A website from the Institute of Physics

• Sign in
• Forgotten your password?
• Sign up
• Contact us

5 comments

Comments on this article are now closed.

• 1
  rhodesr Aug 24, 2012 3:04 AM

  matter/energy

  Ironically, the caption says the explanation will be about dark matter (it isn't) and in his first few words we are admonished not to confuse dark energy with dark matter. A typo that should be corrected.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 2
  birchwood Aug 24, 2012 4:22 AM

  Dark Energy & Dark Matter

  Without going into the basis of beginning, I did a paper several years ago. Theory is as such but when able to be combined with described happenings beforehand, new levels of understanding are brought forth...... There should be some now, that realize dark matter (the whole of all), is actually very active......Some may identify dark energy as being a simple happening-reactant within, though if so, they don't understand............. A humble thought, much as when young we had to learn the basics of happenings/calculation (mathematics, etc.)I would suggest to learn of "psychotronics" and the many applications; it will take time........ Then afterwards literally look up into the night sky....relax and observe... "once you have allowed time for all your everyday thoughts to exit your mind"... If versed in Physics much will begin to come forth for you without trying, of dark matter............ I'll explain in detail at a later time of what was gained of dark matter and dark energy.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 3
  dens Aug 24, 2012 7:58 AM Bristol, United Kingdom

  This has now been corrected.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 4
  pardy Aug 25, 2012 9:30 AM CHRISTCHURCH, United Kingdom

  Dark Energy & Red Shift

  It is somewhat misleading to say that Red Shift is a measure of distance when it is only a measure of velocity from which distance can be inferred

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 5
  continuous Sep 7, 2012 11:49 AM Moorabbin, Australia

  some help here please....

  Here is what I don't get - we look at distant objects, measure their redshift and conclude the further away things are the faster they are moving away from us BUT, the further away they are the further in the past these things emitted the light that we are looking at now, so isn't the correct conclusion that the the universe was accelerating more in the past and less now?
  What am I missing?

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor