>>> Part 2 of 2...
 DM> Kirshner said the conclusion will go through an intensive review
 DM> before the results are accepted, although he noted that preliminary
 DM> results from a parallel study by another astronomy group are in
 DM> agreement. 
 
 DM> "We are scratching our heads to think if there could be an alternative
 DM> explanation for it," says Riess, "something more mundane than a
 DM> repulsive force."
 
 Duh.  How about gravity _pulling_ it out, rather than _pulling_ it in?
 How about momentum?  How about the vacuum itself, sucking us toward the
 _most_ void of all?  All these are already compliant with _known_ laws
 of physics, and explain what is observed fully and completely.  This
 would preclude the need to make up a 5th force.  Making up a force to
 explain something because we _want_ a 5th force - so badly.  It's
 pathetic.  It's unconscionable pseudo-science.
 DM> It is being called a repulsive force because it seems to be working
 DM> against gravity to speed up the expansion of the universe.
 
 Oh?  And how is it working "against" gravity again?  By pulling the
 universe "apart"?  If we are in a thimble-sized observable portion of
 a universe, we can't tell which way is up yet.  So there is still no 
 need for a repulsive force.  
 DM> "If it's confirmed by other results and other approaches, it's going
 DM> to tell us there is something important, another constituent to the
 DM> universe," says Kirshner.
 DM> A fifth force at work?
 
 Yep.  A fifth force ... call it "Wishful Thinking".
 DM> Unlike matter, which slows down as it moves through space, the new
 DM> force -- if the researchers are correct -- moves faster.
 
 "If the researchers are correct" - dismal commentary I must say.  How
 can they say, "unlike matter, which slows down as it moves through space"
 and at the same time say 'matter is moving faster through space'.  This
 is a tiresome and sophomoric article, worthy perhaps for the speculating
 pseudo-scientist, but hardly worth the trouble of reading once.
 DM> "That's very weird," says Kirshner. "But it's not unprecedented that
 DM> weird things might be true things."
 
 What's very weird?  I sense a quote taken out of context here.
 DM> Four forces are accepted by modern physics: the strong force, which
 DM> holds the nucleus of an atom together; the weak force, which causes
 DM> atomic decay; electromagnetic force, which holds electrons in orbit in
 DM> an atom; and gravity.
 DM> Kirshner says a fifth force could be at work.
 
 Sure, there could be.  There could be a sixth and a seventh and an eigthth
 and a ninth and a tenth and an eleventh and a twelvth and a thirteenth and
 a fourteenth and on and on and on and on, ad nauseum.
 DM> The idea of a fifth force has been speculated about by physicists, he
 DM> says. 
 Duh.  But scientists don't bother speculating very much.  People
 have speculated that the universe was sneezed out a rather large goat's
 nostrils, too.
 DM> "They have impossible ideas before breakfast," he said. "The
 DM> interesting thing is that some of these funny-sounding ideas might turn
 DM> out to be right."
 
 And indeed, the universe _could_ have been sneezed out of a rather large
 goat's nostrils.
 DM> If the researchers are right and the universe is, indeed,
 DM> accelerating, the finding could solve a problem for astronomers. Some
 DM> measurements have put the age of the universe at about 10 billion
 DM> years, which is younger than the measured ages of some stars.
 DM> With the acceleration of the universe factored in, said Riess, the
 DM> universe would have to be about 14 billion years old, some 2 billion
 DM> years older than the old eststar.
 DM> "That would no longer make the daughter older than the mother," he
 DM> said. 
 DM> Einstein's 'cosmological constant'
 DM> Einstein first proposed a "cosmological constant," which Riess
 DM> described as "a repulsive force that is a property of vacuum in space
 DM> and time." 
 DM> Riess said the constant, which Einstein dismissed, is "the only
 DM> explanation we have" for the acceleration.
 
 And this is the hallmark of a pseudo-scientist.  "There is no refutation -
 here is the answer - and it is the only one which is possible."  This
 was actually _published_ in Science magazine?  Or was it "Pseudo-Science"
 magazine?  Maybe I will write the editors about this article.
 DM> "Our everyday experience tells us that a vacuum is empty, that there
 DM> is nothing in it. But that might not be true," Riess said. "There may
 DM> be an energy, a force , associated with a vacuum."
 
 Duh.  Call it "vacuum".  And it's pulling whatever's in it toward
 the most void part of it.  Just like it's observed to do already.
 Or, it might be gravity, pulling "us" toward the more massive 
 part of it.  How do they know we aren't falling rather than rising?
 The _fact_ is, they _don't_ know; and thus everything they've said
 so far is purely speculative and completely unfounded.
 DM> Over short distances, said Riess, this repulsive force can't be
 DM> detected, but over distances of 7 billion to 10 billion light-years,
 DM> "this force becomes something to reckon with, and is strong enough to
 DM> overcome gravity and cause the universe to accelerate."
 
 You mean this guy thinks that only our observable portion of the universe
 is the part that has matter in it?
 
 And in a vacuum billions of times the size of our observable portion of
 the universe, this "repulsive" force is perfectly explainable as the
 very force it appears to repulse: Gravity.  
 DM> Riess said he isn't surprised that the force hasn't been detected
 DM> before. 
 
 DM> "The force is very weak on a small scale and it only becomes important
 DM> when you are looking back," he said. "It's like a lot of little ants --
 DM> one is weak but a lot of them can lift a big weight."
 
 DM> I regret that I won't be able to do much in the way of follow-up in
 DM> this thread as I will be mostly out-of-town for the next few months as
 DM> I have for the past few. Though, I do wonder at your ability to dismiss
 DM> the discoveries of science, whether such discoveries are welcome or
 DM> not. 
 Oh, I am most willing to accept the discoveries of science.  It's 
 pseudo-science I am greatly able to dismiss.  I wonder how one can
 pass the above article off as "science" in the first place!
 
 
... It appears you are to be the main course at a banquet in my honor.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------