Dark energy may not exist in space scientists claim

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Maslo

 

I personally like plasma cosmology.

So it's about your personal likes and dislikes, I get it now. Phew.

Plasma physics is a pretty well established and scalable phenomena that has been used to successfully model galaxies in scale form and the larger extant web structure of the universe.

Right. How does it explain what Zwicky has explained?
en.wikipedia.org...

While examining the Coma galaxy cluster in 1933, Zwicky was the first to use the virial theorem to infer the existence of unseen matter, what is now called dark matter.[12] He was able to infer the average mass of galaxies within the cluster, and obtained a value about 160 times greater than expected from their luminosity, and proposed that most of the matter was dark. The same calculation today shows a smaller factor, based on greater values for the mass of luminous material; but it is still clear that the great majority of matter is dark.[13]

His suggestion was not taken very seriously at first, until some forty years later when studies of motions of stars within galaxies also implied the presence of a large halo of unseen matter extending beyond the visible stars. Zwicky's dark matter proposal is now confirmed also by studies of gravitational lensing and cosmological expansion rates.

If you want to read up on the Virial Theorem, here's the linky:
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

The math is only the first step in providing evidence for hypothetical dark matter.

Math was also used to literally prove that heavier than air flight was impossible. We've also used math to model the aerodynamics of dragons.

We now frequently fly in heavier than air craft and we know dragons don't exist.

Math is fun but it is far from the end all in describing reality. In order to describe reality accurately you need to base your math on how you observe reality behaving. You don't tell the universe how it OUGHT to behave.

Does it exist? Who knows -- right now it's only a hypothesis. However, it is FAR too early in the scientific process to claim that the hypothesis is necessarily false.

Right now, mainstream science is telling us that dark matter is a verified real entity! They have taken it out of the realm of hypothetical and placed in the realm of being real. Yet there is no direct evidence for this stuff at all. Nothing outside of mere fudging of numbers indicates that dark matter exists. Nothing.

Even though the model RIGHT NOW says we cannot directly detect this hypothesized stuff, perhaps someday the technology will be found or the model itself will be revised that would allow for detection.

The problem here is that the theorized attributes of dark matter strictly forbid it from physically interacting with normal matter. You literally can not build any physical instrument in which to directly detect dark matter through physical means as the two can not physically interact.

The only way around this is if they decide to change the physical attributes of dark matter. Doing so only lends more credence to the ridiculousness of dark matter.

It may -- like other hypotheses and theories in physics -- take decades before a preponderance of supporting evidence is found, but right now the hypothesis is at least possible, according to the math. I say let the scientific process continue testing this hypothesis.

It's ridiculously laughable, just as the mainstream science community would laugh and ridicule me if I wrote up a paper mathematically showing the observed phenomena being caused by dark unicorns. Yes, invisible unicorns prancing through out space is just as valid as the ridiculous notion of dark matter.

Weirder things seem to exist in quantum physics -- I say give this hypothesis a chance to be vetted.

Are you willing to equally accept the theory of invisible unicorns then?

reply to post by buddhasystem

So it's about your personal likes and dislikes, I get it now. Phew.

Sure, if personal like means provable science and personal dislike means unfalsifiable inventions.

Right. How does it explain what Zwicky has explained?

Goto plasma-universe.com There is a decent amount of information there. There is no reason to dismiss the effects of plasma physics in a universe that consists of 99% plasma. You have to be a blubbering moron to do something like that, which unfortunately a lot of mainstream scientists readily do and take in place inventions of fantasy and necessity because their models don't accurately predict observations.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Gravitational lensing and dark matter are a flat out joke that have been falsified not only by direct astrophysical observation but also by experimental testing.

They are a sham.

A fraud.

Deceit.

Lies.

Stop spreading lies.



CDMS - Fail
GEO100 - Fail

Einstein Cross = Total falsification of gravitational lensing theory.

Have you read the papers on "caustic crossings" ??

LOL

They are INSANE! They read like a bad H.G. Well's novel.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
For those who believe space bends itself into infinitely dense holes of gravity, I have a bridge in Alaska I would like to sell you.

It could be that black holes are not infinitely small holes, just stars big enough that don't let light escape.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Gravitational lensing and dark matter are a flat out joke that have been falsified not only by direct astrophysical observation but also by experimental testing.

They are a sham.

A fraud.

Deceit.

Lies.

Stop spreading lies.



CDMS - Fail
GEO100 - Fail

Einstein Cross = Total falsification of gravitational lensing theory.

Have you read the papers on "caustic crossings" ??

LOL

They are INSANE! They read like a bad H.G. Well's novel.

I suspect that dark matter does not exist, but gravitational lensing? it is already established that gravitational lensing is reality: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by masterp

I suspect that dark matter does not exist, but gravitational lensing? it is already established that gravitational lensing is reality: en.wikipedia.org...

I believe you are mistaken.

Since black holes are not proven, gravitational lensing is not proven.

