"Navigator" wrote in message
...

If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum
energy".

Allright! I'll bite!


Tell us about vacuum energy?



Regards


Donal
--

Weeeeeeeeeellll energy and matter are the same thing right? So if
there's mass (=energy) that keeps us orbiting the galaxy without enough
observed mass to create the needed gravity field it follws there there
must be someting like a dark matter (or energy) in the vaccum we that we
cannot see. All the arguments follow from that. If you like, the
mass/energy exists in another dimension which only weakly interacts with
our universe. Put yet another way, only when the gravitation field is
low do the effects of the other 'force' becomes visible.

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum
energy".


Allright! I'll bite!


Tell us about vacuum energy?



Regards


Donal
--

Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum
energy".


Allright! I'll bite!


Tell us about vacuum energy?



Regards


Donal
--

"Navigator" wrote in message
...
Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html


I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the
concept of my third option.

3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
"matter" and "anti-matter".



Do you think that there is a fourth option?


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html



I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the
concept of my third option.


Did you like the ideas -do they make sense?


3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of

"matter" and "anti-matter".



Do you think that there is a fourth option?


Yes, dark matter too. Maybe even anti-dark matter but I don't know if
that is in any way required by a coherent cosmology.

Cheers

Navigator wrote:



Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html



I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the
concept of my third option.


Did you like the ideas -do they make sense?


They look like incomplete theories that are designed to plug holes in
other theories.

Some of the argument is *very* weak. Take the following :-

"If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it
must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to
push the piston out. "

That is just plain nonsense! The piston is being *pushed* into the
clyinder.




3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of


"matter" and "anti-matter".



Do you think that there is a fourth option?


Yes, dark matter too. Maybe even anti-dark matter but I don't know if
that is in any way required by a coherent cosmology.

I don't have a problem with the concept of dark matter. It still fits
in with my third option.



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
| I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the
| concept of my third option.
|
| 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
| "matter" and "anti-matter".
|
|
|
| Do you think that there is a fourth option?

Yup.... you could be the result of a drunken grope fest in a Morris Mini
Minor on a Grad night that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.......

Either way... I'm happy to see you made it this far Donal! ;-)

CM