Hubble Confirms Cosmic Acceleration with Weak Lensing


Need more evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating? Just look to the Hubble Space Telescope. An international team of astronomers has indeed confirmed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The team, led by Tim Schrabback of the Leiden Observatory, conducted an intensive study of over 446,000 galaxies within the COSMOS (Cosmological Evolution Survey) field, the result of the largest survey ever conducted with Hubble. In making the COSMOS survey, Hubble photographed 575 slightly overlapping views of the same part of the Universe using the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) onboard the orbiting telescope. It took nearly 1,000 hours of observations.

In addition to the Hubble data, researchers used redshift data from ground-based telescopes to assign distances to 194,000 of the galaxies surveyed (out to a redshift of 5). “The sheer number of galaxies included in this type of analysis is unprecedented, but more important is the wealth of information we could obtain about the invisible structures in the Universe from this exceptional dataset,” said co-author Patrick Simon from Edinburgh University.

In particular, the astronomers could “weigh” the large-scale matter distribution in space over large distances. To do this, they made use of the fact that this information is encoded in the distorted shapes of distant galaxies, a phenomenon referred to as weak gravitational lensing. Using complex algorithms, the team led by Schrabback has improved the standard method and obtained galaxy shape measurements to an unprecedented precision. The results of the study will be published in an upcoming issue of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

The meticulousness and scale of this study enables an independent confirmation that the expansion of the Universe is accelerated by an additional, mysterious component named dark energy. A handful of other such independent confirmations exist. Scientists need to know how the formation of clumps of matter evolved in the history of the Universe to determine how the gravitational force, which holds matter together, and dark energy, which pulls it apart by accelerating the expansion of the Universe, have affected them. “Dark energy affects our measurements for two reasons. First, when it is present, galaxy clusters grow more slowly, and secondly, it changes the way the Universe expands, leading to more distant — and more efficiently lensed — galaxies. Our analysis is sensitive to both effects,” says co-author Benjamin Joachimi from the University of Bonn. “Our study also provides an additional confirmation for Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which predicts how the lensing signal depends on redshift,” adds co-investigator Martin Kilbinger from the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris and the Excellence Cluster Universe.

The large number of galaxies included in this study, along with information on their redshifts is leading to a clearer map of how, exactly, part of the Universe is laid out; it helps us see its galactic inhabitants and how they are distributed. “With more accurate information about the distances to the galaxies, we can measure the distribution of the matter between them and us more accurately,” notes co-investigator Jan Hartlap from the University of Bonn. “Before, most of the studies were done in 2D, like taking a chest X-ray. Our study is more like a 3D reconstruction of the skeleton from a CT scan. On top of that, we are able to watch the skeleton of dark matter mature from the Universe’s youth to the present,” comments William High from Harvard University, another co-author.

The astronomers specifically chose the COSMOS survey because it is thought to be a representative sample of the Universe. With thorough studies such as the one led by Schrabback, astronomers will one day be able to apply their technique to wider areas of the sky, forming a clearer picture of what is truly out there.

Source: EurekAlert

Paper: Schrabback et al., ‘Evidence for the accelerated expansion of the Universe from weak lensing tomography with COSMOS’, Astronomy and Astrophysics, March 2010,

39 Replies to “Hubble Confirms Cosmic Acceleration with Weak Lensing”

  1. I always like to picture of the Universe as a glob of goo existing inside of a lava-lamp. It’s in a constant state of transformation……stretching, bulging, breaking off, shrinking, in various sections, all at the same time.

    It could very well be that our part of the Universe is expanding in reaction to another part of it shrinking in size. 🙂

  2. Great to see these latest results from Hubble refining our knowledge of DM & DE. The illustration included shows that now we can map DM not just spatially, but now see how its’ distribution changes over cosmological time frames( via weak lensing tomography ). That in itself is newsworthy.

    As for the study of DE, the paper notes that studies of diverse topics such as type Ia SNe, the CMB, galaxy clusters, baryon acoustic oscillations(BAO), integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect(SWE) and strong lensing, in addition to weak lensing, now offer corroborating and independent confirmations of the existence of DE. These multiple lines of investigation of DE & DM will need to be carefully addressed in any theories concerning their nature.

    A recent overview paper, “Weak lensing, dark matter and dark energy” is available here: . The abstract notes “Weak gravitational lensing is rapidly becoming one of the principal probes of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. In this brief review we outline how weak lensing helps determine the structure of dark matter halos, measure the expansion rate of the universe, and distinguish between modified gravity and dark energy explanations for the acceleration of the universe. We also discuss requirements on the control of systematic errors so that the systematics do not appreciably degrade the power of weak lensing as a cosmological probe.”

    A great review of the importance of weak lensing studies in relation to current cosmological investigations.

  3. This is rather easy to see with analogues with electromagnetism. Two paths by photons from the same source, around the gravitating body and to the photo-optical element form a closed path. The geodesic for the photon path A = nabla_uU is then evaluated around the loop. The A is in general relativity a rather complicated object called the Christoffel symbol or connection, but I use the letter A to draw its analogue with the vector potential of electromagnetism. In electromagnetism Stokes law tells us that the loop integral of the vector potential Al is equal to the magnetic field B evaluated on the area enclosed by the loop:

    oint A*dx = int-int B*da

    By analogue the connection term in gravity A is a one-form (to use the language of differential forms) and the covariant differential of this is a two-form that is the curvature R_{ab} = R_{abcd}dx^c/\dx^d, where the differential element dx^c/\dx^d is the infinitesimal area the curvature is evaluated on. A similar Stokes’ law evaluates this curvature on the entire area.

    The curvature evaluated will be all the curvature, which includes the local gravitating source which forms the lens and the curvature due to the accelerated expansion of the universe. All of this is evaluated. By comparing various paths one can then compute what the curvature, or the Ricci curvature R^{00} (the time-time term which tells us how flat space is being stretched out), due to the eternal inflation of the universe is.

    Jon: Thanks for the paper reference.


  4. @ Molecular, I find your lava lamp analogy very pleasing and easy to grasp. From my layman’s view it seems to ‘solve’ a lot of the current problems with explaining the universe’s expansion. Good food for thought.

  5. Is there any evidence that the universe is expanding at different rates in different areas? Or shrinking in any area? Seems from everything I’ve read the Universe is only expanding, and that expansion is uniform. Can someone more in the know comment on this?

  6. The universe is expanding in a manner that is isotropic. The CMB anisotropies reflect local deviations that are due to local gravitational clumping of matter — ie galaxies. So the expansion is according to v = Hd, H = Hubble constant and d = distance, where this formula does generalize for larger cosmological distances. There is then no apparent “axis of evil” as Carroll and others proposed a few years ago.


  7. Hannes,

    I created a thread in the BAUT forum specifically for you, to discuss the ideas you wrote in comments on one of my Universe Today articles. Is there any special reason why you did not join?

  8. @ UF:

    I don’t think I’m “in the know” here, but if you read about inflation in a few papers:

    You will see that the natural state for the simplest models is chaotic. And you have the possibility of bubble universes. In other words, models predict multiverses with different expansion rates. Or in some cases I believe, local failure of inflation, bubbles that implode.

    [Now, certainly some of those models have trouble. For example the simplest models doesn’t guarantee this behavior as they run up against what is known in theory. Likewise they run up against the latest observations that have started to exclude models. (Yay!)

    But I’m talking general here.]

    This is natural, since inflation models are akin to effective field theories in that they discuss potentials, and potentials can vary over space as well as time.

    From another perspective, it is much easier, at least for a naive layman, to envision physics in an over all expanding universe.

    It sets the arrow of time of our emergent spacetime, or in other words let entropy have a sufficiently large and well behaved environment to work against. The same goes for decoherence in quantum mechanics.

    It is difficult to see how those processes would work in a collapsing universe at large. (Even, I think, in those collapsing local bubble universes above.) And since our type of universe can be either expanding or collapsing (but not stably static), I’m glad that observations tell me I don’t necessarily have to answer the questions of the more difficult case.

    Maybe nature is too. 😀

  9. Ups! I see that what I wrote can confuse things.

    AFAIU bubble universes can implode in such a way that another universe takes over the volume. Those then presumably haven’t problem with entropy et cetera.

    I was referring to universes that at inflation doesn’t have the oomph to make it as for ever future expanding. Their world lines would have trouble to see an expanding environment, I think. And I believe some inflation theories have the above.