Watch my video on quasars, I explain.

fascistsoup.com...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Hi Arbitrageur,
I think you and I have been down this road in another thread.
There is no "dark energy" nor "dark matter" and there was no "big bang". If the theory for an expanding Universe resides with these theories then that is also at risk of being proven wrong. My hope is we can quickly get over this and finally get on with some real science.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

But were is the evidence for the Aether then?

It is my opinion that evidence can be found in a fictitious force called "Inertia". You can also see evidence in gravity and the propagation of EM waves.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The math could be wrong, but I would not be surprised to learn that there IS really "something" all around us (call it Dark Matter, or call it anything you want)

Electric Universe theorists call it "Plasma" and others have called it Aether or Luminiferous Aether. It has also been called Quintessence or the Akashic records. A simple mental translation works to some degree and even though it is called different things I believe we will all end up with the same understanding one day.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If people followed your [Sirex] line of thought, we'd still be using geocentric model

The theory for a "geocentric model" was imposed by the church, as such, and not by scholars of that time. Based on this understanding your point is false. Better to use allegorical comps like bloodletting and witch hunts.
...wait...we still do those things.

reply to post by buddhasystem

How much time and money will be spent on cosmological experiments that are looking for things that do not exist? Don't you find it the least bit odd that the LIGO system is the same design as the Michelson-Morley interferometer and that they are yielding the same results?

To concede that the null results from the MM experiments over 100 years ago is evidence that there is no Aether then we should also concede that there is no such thing as gravity.

Originally posted by sirnex

Right. How does it explain what Zwicky has explained?

Goto plasma-universe.com There is a decent amount of information there.

There are some pretty pictures and general info of pop-science kind there, but it's got nothing to do with the question I asked. Nothing at all. So you "like plasma cosmology" because it's like all neon signs and magnetic fields, and therefore approachable by you. The fact that it's impotent as a real theory of what we see in the Universe is of no consequence to you.

There is no reason to dismiss the effects of plasma physics in a universe that consists of 99% plasma.

Nobody dismisses that. Stars are plasma and they are actively studied, and so are other celestial objects.

You have to be a blubbering moron to do something like that, which unfortunately a lot of mainstream scientists readily do and take in place inventions of fantasy and necessity because their models don't accurately predict observations.

Again, nobody does that. And then, the "mainstream scientists" have one advantage over you, the armchair scientist - they have a good command of math and/or experimental techniques. For you, staring at glowing plasma ball is already enough to feel like you got some deep understanding of physics ("Hey ma, it glows! Galaxies glow, too! It's all electric!")

reply to post by buddhasystem

There are some pretty pictures

I love smart ass comments being used as if they actually mean something intelligent.

they have a good command of math

Aye, they sure do ... Along with their grossly inaccurate predictions and requirement to tell the universe how much mass it OUGHT to have thus necessitating the need to invent mathematically some magical invisible mass that is no more valid than invisible unicorns prancing amongst the galaxies.

Hey ma, it glows! Galaxies glow, too! It's all electric!

Now that you're done pretending to be an uneducated redneck hick, can we continue discussing how it's NOT science to invent invisible unicorns prancing through space and using false positives as "evidence" for these unicorns?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

There are some pretty pictures

I love smart ass comments being used as if they actually mean something intelligent.

They sure make more sense than your not answering a fairly straightforward question.

they have a good command of math

Aye, they sure do ... Along with their grossly inaccurate predictions

The science as we know it gave us miracles you avail yourself to every day, from the computer you (ab)use to profess your disdain for science, to GPS to 3D movies to God knows what else. You have nothing in the way of resolving the difficult issues in modern knowledge, and it's exceedingly rich of you to bash people who at least have the mental capacity to do so, in stark contrast to you.

Hey ma, it glows! Galaxies glow, too! It's all electric!

Now that you're done pretending to be an uneducated redneck hick

No, I'm not pretending to be that, it's just how you sound with your plasma-explains-everything fetish.

reply to post by buddhasystem

They sure make more sense than your not answering a fairly straightforward question.

The site has the information you asked for.

The science as we know it gave us miracles you avail yourself to every day, from the computer you (ab)use to profess your disdain for science, to GPS to 3D movies to God knows what else. You have nothing in the way of resolving the difficult issues in modern knowledge, and it's exceedingly rich of you to bash people who at least have the mental capacity to do so, in stark contrast to you.

What the hell does that have to do with dark matter and the gross miscalculation of how much mass there is? How the hell do you equate 3D movies with that???

No, I'm not pretending to be that, it's just how you sound with your plasma-explains-everything fetish.

So, misrepresentation and twisting in your opinion makes dark matter real?

News flash: I've explicitly mentioned that mainstream science do not accept plasma cosmology because it does not explain everything

This is as much fun as watching a fish out of water flopping around. Stupid fish ...

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

They sure make more sense than your not answering a fairly straightforward question.

