It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dark energy may not exist in space scientists claim

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
www.telegraph.co.uk...



Physicists at Durham University now claim the calculations on which the Standard Model is based could be fatally flawed.


It seems like these models will eventually ware away. We are now finding out that the god particle might be composed of 5 particles. There are so many things we are wrong about, hopefully you enjoy this article.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Maddogkull]




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
What many of us knew to be true... Because we're logical....
Has finally made it into the MSM
Next well have Electric Universe and string theory taking over the standard model



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


When 96 percent of the universe is missing, that's enough to inspire you to want to find answers to the mystery. Saying that the standard model may not be correct is kind of stating the obvious with 96% of the universe missing. So obviously we don't have the answers to that. But from reading the article, I'm not sure they have the answers either.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Of course we do not have the answers; we would not have this article if we did. But this article just shows that that the dark energy model is not accurate.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
more 'scientific' flummery. These marvelous scientists have just got rid of 96% of the universe, which they claimed to be there in the first place. Its similar to when at the stroke of a pen they change the age of the universe by x million years to tweak their models.
I understand that scientific knowledge needs to change in light of latest findings but 96% error margin is a tad on the high side. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that nothing exploded into organised everything and that inert atoms turned into richard dawkins over millions of years of random accidents. How very 'scientific'! lol



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Of course we do not have the answers; we would not have this article if we did. But this article just shows that that the dark energy model is not accurate.


Correction: MAY not be accurate. So far they have only raised a possibility, according to the article.


British scientists have claimed that the method used to calculate the make-up of the universe may be wrong...

This raises the possibility that the “dark side” of the cosmos does not exist



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Yeah exactly, hopefully we can only hope they will do the proper calculations/observations and find out what is going on.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


"Physicists at Durham University now claim the calculations on which the Standard Model is based could be fatally flawed. "


I've been saying that for years.

Don't worry, I'm sure the state funded tyrants will dream up some new totally hair-brained theory that violates all the known laws of testable physics, such as black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, etc.. etc..

They can't deal with reality.

"This raises the possibility that the “dark side” of the cosmos does not exist, which in turn could mean that the universe is expanding less quickly than previously thought."

How about its not expanding at all.

Space is nothing.

Nothing can not expand.

To say otherwise is ridiculous.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The proposal that dark matter and dark energy are not "required" to fit observational data is based on a method of mapping the CMB different from what was used in the past.

"When we checked radio sources in the WMAP background, we found more smoothing than the WMAP team expected," Shanks told SPACE.com. "That would have big implications for cosmology if we were proven right."

If this smoothing error is larger than thought, it could indicate that fluctuations measured in the intensity of the CMB radiation are actually smaller than they originally appeared. The size of these fluctuations is a key parameter used to support the existence of dark matter and dark energy.


There is quite a bit of a brouhaha developing over the validity of the new method.


"These are weak sources, so many of them must be averaged together to obtain useful measurements. None of them move with respect to the CMB," said WMAP team member Mark Halpern of the University of British Columbia. "This method is inferior to our main approach."


So what do we need in a case like this? More data.

The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft, launched into orbit in 2009, is currently taking new, even more detailed observations of the CMB.

"I'm very interested to see what Planck gets in terms of its results," Shanks said. "And of course we will be there to try and keep everybody as honest as possible. We're hoping we can use our methods in the same way to check their beam profile that they ultimately come up with."


Science at work. The calculations might be wrong or then again, they might be right.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Haven't they observed neutron stars before?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Haven't they observed neutron stars before?


No.

They have observed pulses of radio emissions coming from stars.

Jupiter emits millisecond radio pulses.

Last time I checked, Jupiter wasn't spinning around on its axis at 60,000 revolutions per minute.

To think that a star is spinning that fast is just as ridiculous as thinking stars exist that are made up entirely of neutrons - something which the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry prohibits.

Neutronium and strange matter were cooked up by the physicists to explain the problem of pulsar rotation rates without having the star blow itself to pieces rotating that fast.





[edit on 15-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But were is the evidence for the Aether then?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But were is the evidence for the Aether then?