    My apologies, this is why it is dangerous to write about vaguely perceived subjects that you don’t work in, however fascinating. OTOH, it is a science blog. :-~

  10. Hello Uncle Fred,

    The author, Nancy Atkinson, has also written about Dark Flow available on this website entitled [Scientists Detect “Dark Flow:” Matter From Beyond the Visible Universe] in case you hadn’t yet seen it.

    Circumstantially, this is thought to be driven gravitationly by a great mass somewhere beyond the limits of the visible universe rather than some ripple in DE driven expansion, but if this answers your question at least one part of the universe apparently isn’t flying apart uniformly.

  11. Scientists need to be careful, cosmic acceleration is not the same as an increase in redshift.

    That’s an assumption based upon presupposition without preponderance of the temporal knowable “facts”. These “facts” might actually change in time.

    There is nothing wrong with that!, but keep in mind it is just an assumption,

    As is “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Probably just showing the limits of contemporary knowledge.

  12. Jean Tate, I am very sorry. The first link didn’t work for me.

    I will add new info at the Baud Forum soon.

  13. The author, Nancy Atkinson, has also written about Dark Flow available on this website entitled [Scientists Detect “Dark Flow:” Matter From Beyond the Visible Universe] in case you hadn’t yet seen it.

    An author is someone who writes something original. Both this article and the one you mentioned about dark flow are just copy/pasted press releases with a little reshuffling in the first paragraph or two. Pretty much like all the articles on UT.
    Hubble confirms cosmic acceleration with weak lensing
    Scientists Detect Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Across Billions of Light Years

    This article says “written by Nancy Atkinson” but from the last sentence of the first paragraph all the way to the last period, including the title, is exactly verbatim from a press release written by Colleen Sharkey posted on Eurekalert.

    It’s called plagiarism:
    From the WIki entry:

    Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the “use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”

    In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics…

    While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier.

  14. @ Solrey

    You might have seen that at the bottom of each article there is normally given the source. That’s not plagiarism….
    So, what’s your point?

  15. Probably just a dumb question, but is it still plagiarism if you have the original author permission to use it?

  16. Then it should state something to the effect of: “Reproduced with permission of the publisher…” or “From the researchers press release”.
    Or the article should be an original containing information and details gleaned from press releases, published papers, interviews, etc. with all sources duly acknowledged and with permission.

    Otherwise it’s plagiarism (claiming credit for another’s work) when the title says “Written by: “X” but the entire body of the piece is just a copy of text originally written by “Y” with no acknowledgement of “Y’s” authorship.

  17. And even if that’s true, what’s your point?

    If you don’t like it, you should maybe consider to not visit this page!?

  18. It’s impolite to the original author for one, dishonest for another and some of these “authors” jump into debate with an air of authority or something and support some of the usual suspects who abuse others on a regular basis. And if they’re getting paid, well that’s a whole other can of worms.

  19. Hey Done any sock puppetry lately, Solrey?
    Isn’t that too some kind of pseudo-plagiarism?

  20. Thank you all for your input. I had a chance to review information regarding the “Dark Flow” as well as following up on LC’s, OM’s, and HSBC descriptions of Isotropic cosmological expansion. I feel I’m closer to understanding the basics of research on these matters.

    I can’t help but wonder though. What could the source of the dark flow be? If it is indeed an object beyond the visible universe (and not a property of local space-time) .

    How much can we learn about it? Could we use the movement of galaxies over time to determine it’s location? Mass? Is there anything in the known Universe that could possibly obtain the properties to have such an effect? Could even a cluster of super massive black holes have such a massive gravitational effect?

    Just curious and wondering if there has been any speculation at this point..

  21. @ solrey

    what’s wrong with “quoting” when you also give the source as it is regularly done here, and also in this story?

    As long as you acknowledge the original source, there’s nothing wrong with quoting. That’s done everywhere, and it’s good that it’s done this way. A scientific paper is full of quotes, and it needs to be!

    I don’t see your point! Or do you just want to question the credibility of Universe Today? Maybe in order to say “hey look, all science guys are bad – they quote! They have no original work!”?
    And what the hell does this have to do with the work that has been talked about here that the universe is, indeed, accelerating?

