plug with math, plasma physics can be applied at all levels... a "unified" theory one would say, after all isn't that the holy grail of the quest to prove the gravitational model? i would venture that gravity isn't a separate force at all but rather a component of the EM spectrum yet to be determined by experiments... this is what i would call plausible, but this is, after all, my humble opinion..

[JulianO]

I disagree... simply adding the equivalent of 96 to 98% of mystery element(dark stuff) to formulate "plausible" equations is not science... it's conjecture...

It's only conjecture if there is no supporting evidence. There are about 5 separate lines of evidence that support Dark Matter - 1 new type of particle, several major problems fixed. Does that make it real? No, but it makes it the most plausible.

mathematicians proved that heavier than air flight was impossible, and this after the Wright brothers had already flown... this was published in Scientific American! Don't get me wrong, Math is a critical and a vital tool for science, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

There are lots of other things that we're "proved" too, and incidentally they didn't prove it, they showed a reasoned argument that said it was very unlikely. A similar case was put forward for rocket flights, bumble bees flying, and so on. Just because someone once published without all the facts and gave their best guess at the time, doesn't mean we can suddenly reject all conventional science and maths.

Dark Matter didn't come out of any mathematical huddle or pages of equations, it came out of observations that didn't fit the model. Either the model has to be changed, or we overlooked something. Suggesting Dark Matter, however distasteful it might be, makes the known equations work without modification, equations that we can test every day on the earth and in space flight to the moon and other planets.

In the EU model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force, planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by the exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails. Planets would quickly assume orbits that ensure the least electrical interaction.

So we should be able to test this. Gravity is what keeps me in my chair, so if I apply enough electric charge above or below me I should go into orbit? The equations of gravity allow us to send probes to other planets millions of kilometres away, all without taking electrical currents into account. Anyone can come up with an idea, testing it is what counts.

gravity is an infinitesimally week force and does not allow for credible explanations of what is really going on out there..

again, EM is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity (1 with 39 zeros).. more plausible as theories go when we don't need to add a 98% fudge factor to equations to reproduce what we "observe" in plasma physics.

Credible to who?

We don't need fudge factors on local scale, the laws of gravity work perfectly fine until we come to galactic sized and above objects - and by including DM and DE they continue to work on the scale of the universe.

If gravity wasn't so weak, we'd be squashed flat! As it is, it takes the whole of the Earth to keep me in my chair, and only a couple of inches of plastic to counter that with the electrical force between atoms.

yes, even planetary orbits can be explained...

Yes - by gravity.

as for the the acceptance of relativistic theories, which i would equate to astrology,

Hardly, the GPS system relies of relativity to make accurate navigation. Astrology makes generic predictions that are right as often as they are wrong. My GPS usually gets me where I want to go, as long as I put in the right address! I could also mention the 1915 classic test of GR, and the everyday tests of SR in colliders.

it is completely disjointed with quantum mechanics and leaves too many holes to plug with math, plasma physics can be applied at all levels...

Yes the quantum and large scale worlds have yet to be unified, but I don't think plasma physics will do it.

a "unified" theory one would say, after all isn't that the holy grail of the quest to prove the gravitational model?

No - the gravitational model works just fine - ask any astronaut, ask Voyager 2. The unification is to explain things that need both quantum and gravity at the same time (black holes, big bang etc)

i would venture that gravity isn't a separate force at all but rather a component of the EM spectrum yet to be determined by experiments... this is what i would call plausible, but this is, after all, my humble opinion..

People have been tinkering with electricity for a long time, and electromagnetism in general. If they found a way of switching off gravity using it I think we'd have heard by now! We've been up and down the EM spectrum from radio to gamma rays, and its all pretty similar just at different energies.

I'm not saying we have all the answers, or that there might not be a few surprises on the way, but you have to build your theories on evidence, rather than cherry picking issues with the current ideas.

