Looks quite chaotic - almost like a planetary surface. :)
Namaste Vajradhara,

I think I have lost something. What results are you talking about ?

alexa :)
Namaste alexa,

the WMAP was designed to detect the cosmic microwave background radiation... basically, trying to establish BB and Inflationary views of the origin of the universe.

you can read the archive of their findings here:


here's a sample of what the information concludes:

The amount of dark matter and energy in the universe plays a crucial role in determining the geometry of space. If the density of matter and energy in the universe is less than the critical density, then space is open and negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. If the density exactly equals the critical density, then space is flat like a sheet of paper. If the density is greater than critical density, then space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. In this latter case, this implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough). The Inflationary Theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that density is very close to the critical density, producing a flat universe, like a sheet of paper. WMAP has determined, within the limits of instrument error, that the universe is flat.
WOW ! If the Universe has 13.7 billion years do you realise, Vajradhara, we are babies even at 100 years old ? So, I think we can afford to do stupid things from time to time. Just for fun !

I would like to add some information of your first link, the picture of WRAP, if you don't mind. This is for those without patience to check the links.

The science data for the WRAP (Wilkison Microwave Anisotropy Probe) is available on-line archive and is knew as the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). It's easy to keep in mind, as it sounds like to song, Lambada.

Blue means dark energy (73 %), green is the cold dark matter (23%) and in red are the atoms (4 %). The red spots are warmer and the blue one are cooler.

I have found interesting a picture of the Time since the Big Bang.


I'm the sort of heretic that thinks the entire Dark Energy concept is a nasty flaw arising from poor assumptions from a ingle expierment (the presumption that all supernovae should have the exact same brightness).

Dark Matter I'm still not entirely sure about - but my reaction is that certain natural forces have been entirely overlooked when calculating the forces on mass. Therefore I'll worry about Dark Matter when physics has accounted for more than just gravity in the formation of galactic structures. :)
I said:
I'm the sort of heretic that thinks ... :)
LOL Brian !

The dark energy and dark matter has been giving a lot of trouble to scientists.

One of the theorists who has tried many years to understand them, prof. of physics at Univ.Vanderbilt, Robert Scherrer said once:

It is somewhat embarrasing to have two different unknown sources for the dominant forms of matter and energy in the universe. On the other hand, that my be the way things are.We don't get to pick the universe we live in.
I think I have found once an explanation about the main difference between the dark enery and the dark matter, but I forgot the source. If I rembember it, I'll follow the subject in another post.

alexa :)
Dark matter is from the observation that Galaxies do not have enough mass, to prevent them from spinning apart.

Dark energy is from the observation that not all supernovae look exactly the same, when comparing modern supernovae to ancient supernovae - conclusion: the universe must be accelerating and therefore we should rewrite the basic rules of physics and invent a new form of energy without attempting to describe the mechanism involved because everybody will swallow our crap anyway.

I am simply amazed how so much has been made of dark energy, when all that supports it is a single assumption - and an assumption that is open to deep criticism.
Thanks, Brian.

I think the definitions I have found while ago are a bit different. I'll check my sources and I'll get back to you. It's a promise ! ;)

As promised : the dark matter and the dark energy don't behave the same way, as the former has a mass and forms giant clumps and the latter is massless and spread uniformly throughout space where it acts as a kind of anti-gravity.

It seems the dark energy represent 75 % and the dark matter 23 % of the Universe.
The definitions are based on the obserations - I am still vehmently against Dark Energy because it was conceptualised in the absense of any supporting evidence, and devised in wholesale disregard for all other possible hypostheses. I fully expect that within the next 20 years we'll eventually see Dark Energy overturned - certainly regarding the concept of Dark Energy we have now. A big nasty paradigm to challenge. Heh, I'm something of a cynic on the matter, as you may have noticed. :)
Ups, sorry Brian. I wrote the e-mail last night after a visit to my dentist, so my head was not all clear. You are right. I gave you the difference, as perceived by scientists and not a definition.

You, cynic ? Mhm. :confused: Don't be so hard with yourself. I have read several articles on the subject and if the scientists cannot agree, it's difficult to believe them.

:confused: Why did they chose to speak about 'dark' energy ? I coudn't find any explanation for this. Why not 'white' energy or other color ?
"Dark" Energy partly because we can't see it (it also seems different to vacuum energy repulsion) - and maybe also because with "Dark" Matter, a "Dark" horse would seem a more convincing bet.

As for being a cynic - that's from being British. :D
LOL ! :)

I've heard British are distant and cold, not cynic. But if you say you are cynic, what can I say, you know better than me. :)
The British have turned cynicism into a national past-time. :)