  22. I am in a discussion on just this. I have been working with something called the Taub-NUT (TN) spacetime. This is a rather strange spacetime which at first glance would seem to have absolutely no physical interpretation. The TN spacetime is similar to a black hole, but where the horizon is determined not at a certain radius and instead a time. The spacetime also permits the existence of a NUT (NUT = Newman-Unti-Tamborino) parameter which is analogous to the magnetic monopole. General relativity in a static and weak case gives Newtonian gravity, similar to the Coulomb law in electrostatics. Mass serves as the source of this gravity field. In greater generality there is a gravitational analogue of the magnetic field, and its monopole charge is the NUT parameter.

    Dirac proposed a way of getting a magnetic monopole with a long solenoid, where the end of the solenoid looks like a magnetic monopole and the other end is sent off to “infinity.” A slice of the TN spacetime is a gravitational analogue similar to the Dirac monopole, so we cut out a hole in spacetime (or the D3-brane of the universe), attach this TN spacetime, and attach the other end to a different D3-brane — another cosmology or “universe.” Then let the effective radius of this tubular TN spacetime become very small, on the order of the string length. Now the gravito-magnetic monopole charge on this D3-brane (or spacetime cosmology) will act to drag the frames of moving matter. So the question is whether this sort of thing might indeed be going on, and whether this might account for this strange dragging or “dark flow” which has been recently reported, or reported as a near confirmation of something suspected two years ago.

    This has the advantage that it acts to drag the motion of particles in a local region, indeed considerably so, but would not as severely perturb the CMB isotropy. An enormous black hole, say in the many trillions of solar mass range, would more severely perturb the CMB background. Anyway, this is a trial balloon of sorts — maybe it will work, or maybe not.


  23. Absolutely fascinating. Not sure I understand the basics of such a space-time… it seems to defy visualization. Yet If I’m following you correctly, you are proposing that it acts like a super thin straw that intersects our cosmology and through a magnetic process “tugs” on the movements of matter for great distances – all theoretical of course.

    So possibly, the actual rift/tear in our cosmology could be quite small, and be a very insignificant appearing localized artifact. Yet the dipole magnetism and it’s interactions would be far reaching.

    I also gather that this TN space-time draws matter magnetically charged matter into a different cosmology (AKA multiverse?).. thus potentially having a equal and opposite reverse dark flow?

    Am I following you correctly or am I relating far to much to wormholes here?

  24. The TN space, or the section which attaches two D3-branes is similar to a wormhole. The TN space is reduced to a thin tube, similar to a string in a way. The NUT parameter, a gravitational analogue of a magnetic monopole charge, then emerges from what we would observe as a point. This will induce a frame dragging on particles. It does not however cause particles to move from one cosmology to another.

    It is an idea or conjecture at this point. The TN space will have strings “wrapped” on it, and these bind the D3-branes into a sort of laminated series of branes. Our universe corresponds to just one of these. I got interested in the TN spacetime because it permits the existence of a modular or discrete form of a quantum time operator.


  25. Solrey has an argument.
    Although it really isn’t considered plagarism by definition. Whenever you publish an article “in full” or a great deal of what you publish is from another article, the source should be listed with the title, not at the end of the article.

    Is the universe expanding at the same speed in all directions? Of all the studies completed, we still do not have a large enough sample to determine an answer. It also brings up other questions… is DE a force? Is it a consequence from the fabric of spacetime? Is it some piece of anti-gravity? etc.
    However, this study may bring us closer than ever to the question; since a rather large amount of galaxies were included, which are far away from the well known galaxy clusters. Although, we may need to determine how galaxy clusters from these far far far away galaxies react.
    If I had to render a guess… I would say it is pretty uniform, but not perfect.

  26. @solrey
    Are you suggesting that scientists should invent new stuff instead of quoting from others? Writing science articles and papers is not the same as writing a SF novel.

  27. @olaf

    Nancy Atkinson is not a scientist, she’s a freelance writer/journalist since 2000 according to her UT bio. In journalism, quoting sources is one thing but copying verbatim an entire piece written by someone else and putting your name on it is just plain wrong. The latest LHC article that came out today is like many others, 95% of it is an exact copy of the press release. It’s lazy, immoral and if compensation is involved, fraudulent as well.