[grey]

Julian, i would just like to add that proof is key here... the gravitational model cannot be proven because we cannot understand, observe or measure 98% of the predicted constituents, the electrical model cannot only be proven, but reproduced in any plasma lab and scaled to cosmological magnitudes. Look at the recent findings with regards to cometary bodies.. this alone should shed some light on the question.. the stardust mission findings falsify the previously accepted theories all together. the burden of proof lies with the G model, where it seems that the more we observe the more dark stuff we have to invent to make it work...

in closing, i would just like to say that it's by questioning accepted theories that our minds are opened to learning to truth and hope you don;t take offense to the way i address your points.

Can you imagine if the Big bang and relativist theory was proven wrong, the amount of money and research time that will have been wasted.. how silly all the famous proponents of these theories will appear.. look at what happens to people who question accepted dogma http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/synopsis-4-what-big-bang/

[grey]

build theories on evidence... precisely my point

"Critics often point out that a theory requiring speculative, undetectable stuff on such a scale also stretches credulity to the breaking point. Something very real, perhaps even obvious, is almost certainly missing in the standard Gravity Model. Is it possible that the missing component could be something as familiar to the modern world as electricity?"

[Earl]

I have had a look at the NGC 7603 image and I thing Object 2 and 3 are background galaxys the process up like them when working with the HST Fits files, and the So Called Bridge does not inteact correctly as it lands in the middle of Object 1

the statement "it is highly likely that these four objects are physically linked and sharing the same space -- standard cosmological model or no."

I feel is inaccurate, we are looking at 3 separate objects through NGC 7603.

A better set of exposures would be better to get the full picture of NGC 7603

Ill book some hst time

[grey]

Earl, this object has been scrutinized by many astronomers and was found to have the four objects connected, not sure what you are seeing in the HST images you are talking about, but i assure you these findings are accurate.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/586/2/L119/fulltext/16874.text.html

[Earl]

Maybe, maybe not nothing is fact bit like dark matter

[grey]

there are many confirming articles and observations... here's one from Cornell http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466

[grey]

Earl , i agree with you on the dark matter... but this is different, this object has been confirmed to be joined to it's companion and the 2 QSO,s within are just too precisely positioned within the filament to be coincidental

[JulianO]

Dark energy moves to 99.996% certain.

http://www.space.com...-expansion.html

Full paper here http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2125

Still no idea what DE is though

[grey]

i read this article and it makes the claim based on this assumption:

"In the end, the team determined that there is a 99.996 percent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the CMB maps, researchers said."

"This work also tells us about possible modifications to Einstein’s theory of general relativity," said lead author Tommaso Giannantonio, of Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich in Germany.

then we have this that pretty much sums it...

"The next generation of cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys should provide the definitive measurement, either confirming general relativity, including dark energy, or even more intriguingly, demanding a completely new understanding of how gravity works,"

the latter part of that statement should be the part you concern yourself with..

look, all i'm saying is, if you have a background in science, don;t be closed minded about conflicting theories, embrace them and do your part to analyze and draw your own conclusions... be critical and open minded. I am pursuing a degree in astrophysics, i also decided to take extra courses in electrodynamics and plasma physics because i personally want a broader understanding of the universe while looking for some things we may have overlooked in mainstream theories, for instance the reason we need copious amounts of dark stuff to validate our equations and how we need to invent stuff to fit the model. I like to keep an open mind, but i also "gravitate" towards a simpler explanation based on known effects and my own understanding, i do this by educating myself in as many scientific disciplines as possible, and draw my own conclusions based on what i know and understand all the while doing my very best to keep an open mind and not profess the "truth" when we may very well never know what that is. But to be convinced of something based solely on the fact that accepted theories are just that, accepted, based on a 96 to 98% uncertainty factor (dark stuff)... well that's a stretch by any means

additional note: i've read the paper Tommaso Giaanatonio et al and leave you with this excerpt of their conclusion...

It is clear that, if the ΛCDM model is the true underlying

model of cosmology, the significance of the ISW effect will remain

lower than some other cosmological probes;...

[JulianO]

A theory that is shown to fit the model at 99.996% accuracy has to be taken as good evidence.

This compared to your claims that "the electrical model cannot only be proven, but reproduced in any plasma lab and scaled to cosmological magnitudes. "

I haven't seen any proof of it yet, and I take the view that even if it were proven, scaling up from a lab experiment to the entire universe just on a statement is a pretty bold. Gravity works fine in the lab, but it takes solar system scales to show flaws in it that general relativity fixes, galactic scales to show flaws that dark matter is the best current fix to, and intergalactic scales to show the effect of dark energy.

I think all scientists keep their minds open, but you have to be careful you don't keep them so open your mind drops out!

Am I open to other models that fit besides dark matter? Sure! There are papers published all the time on alternatives.

I think Dark Matter is the best solution so far, because all sorts of things are consistent with it. I could list about 4-5 independent ways DM makes cosmology consistent. The fact we can't detect it yet doesn't mean its a useless theory. It's just like the neutrino or the Higgs, both invented particles, both fit the data, the neutrino was finally detected many years after it was proposed, and similarly it looks good for the Higgs.

I can wave my arms and say planets are kept in orbit by tiny tiny unicorns which just happen to appear to emulate Newtons equations of gravity, but I'm likely to be labelled a crank - particularly if I apply for telescope time to look for them. It's an extraordinary claim, and so needs extraordinary evidence before people will take it seriously.

Current theories are like skyscrapers, built up on solid foundations, based on lots of underlying work. It is possible that some of the foundation blocks are shaky, but people have been bashing at them regularly over many years, and occasionally there are little cracks found in them that can be fixed by a slightly better block, wholesale replacement of the blocks with something new is pretty unlikely.

[grey]

Julian, you obviously know nothing of plasma physics or electrodynamics so debating this further would be analogous to debating the existence of God with a catholic priest or a fundamentalist.

Before you denounce someone "claims" I suggest you do some research into plasma science and it's scalability.. throwing the comment about unicorns governing orbital dynamics in to the mix to make some diminutive parallel with my statements only makes me wonder, and based on what I've just read, i question the existence of any open mindedness at all.

in closing, the foundation of current theories are tenable at best by purely mathematical equations contrived to make the model work, i know this for a fact, i deal with the "math" daily. My opinion is an informed one, based on a solid foundation in science and mathematics. Your defense of the standard model seems to be one based on popular belief... i imagine if we lived in Ptolemaic times, you'd be one of the defenders of the geocentric universe. Unlike you, i do accept the possibility that other theories may be correct and in time, i imagine that some will be proven to be right... the existence of Higgs boson is one of them, how this applies to the standard model, well that remains to be seen, not discounted by plasma physics, but other explanations also apply.. as for dark energy and dark matter... well these phenomena can only be observed indirectly because none of the experiments we can currently dream up will interact with this stuff... gravitational lensing? this is not proof of anything rather than the fact the visible electromagnetic portion of the spectrum can be observed to be bent by "something".. hmm.. bending electromagnetic force by means of gravity... plasma does this far more efficiently..

and with that, i leave this forum to its followers...

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

[JulianO]

Thanks for the discussion, I wish you'd enlighten me on your thorough knowledge of plasma physics

I'll leave you with my own quote:

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”. Richard Feynman

[grey]

that's a very apt quote Julian... the theories i am currently working with are completely supported by experiment. In science, we use a method we call the three legged stool approach.. Observe, Theorize, Experiment ... dark energy and matter can only be addressed using the first 2 "legs", the first being interpreted and the third hypothetical, based on pure mathematical theory alone, therefore the stool only stands using one hec of a balancing act...as for the quote... it directly applies to theory you defend without a background to do so, rather than accept the possibility that there may be something to other theories people are talking about...

I would be elated if any of these theories was proven correct, i am not convinced that either theory is absolutely correct, wrong, or that there aren't holes in both, but there's a fundamental requirement in science that we do not blindly adhere to accepted philosophies without tangible proofs based solely on popular beliefs....

keep an open mind,