Where's the evidence for gravitational waves? (LIGO Epic Fail)

or dark matter? (CDMS Fail)

or frame dragging? (GPB Fail)

or anything else proposed by the standard model?

LaFreniere explains why the MM experiment produced a null result:
www.glafreniere.com...

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
When is Science going to tell me the truth ?

It just seems to say one thing after another, when will it be right ?

Why believe in something that will be proved wrong in a few years/decades ?

When should I believe it or take it seriously ?

Man's Science, It's a guessing game....believe in it and you might as well believe in spaghetti monsters.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Only God knows everything man will not.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


When 96 percent of the universe is missing, that's enough to inspire you to want to find answers to the mystery. Saying that the standard model may not be correct is kind of stating the obvious with 96% of the universe missing. So obviously we don't have the answers to that. But from reading the article, I'm not sure they have the answers either.




I don't get it... HOW is nearly a hundred percent of the universe missing???!!

Grab a telescope, point it at the night sky. You see all that stuff up there? That is the flipping universe, that is what we have to work with when trying to describe it. Sure, not the greatest analogy of course, because their are thing's hidden behind clouds of dust and such, or even vast patches of dust that are currently hidden or unobserved, like that one recently discovered.

You can NOT dictate how you want the universe to behave, and no amount of theoretical mathematics is going to tell us anything about reality.

The theory made an erroneous prediction in which observation have already falsified the prediction. Making up convenient forms of matter that just happen to not ever be able to be observed is pointless and ridiculous and you have to be a complete mental nut job to believe in invisible things. No offense to you religious nutters, it's pretty much a given you folks are out of your minds.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


S&F

It's about time they start admitting that they screwed up following fantasies rather than working with reality.

It's so idiotic that they claim almost a hundred percent of the universe is missing. FFS, it's all around us, it didn't just up and leave. It's the math that is wrong, but people are arrogant idiots and think it's the universe that is wrong, not their precious theoretical math work.

Two best professions to make money through lying. Theoretical cosmology and religion, where you can make up invisible entities and call them real entities.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I suppose before we can say to science "Your math is wrong, Idiots", we need to see some evidence that the math is actually wrong.

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) in the Universe that exerts a gravitational force, but cannot be observed by us in any other traditional way.

The quantum-scale universe seems weird enough as it is -- would this "stuff" be that much weirder as to make it impossible to believe?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by sirnex
 


I suppose before we can say to science "Your math is wrong, Idiots", we need to see some evidence that the math is actually wrong.

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) in the Universe that exerts a gravitational force, but cannot be observed by us in any other traditional way.

The quantum-scale universe seems weird enough as it is -- would this "stuff" be that much weirder as to make it impossible to believe?


Jesus H. Christ...

Observations falsify the model for crying out loud. It was falsified the minute we realized the mass observed didn't fit the model of what we predicted should be there.

Fine, let's pretend the math of humanity is infallible ... Yet instead of ridiculously claiming it's invisible dark matter that by it's own properties can never ever ever ever .... ever ever ever ... ever be directly detected.... How about we stop kidding ourselves and admit it's pink unicorns with the same properties.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


So, show me the math that does work. Show me why we really don't need that extra gravitational pull to hold the galaxies together.

Again, I'm not saying dark matter MUST exist -- as I said before the math very well may be wrong, or the entire idea of dark matter may be wrong.

I don't expect science to "get the answer" immediately. These models for the universe have, in the past, taken decades to prove mathematically. Much of the mathematical work being done today on widely-accepted theories was started in the 1920s. I don't see why the idea of dark matter should be so quickly discarded based on the article in the OP.

Like I said before, the idea that "something" out there can exert a gravitational force without being "traditional matter" is not that much more fantastic an idea as other more widely-accepted ideas in physics.

I agree that our ideas on gravity could be all wrong -- but until someone comes up with the math showing that the understanding gravity should be something else, then the pursuit of dark matter (or whatever you want to call it -- this stuff may neither be "dark" nor "matter as we know it") is just as valid as any.


[edit on 6/16/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join