    I brought this up because it seems that some folks try to portray the “writers” of these articles as some kind of experts yet they seem to be more expert at copy/paste than actual journalism. Sometimes they jump into debate with an air of authority as if they actually do something scientific. Someone asked if my point was to question the credibility of UT. My response is that several regular commenters constantly question the credibility of others but they apparently don’t like that mirror held to their own faces.
    All, and I mean all of the equipment reviews are just gushing fluff pieces that encourage people to go spend a lot of money on the products they’re promoting. If there is plagiarism in the articles, how are we to know the “reviews” aren’t just fed to them from the manufacturers too? Getting any perks for that?

    Writing science articles and papers is not the same as writing a SF novel.

    Writing science articles is not the same as writing a science paper anyway and neither is the same as writing a SF novel, although there seems to be quite a bit of overlap these days. 😉

  28. The purpose of Universe Today is to get news about space exploration and astronomy out and available to the public as quickly as possible. We have both original articles written by our writers and articles based on press releases from space agencies, universities and research facilities. You’ll find this is common among other space and astronomy news sites as well. When we do use a press release, we always put a link to the source at the end of the article and provide ample info about the source institution. The way our website is set up, the person who posts an article, whether it is from a press release or an original work is listed as the author. Perhaps that is something we should look at changing.

  29. Hi Nancy. Nothing personal, I like you actually. I know presenting press releases is common, but when they’re just copied it usually states something like what another site did for the very same release: “Provided by ESA/Hubble Information Centre”
    Or like what your source link did by providing the spokespersons contact information in the header.

    It becomes an issue when commenters are left thinking the writers to which an article is credited, likely due to believing there have been journalistic research efforts,, have acquired some sort of expertise or vast knowledge of a given subject. It’s also an issue when certain abusive comments are made regarding posting alternate thoughts on a “proper scientific website” when UT is just one among many space and astronomy news sites. Kind of ironic since it appears that proper journalistic protocol isn’t always followed, even if it is an innocent oversight.

    I do appreciate the fact that UT provides links to source material and published papers. It’s one of the reasons why I visit UT.

    If I may make a suggestion, when press releases are presented mostly intact that the header credit the agency and/or the spokesperson providing the release , and likewise credit as editor the UT journalist who does the layout and editing for the UT article. Everyone ought to get credit where it’s due.

  30. I actually question why solrey is doing this here and now.

    It is clear EU/PC has been again hammered in recent weeks, and deservedly so – and some of it was done by me. The plans of the hidden designers of the PC/EU campaign has gone of the rails in recent times – mostly because they are not being accepted in the mainstream, and being directly exposed as pseudo-science.

    The have attacked me recently because they don’t like the language I use to highlight their mostly idiotic schemes. They are openly and continuously being discredited in the comments by bloggers here in Universe Today (and in BAUT). Now it seems that Solrey has mostly objected to Nancy’s article “Periodic Table of Science Bloggers” that appeared on Universe Today. (See Science blogs – ‘Electric Universe Net Talk)

    Here, solrey has openly questioned the removal of UT ‘blogger” iantresman’s “plasma-universe ” site from this ‘Periodic Table” based on my arguments towards its author about the organised agenda of PC/EU and proponents who are desperately trying to raise some profile.

    The game here appears to be to try an isolate several people associated with some story as to discredit its very legitimacy. So here we see instead of attacking me, we see now see others questioning of Nancy herself and the presumed ‘questionable actions’ Universe Today articles she presents.

    Solrey, (as well as iantresman), have been using various dubious techniques such as sock puppetry for years to raise the profile of there own slant on “plasma physics” under the perverted of electric universe/ plasma cosmology agenda. Again. EU/PC is NOT SCIENCE, its is not supported by astronomy or the astrophysical community, and it has an organised agenda (as stated on Thunderbolt.Info policy);

    As our Internet presence expands the opportunity to reach independent minded and accredited researchers will continue to grow. Visitors who now have a good sense of the “Electric Universe” hypothesis can be helpful in directing the attention of others to the site. Your active liaison on our behalf will make possible much broader interdisciplinary communication than any of us could achieve on our own.
    In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.

    So the cry and plea here has nothing to do with plagiarism at all, it is about trying to discredit an experienced author/contributor against another article presented in Universe Today.

    So saying “Hi Nancy. Nothing personal, I like you actually.” seems far from the truth. All it looks like here it is just payback!