The site has the information you asked for.

I couldn't find anything about how "plasma cosmology" beats the Virial Theorem. If you be so kind and point me to the location where the rotational curves and all are treated.

The science as we know it gave us miracles you avail yourself to every day, from the computer you (ab)use to profess your disdain for science, to GPS to 3D movies to God knows what else. You have nothing in the way of resolving the difficult issues in modern knowledge, and it's exceedingly rich of you to bash people who at least have the mental capacity to do so, in stark contrast to you.

What the hell does that have to do with dark matter and the gross miscalculation of how much mass there is? How the hell do you equate 3D movies with that???

Because this is the "mainstream science" which you love to bash so much.

No, I'm not pretending to be that, it's just how you sound with your plasma-explains-everything fetish.

So, misrepresentation and twisting in your opinion makes dark matter real?

Oh please you've been touting that moronic "plasma" thing for a while now, and how it BETTER explains the Universe than the current set of hypotheses in real science. So, how does it better explain stuff?

reply to post by buddhasystem

I couldn't find anything about how "plasma cosmology" beats the Virial Theorem. If you be so kind and point me to the location where the rotational curves and all are treated.

I'm sorry, I was too quick to dismiss this. I read more about it and it turns out to not be at odds with plasma cosmology at all. My mistake, sorry about that!

Because this is the "mainstream science" which you love to bash so much.

I'm sorry, dark matter does not have anything to do with 3D movies, nor am I strictly against science in general. What I am against is the necessity to invent fictitious entities to make a theory riddled with grossly inaccurate predictions work with observations that falsify the model.

There is no more reason to believe in dark matter than there is invisible unicorns prancing through space. If you accept the validity of dark matter, then by default you should also give serious consideration to invisible unicorns.

Oh please you've been touting that moronic "plasma" thing for a while now, and how it BETTER explains the Universe than the current set of hypotheses in real science. So, how does it better explain stuff?

How would plasma physics not best explain a universe that is composed of 99% plasma?

Do you either disagree that space is mostly plasma or do you disagree with how plasmas work?

I understand it might be confusing when you hang onto such silly notions as invisible unicorns.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I couldn't find anything about how "plasma cosmology" beats the Virial Theorem. If you be so kind and point me to the location where the rotational curves and all are treated.

I'm sorry, I was too quick to dismiss this. I read more about it and it turns out to not be at odds with plasma cosmology at all. My mistake, sorry about that!

OK now, you are better prepared to explain how plasma cosmology deals with what Dr. Zwicky observed in the first half of 20th century.

Oh please you've been touting that moronic "plasma" thing for a while now, and how it BETTER explains the Universe than the current set of hypotheses in real science. So, how does it better explain stuff?

How would plasma physics not best explain a universe that is composed of 99% plasma?

Human brain is 78% water but it's operation can hardly be explained by professionals working at a sewage treatment plant.

Do you either disagree that space is mostly plasma or do you disagree with how plasmas work?

There is plenty of plasma in space but there are also phenomena well outside the discipline of plasma physics. You bones are 70% calcium phosphate but they have mechanical properties vastly different from the mineral form of that substance that goes into fertilizers.

With your way of abusing superficial analogies, you'll never learn anything.
Prune pits contain cyanide, stay away from prunes.

reply to post by buddhasystem

OK now, you are better prepared to explain how plasma cosmology deals with what Dr. Zwicky observed in the first half of 20th century.

Simple, it only appears to be a positive evidence for dark matter due to the usage of applying the theorem against the grossly inaccurate predictions.

You see, his first calculations showed a greater value than today's calculation due to not accounting for all the visible mass that was known during his first calculation. Now that we have better technologies to measure the masses, that number has gone down substantially. As we learn more and discover more we end up with articles like the one in the OP with the scientists admitted that ... gee, they might have been wrong this whole time! No duh huh?


[edit]

You see, when you have an inaccurate model, no matter what you do, what you measure, as long as your going by that inaccurate model the numbers are always going to be skewed and inaccurate. Pretty cool idea on the tired light hypothesis and I absolutely love that he was against an expanding space.

Human brain is 78% water but it's operation can hardly be explained by professionals working at a sewage treatment plant.

Let me ask again and see if we can get a real answer instead of an evasion to answer.

How would plasma physics not best explain a universe that is composed of 99% plasma?

There is plenty of plasma in space but there are also phenomena well outside the discipline of plasma physics. You bones are 70% calcium phosphate but they have mechanical properties vastly different from the mineral form of that substance that goes into fertilizers.

With your way of abusing superficial analogies, you'll never learn anything.
Prune pits contain cyanide, stay away from prunes.

Why are you under the assumption that I am trying to equate plasma cosmology as an explanation for everything else that is not cosmology? This is what your piss poor ill thought out analogies are suggesting to me. Well, that and you outright said so earlier.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by sirnex]

Next well have Universe and string theory taking over the standard model