  31. According to our “peace[ful]” solrey here;

    “It’s impolite to the original author for one, dishonest for another and some of these “authors” jump into debate with an air of authority or something and support some of the usual suspects who abuse others on a regular basis. And if they’re getting paid, well that’s a whole other can of worms.”

    …but can say almost in the same breath

    “Hi Nancy. Nothing personal, I like you actually.”

    Clearly, things are not going solrey way lately, so instead of firstly coming out with all guns blazing, now, it appears butter would not melt in his mouth – the sweet innocent little darling he is and appears to be.

    Nothing gets past these guys, and time and again we see the ye old precious “victim card” again. They want us to believe all those big bad Universe Today bloggers (and now the ‘authors’ it seems) are degrading their dreams of some EU/PC supremacy or utopia, where legitimate mainstream science are denigrating their little plans.

    It is our “air of authority” by being ” impolite” and our own “dishonest” “abuse” that worries them.

    Yet, the bottom line is, nearly all of the EU/PC ideas have time and again been proven wrong. Time and again the accepted views of astronomy and astrophysics have been shown as the best scientific explanation of phenomena. This story on “Hubble Confirms Cosmic Acceleration with Weak Lensing” is based on real science and real observations.

    Then, yet again, the same old EU/PC people disagree that the cosmology or astrophysics must be wrong. (We have the better explanation! Begging, if you would only listen, PLEASE!) Then they begin the usual whining and whinging that they wee voices of the downtrodden are not being heard, and then begins the clarion call for the faithful that we are all being “hard done by.”

    Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology is NOT legitimate science. It pretends to be umbrellaed under the legitimate study of “plasma physics”, when it is really a CULT supporting unrelated or unsupported astronomical or astrophysical. As such, it is fundamentally pseudo-science – just like astrology is the pseudo-science of astronomy. [Read the fine print, it is “alternative physics theories.[“Read the fine print, it is “alternative physics theories.” Therefore it should be always deleted!]

    My Solution. Consider changing the Comments Policy of Universe Today immediately to read;

    Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don’t advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories or pseudo-science. We’ll delete any comments that break these policies.

    End of problem!

    (If it is good enough for astrology, it is good enough for plasma cosmology and plasma universe.)

  32. Correction to paragraph above;

    Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology is NOT legitimate science. It pretends to be umbrellaed under the legitimate study of “plasma physics”, when it is really a CULT supporting unrelated or unsupported astronomical or astrophysical phenomena. As such, it is fundamentally pseudo-science – just like astrology is the pseudo-science of astronomy. [“Read the fine print, it is “alternative physics theories.” Therefore it should be always deleted!]


  33. Sorley said;

    “Writing science articles is not the same as writing a science paper anyway and neither is the same as writing a SF novel, although there seems to be quite a bit of overlap these days.”

    You absolutely 100% right.
    All EU/PC these days looks more like science fiction than real science.

    It certainly lies in fantasyland that it has very little to astronomy or astrophysics. (More like electricians willingly pretending they are medical doctors making wrong diagnoses. Shrouded in so much hype just can’t trust them.)

    Again. Nice try with stating accepted science being science fiction – but, sorry, I don’t quite buy it!

  34. This statement is what I’m talking about.

    The author, Nancy Atkinson, has also written about Dark Flow available on this website

    Putting a UT journalists name in the header as the writer of a press release by someone else apparently leaves the impression that the journalist has some in depth knowledge of the subject matter but that’s not necessarily the case. You want to attack me for commenting here so I’m pointing out that this “proper scientific site” isn’t even following proper journalistic etiquette and the authors aren’t necessarily experts in science either.

    Yeah, I like Nancy’s enthusiasm and respect her education and outreach efforts in astronomy plus she seems like a genuinely nice person, but I don’t think it’s ok for anyone to be credited as the writer of something written by someone else. No conflict there at all. I’m pleased to hear that it’s just how UT does things and not a case of trying to pull a fast one on the boss ’cause Nancy seems to be an honest person.

    The Periodic Table of Science Bloggers article has nothing to do with Nancy at all. David Bradley created the table, Nancy wrote a pretty good article about it. I wrote an email to Mr. Bradley in response to Crumbs rantings and asked him to consider including a PC/EU site on his list. Turns out the only reason Mr. Bradley removed Plasma-Universe from the list is that it’s not a blog, it’s a wiki-type site.

    Science fiction or published paper?

    Search for Effect of Influence from Future in Large Hadron Collider

    We propose an experiment which consists of drawing a card and using it to decide restrictions on the running of Large Hadron Collider (LHC for short) at CERN, such as luminosity, and beam energy. There may potentially occur total shut down. The purpose of such an experiment is to search for influence from the future, that is, backward causation. Since LHC will produce particles of a mathematically new type of fundamental scalars, i.e., the Higgs particles, there is potentially a chance to find unseen effects, such as on influence going from future to past, which we suggest in the present paper.

    Hard to tell the difference sometimes, eh?

  35. solrey said:

    Turns out the only reason Mr. Bradley removed Plasma-Universe from the list is that it’s not a blog, it’s a wiki-type site.

    Oh please!! You would have to be delusional to think that this was true!

    The reason why Mr. Bradley removed it was because the site is not actually science but pseudo-science.

    EU/PC is a con job an absolute snow job! Your are your ilk are deliberately conning and deceiving people that what you say is legitimate and accept science. It is not!

    It has nothing to do with plasma physics, whose very name is highjacked for your unsubstantiated and mostly crazy ideas.

    I wrote an email to Mr. Bradley too exposing all the deceptions, the sagenda, and the tactics by nearly all EU/PC proponents.

    He agreed. End of story!

    As for your opinion about Nancy, clearly and from the written evidence already here, you directly attacked her and anyone else you could, when others points out your flaws in your argument, then pretend everything sweet as she the most delightful person in the whole world!

    Claiming “proper science” is nonsense here – and you know it. So desperate are you to discredit accepted science so you can supplant you EU/PC rubbish, you can’t see how totally ridiculous your replies have become.

    Why don’t you take the advice of your PC/EU mate, jjohnson and “Walk away.” Most of us won’t miss you – believe me!

    The fool stands naked and exposed!

  36. Jean

    I would like to kindly point out that their is some difficulty assessing what is an “alternative theory” or “personal theory” – and this is especially hard with novices. Such people have in regard EU/PC been heavily influenced by the “serial EU/PC proponent”, who has little or poor comprehension of science. You might be a little less tough on these individuals, because isolating them by delete posts might reinforce the distorted view instead of reinforcing real and interesting astronomy and astrophysics contained in the story.
    Aside from this, one of the interesting problems is which “alternative theories” are acceptable. I.e. Comparison, say, between Ptolemy and Galileo compared to the “way-out there” ones.
    With EU/PC perhaps better definition is an interesting on-line paper entitled “The Electric Sky, Short-circuited (2008)” by Dr. W.T. Bridgeman. This outlines (and answers) many of the common claims of the EU/PC proponents’ views, as here by, from the published book “Electric Sky” (2006) by Donald E. Scott. (It is I believe/know part of their “indoctrination.”) Bridgeman’s technical by well thought out presentation nicely highlight the problems with these “alternative views” – leaving a guideline in rejecting EU/PC “alternative theory.” There is an example relevant to this article that can be found on “Galaxies” on page 30 – whose words are far better than mine in debunking the “alternative theory.”
    If you want to understand this debate, I suggest anyone question responses here would be well advised to read. Alternatively, and in fairness, if you really want to read about electric universe or plasma cosmology, then reader should refer to “Thunderbolts.Info” (just Google it.)
    If you need to make up your own mind, both views given are adequately available for consideration.
    I’d also like to openly comment (and clearly as the authors here do so too), that I personally like reading comments from honest inquiring minds, and like others here, and do not mind helping out in real questions on astronomy or so aspects of astrophysics which I have experience. The biggest question is what Universe Today does often and regularly face. Is this comment forum designed for inquiring minds or those taking over with agendas with unscrupulous commentators desperate for attention?
    I much prefer to understand what we do know about cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics rather than some hair-brained scheme that either lacks in imagination or just ignores whole swathes of real facts and accessible knowledge.

    Note: In future, I suggest Bridgeman (2006) work here be the deemed cut-off of EU/PC alternative theories.

    Note 2: Personally, I’d like to see a few articles directly on polarisation measurements and observations. This really is the only way the magnetic/ electric fields in space can be proven and show the degree of influence on astrophysical phenomena.

Comments are closed.